From: mcfarlan@corona.math.washington.edu (Thomas J. McFarlane) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: No Soul In response to: >>2) If everything is changing in this world (which is certainly the buddhist >>viewpoint) then this change should be with respect to something which is >>constant. There are lot of examples given to explain this point in the >>scripture Wong Weng Fai writes: > This is INCORRECT ! Change is a relative thing, yes. But it need not >be relative to a fixed constant ! In Math, this is equivalent (I think) to the >idea of partial derivative - change with respect to another change. The Earth >is moving (changing) about the Sun which is also moving (changing) about the >center of the Milky Way which is also moving ... And there is no physical >reason to stop. To detect change, you need RELATIVE constants but ABSOLUTE >constants are not necessary. Yet note well: Verily, there is a realm, where there is neither the solid nor the fluid, neither heat nor motion, neither this world nor any other world, neither sun nor moon. This I call neither arising nor passing away, neither standing still, nor being born, nor dying. There is neither foothold, nor development, nor any basis. This is the end of suffering... There is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If these were not this Unborn, this Unoriginated, this Uncreated, this Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible. But since there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, therefore is escape possible from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed. -The Buddha (Udana, VIII) Indeed, to detect *relative* change, one requires a *relative* constant. Here "change" and "constant" are relative terms. About what, then, is the Buddha speaking here? It is certainly not changing, since it is "neither arising nor passing away." But neither is it constant, since it is not "standing still." Somehow, it is "neither this world nor any other world." Shall we reify it and call it "Self" or "Soul"? Surely this would be a mistake. But is it a mistake to *not* reify it and still call it "Self" or "Soul"? Is that any worse than *not* reifying it and calling it "Unborn" or "Uncreated"? The mistake, it seems to me, is not that some people call this realm "Self," but that some people reify it. After all, some people call it "Emptiness" and reify it, too. Here words fail us if we regard them as anything more than metaphors. By the way, partial derivatives measure change with respect to one variable while leaving the others constant. A metaphor in mathematics for a change with respect to another (relatively constant) change would be given by, for example, an equation descibing a family of curves, say c^2=x^2+y^2. With c relatively constant, x and y change to describe a circle with radius equal to c. But if we allow c to change also, then this equation describes a whole family of concentric circles. Although c changes, it is a constant relative to the changes of x and y. Tom McFarlane From: RADAMS@cerritos.edu (Roger Adams) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: No Soul In article <1992Sep11.053828.2632@cco.caltech.edu>, mcfarlan@corona.math.washington.edu (Thomas J. McFarlane) writes: > Yet note well: > > Verily, there is a realm, where there is neither the solid ^^^^^ This is a positive existence. > nor the fluid, neither heat nor motion, neither this world > nor any other world, neither sun nor moon. This I call neither > arising nor passing away, neither standing still, nor being > born, nor dying. There is neither foothold, nor development, > nor any basis. This is the end of suffering... > > There is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If these ^^ And this is an entity. An entity does not have to be born or created or formed or originated to be an entity. > were not this Unborn, this Unoriginated, this Uncreated, this > Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the > created, the formed, would not be possible. But since there is > an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, therefore is escape > possible from the world of the born, the originated, the created, > the formed. > -The Buddha (Udana, VIII) > > other world." Shall we reify it and call it "Self" or "Soul"? Surely > this would be a mistake. But is it a mistake to *not* reify it and still > call it "Self" or "Soul"? Is that any worse than *not* reifying it and > calling it "Unborn" or "Uncreated"? The mistake, it seems to me, is not > that some people call this realm "Self," but that some people reify it. > After all, some people call it "Emptiness" and reify it, too. Here words > fail us if we regard them as anything more than metaphors. > I think the above quote attributed to Buddha already reified it in that he speaks of an unborn or uncreated and uses the words "there is" this ^^ unborn, uncreated. As soon as you use this verb "is", you reify in the sense of referring to something that _exists_, but certainly not anything physical or temporal which may be the usual meaning of "reify" (ie. making something concrete or tangible). The Vedantic concept of an unborn, uncreated, unformed, unoriginated Self is not contradictory to what you mention above. Thanks for the scriptural quote. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Adams radams@cerritos.edu To those in whom love dwells, Cerritos College the whole world is one family. 11110 Alondra Blvd A Hindu Proverb Norwalk, California 90650 USA 292 Dwapara :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: kish@athos.rutgers.edu (Bill Kish) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: Soul Questions Jim/Kish (part 2) jdavis: + I celebrate death and impermanence as the ordained + characteristic of external life, but not as the foundation of + Life, of reality. There is no inner core of "reality". You should learn to regard all dharmas as dreams. If you want to talk of indestructable vajra nature, you have to shed I/me/mine. You speak of an internal/external dichotomy, and yet such a dualistic fixation is precisely what I/me/mine hinges on. This is an impediment to the limitless existence you seem to crave so strongly. jdavis: + And knowing a little of how communication + works, I can not imagine that Buddha or Christ place much value + on what remains of their teaching. I do not think that the + Eastern concept of impermanence is correctly understood, just as + I do not believe that Christian concept of salvation is correctly + understood. This passage, besides being wildly conjectural, is besides the point. We have a tradition of oral and written teachings which can be traced back roughly 2500 years which is referred as Buddhism. While your descriptions of "soul" seem to have some similarity with the focused, unified mind which generally precedes full awakening, statements about internal/external dichotomies and preferences for causes over effects are obviously based on dualistic notions, and I doubt whether any of the countless strains of thought which can be referred to as Buddhism would sanction this. Not that this is a big deal in and of itself, but you should be aware that there is a difference between what you are talking about and the teachings which are at least provisionally attributed to Sakyamuni. Let me conclude with a comment on your Alice Bailey quote: jdavis (from Alice Bailey): + Therefore be full of joy, O pilgrim on the Way towards + enlightened Being, for gain and loss are one; darkness and light + reveal the True; love and desire eternally invoke the Life. + Naught disappears but pain. Nothing remains but bliss--the bliss + of knowledge true, of contact real, of light divine, the Way to + God." I like this quote, especially the part about loss and gain being one. I put it to you that you have misunderstood this if you prefer causes to effects. If you read this as implying some kind of soul evolution, you aren't looking hard enough. She says "nothing remains but bliss". "Nothing remains" implies a process of unlearning, a process by which death and impermanence are recognized as vehicles by which the internal/external dualistic fixation you indulge in above can be dissolved. The bliss that remains is not a soul, nor anything else that should be misconstrued as "I persist". Shunryu Suzuki says what we call "I" is just a swinging door that moves when you breathe in and moves when you breathe out - there is no reason to make anything more out of it. -Bill From: RADAMS@cerritos.edu (Roger Adams) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: No Soul In article <1992Sep10.032803.2023@cco.caltech.edu>, pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo) writes: > In article <1992Sep9.061804.22742@cco.caltech.edu> RADAMS@cerritos.edu (Roger Adams) writes: >>Now what I would like to ask you at this >>point is: does conservative Buddhism reject the idea that an "entity" of >>any sort, regardless of what the attributes are, exists? If the conservative >>Buddhist view is "no, there is no such thing as an entity of any sort, >>nothing at all exists" then there is no point arguing about the following >>attributes (1 thru 6) that you came up with since you don't think that >>any "entity" exists - regardless if its in a body or not or if its separate >>from the senses or not or if its permanent or not etc. - anyhow. > > what do you mean by "conservative" Buddhist? I should have put the term "conservative Buddhist" in quotes because this term was used by Mr. Wong. I think he implied in his post that some Buddhists think that the concept of no-soul came after Buddha (he mentioned a couple of translators of Buddhist texts that thought so). I would therefore hazard a guess that a "conservative Buddhist" is one who cannot possibly accept that an entity can exist that has no beginning or no end and moreover cannot accept that an entity of any sort can exist. I would then take it that there may be other Buddhists who are not so hard-line on this and perhaps don't make any conclusions at all on the subject and just enjoy their practices :-). > that is one question i would like you to answer. how does the existence of a > soul bring liberation? The soul needs no liberation. Its the existence of ego (ahamkara) that causes suffering and cannot possibly lead to liberation. Again, I feel that there is confusion between ego and soul (Self) whenever any of these discussions take place between Buddhists and non Buddhists. I feel that many Buddhists are taking the "Atman" of Vedanta to mean ego or deluded self and that somehow this pathetically deluded, limited, fearful, whimpering little self will live forever. Nonsense. The ego is illusionary and is not immortal. Any discussion of a soul in Vedanta should be seen in the light of ultimate vedantic truth of a non-dual, no beginning and no end, entity that may be called Self or God and all else such as individual souls are relative truth in comparison. > is a soul capable of stopping the flood of confusion we drown in every day > here in the West? it seems the answer is a resounding NO! > See above. The soul is not confused, the ego is. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Adams radams@cerritos.edu To those in whom love dwells, Cerritos College the whole world is one family. 11110 Alondra Blvd A Hindu Proverb Norwalk, California 90650 USA 292 Dwapara :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mcfarlan@corona.math.washington.edu (Thomas J. McFarlane) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: No Soul Roger Adams makes the following comments on this passage from the Pali canon: >> >> Verily, there is a realm, where there is neither the solid > ^^^^^ >This is a positive existence. > >> nor the fluid, neither heat nor motion, neither this world >> nor any other world, neither sun nor moon. This I call neither >> arising nor passing away, neither standing still, nor being >> born, nor dying. There is neither foothold, nor development, >> nor any basis. This is the end of suffering... >> >> There is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If these > ^^ >And this is an entity. An entity does not have to be born or created or >formed or originated to be an entity. > >> were not this Unborn, this Unoriginated, this Uncreated, this >> Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the >> created, the formed, would not be possible. But since there is >> an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, therefore is escape >> possible from the world of the born, the originated, the created, >> the formed. >> -The Buddha (Udana, VIII) > >I think the above quote attributed to Buddha already reified it in that >he speaks of an unborn or uncreated and uses the words "there is" this > ^^ >unborn, uncreated. As soon as you use this verb "is", you reify in the sense >of referring to something that _exists_, but certainly not anything physical or >temporal which may be the usual meaning of "reify" (ie. making something >concrete or tangible). The Vedantic concept of an unborn, uncreated, unformed, >unoriginated Self is not contradictory to what you mention above. This quote does not, in itself, reify anything. If anything is reified, it is reified in the mind of the reader when clinging to the conceptions of "Unborn," "Uncreated," and so on. As the Buddha said in the Diamond Sutra, While the Tathagata, in his teaching, constantly makes use of conceptions and ideas about them, disciples should keep in mind the unreality of all such conceptions and ideas. They should recall that the Tathagata, in making use of them in explaining the Dharma always uses them in the resemblance of a raft that is of use only to cross a river. As the raft is of no further use after the river is crossed, it should be discarded. So these arbitrary conceptions of things and about things should be wholly given up as one attains enlightenment. Or, as Nagarjuna said in the Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra, Whether any teaching is true or not depends solely on whether one is non-clinging or clinging in regard to it. A non-clinging mind will find the Truth revealed. A clinging mind will find it obscured. Tom McFarlane From: pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: No Soul In article <1992Sep11.190749.12714@cco.caltech.edu> Roger Adams writes: > >> that is one question i would like you to answer. how does the existence of a >> soul bring liberation? > >The soul needs no liberation. Its the existence of ego (ahamkara) that causes >suffering and cannot possibly lead to liberation. Again, I feel that there is >confusion between ego and soul (Self) whenever any of these discussions take >place between Buddhists and non Buddhists. I feel that many Buddhists are >taking the "Atman" of Vedanta to mean ego or deluded self and that somehow this >pathetically deluded, limited, fearful, whimpering little self will live >forever. Nonsense. The ego is illusionary and is not immortal. Any discussion >of a soul in Vedanta should be seen in the light of ultimate vedantic truth >of a non-dual, no beginning and no end, entity that may be called Self or God >and all else such as individual souls are relative truth in comparison. > >> is a soul capable of stopping the flood of confusion we drown in every day >> here in the West? it seems the answer is a resounding NO! we can agree that Gautama primarily taught a yoga, a means for deliverance. this method is founded on Dependent Origination - that the Self(*), though _like_ an illusion, is indeed subject to the laws of Dependent Origination. that it is possible, through _knowledge_, to understand the process of life and death and to realize that it is impermanent and a dependent arising. but it appears that He is saying that to reach Nirvana is also a dependent arising. It is dependent on understanding Dependent Origination! Lets say the World Soul theory (Purusha) is correct, that this supermind directs the evolutionary process of rebirth. But non-duality would say that the Self and Purusha are One. Say you cant really say that Self is such and such and Purusha is someother such and such. Similarly the Brahma and I are one. You cant say Self is such and such and Brahma is some other such and such. it doesnt work that way. so the Buddha is correct in saying that liberation is dependent on the knowledge of The Way of Liberation which is embodied in the Buddhist Path(s) because there is no *OTHER* such and such to say otherwise (ie no *independent* God and Soul). (*)The Self in Buddhist terminology is the matter/mind complex which make up an individual. i believe it contains subtle components which are *similar* to your Atman and Brahma theories, but all are subject to the laws of Dependent Origination. -- -- Pat Monardo -- pjm@cshl.org From: cup.portal.com!Tagi%portal@uunet.uu.net Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: No Soul 9209.12 e.v. Thomas McFarlane comments on previous posts: ..If anything is reified, it is reified in the mind of the reader when clinging to the conceptions of "Unborn," "Uncreated," and so on. As the Buddha said in the Diamond Sutra, While the Tathagata, in his teaching, constantly makes use of conceptions and ideas about them, disciples should keep in mind the unreality of all such conceptions and ideas. They should recall that the Tathagata, in making use of them in explaining the Dharma always uses them in the resemblance of a raft that is of use only to cross a river. As the raft is of no further use after the river is crossed, it should be discarded. So these arbitrary conceptions of things and about things should be wholly given up as one attains enlightenment. Response: This struck me as utterly true, so I figured I better find a way to combat it quickly. :> The Buddha did not say anything in the Diamond Sutra. The words quoted above are those of the buddha-nature. There is no one to 'attain enlightenment' and thus all ideas about 'giving up' things are illusory. The Tathagata does not cross a river, she becomes one. The concepts and ideas which cross her do so like fleas which jump from one leg to the other. They are pretty and entertaining, and sometimes they will stop to suck her blood, yet they are utterly devoid of reality. Thomas: Or, as Nagarjuna said in the Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra, Whether any teaching is true or not depends solely on whether one is non-clinging or clinging in regard to it. A non-clinging mind will find the Truth revealed. A clinging mind will find it obscured. Response: I sure do love Nagarjuna. No teaching is true, however. All teachings are false because they can only lead us to the bog of learning. The useful teaching leads us to a place where we can cease our clinging. There is no mind which may find revealed Truth. Truth is revealed in every moment everywhere. The clinging mind is as illusory as the true teaching. Both are dukkha. Thyagi ------------------------------------------------------------------- Nagarjuna (Arjuna of the nagas) got his teachings from water dragons. He is said to have been the reincarnation of Ananda, Buddha's illustrious disciple. From: MORIARTY@vm1.nodak.edu Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: No Soul To affirm the existence of a soul is eternalism, but eternalism is an extreme. To deny the existence of a soul is nihilism, but nihilism is an extreme. The truth is the silence between the two extremes. To find that silence, why not consider this imitation koan, If there is no soul, what reincarnates? in gassho, Mike/Email: Moriarty@vm1.nodak.edu From: wong@rkna50.riken.go.jp (Wong Weng Fai) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: No Soul Mr. Roger Adams writes ... >I would like to stop you right here because what follows in your definition are >attributes of the said "entity". Now what I would like to ask you at this >point is: does conservative Buddhism reject the idea that an "entity" of >any sort, regardless of what the attributes are, exists? If the conservative >Buddhist view is "no, there is no such thing as an entity of any sort, "Entity", "thing", "thang" ... take your pick. I just need to label what I wanted to discuss. Note : being able to label something does not mean that it exist - otherwise, I'm Almighty God ;-) >The soul needs no liberation. Its the existence of ego (ahamkara) that causes >suffering and cannot possibly lead to liberation. Again, I feel that there is >confusion between ego and soul (Self) whenever any of these discussions take >place between Buddhists and non Buddhists. I feel that many Buddhists are >taking the "Atman" of Vedanta to mean ego or deluded self and that somehow this >pathetically deluded, limited, fearful, whimpering little self will live >forever. Nonsense. The ego is illusionary and is not immortal. Any discussion >of a soul in Vedanta should be seen in the light of ultimate vedantic truth >of a non-dual, no beginning and no end, entity that may be called Self or God >and all else such as individual souls are relative truth in comparison. OK, now for the confusing part ;-) Prof. Hajime Nakamura is of exactly the opposite opinion as Mr. Adams. Lets us call the smallish soul "ego" and the biggish one "soul". Prof. Nakamura assert that the teaching of anata means that the "there is no such thing as the soul" (the biggish one). Nowhere did the Buddha assert that the ego (the smallish one) or the individual do not exist (although he never said that they do too - this is one of the famous "silences"). Nagarjuna completed this by observing that the individual is "empty", i.e. relativistic. Therefore, while anata is targeted at the biggish soul (God, Atman etc), Buddhism (at least according to some traditions) do acknowledge the RELATIVE existence of the individual. So Buddhism rejects the ABSOLUTE existence of a METAPHYSICAL self while acknowledge the RELATIVE existence of individuals. Without the latter, all the words in the scripture extorting one to practice makes no sense. Regards, W.F. Wong. From: radams@cerritos.edu Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: No Soul In article <1992Sep13.032051.13903@cco.caltech.edu>, pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo) writes: > (*)The Self in Buddhist terminology is the matter/mind complex which > make up an individual. i believe it contains subtle components > which are *similar* to your Atman and Brahma theories, but > all are subject to the laws of Dependent Origination. > This Buddhist definition of Self is very different from the Vedantic one. One of the affirmations in jnana yoga is "I am not the body, I am not the mind, these are only tools or instruments; I am the immortal, blissful Self". If you are right about the Buddhist definition of Self (atman), then they are indeed referring to the Vedantic concept of ego (ahankara) which is said to be relatively temporal in Vedanta/Yoga and not the Atman of Vedanta. It is really amazing as well as amusing how the same term can be defined in a almost opposite way. One of the reasons why discussions like this can be endless is that we are using the same terms but not talking about the same things. If we are to seriously make comparisons between Buddhist and non-Buddhist eastern philosophies, we need to be willing to see terms such as "soul" or "God" as having different definitions for different philosophies. Some of us have all-inclusive definitions of "God" (I have been sometimes accused on this net of having a movable definition of God to avoid having it denied but this is a misunderstanding of my philosophy), eg. God is the uncreated, unoriginated, unformed, unmanifest, and God is the created, originated, formed, and manifest. Vedanta has no problem with this but I think current Buddhist thought (if there is such a thing) has a big problem with this because this *apparently* moving definition does not stay put long enough to be denied and this denial may be part of the doctrine of Buddhism. I think the apparent barrier can be bridged by seeing that "God" can be seen as equivalent to terms such as "Buddha-nature" or "Nirvana (Nibbana)" or Love, Compassion, all terms used in Buddhism, but one must be prepared to break away from traditional judeo-christian-churchianity and other organized and institutionalized definitions of "God" or "Self" or "soul" in order to reach across this apparent communication gap; nor does doing so constitute an abandonment of one's religion since it can be reasonably argued that the barriers between different religions are the results of man-made doctrines or distortions and misunderstandings of the original teachings of the founders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Adams radams@cerritos.edu To those in whom love dwells, Cerritos College the whole world is one family. 11110 Alondra Blvd A Hindu Proverb Norwalk, California 90650 USA 292 Dwapara :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: radams@cerritos.edu Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: No Soul In article <1992Sep12.002227.22836@cco.caltech.edu>, mcfarlan@corona.math.washington.edu (Thomas J. McFarlane) writes: Referring to quote of Buddha: > This quote does not, in itself, reify anything. If anything is reified, it > is reified in the mind of the reader when clinging to the conceptions of > "Unborn," "Uncreated," and so on. This concept of 'non-clinging' is a concept which many people cling to. For example, I could think that I am going to practice non-clinging so that I can be enlightened. I would then be clinging to non-clinging. If you practice any philosophy or religion, this is clinging. Even embracing the philosophy of rejecting all philosophies and authority is clinging to that authority and philosophy which says so. You cannot escape clinging because to do so is another clinging (like a dog chasing its tail). So why not cling to Truth so as to be free of what is temporal. If I am having a bad dream, I hold on to the thought (cling) of waking until I wake up but once I am awake, I don't need to cling anymore to wakefulness because I am already awake. Of course, I could have just let the bad dream play out to the end until I naturally awaken but that takes too long! The true meaning of non-clinging IMHO is to be non-attached to temporal things such as all the things of the world and seek That which is non-temporal. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Adams radams@cerritos.edu To those in whom love dwells, Cerritos College the whole world is one family. 11110 Alondra Blvd A Hindu Proverb Norwalk, California 90650 USA 292 Dwapara :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: travers@iWarp.intel.com (Jim Travers) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: Soul In article <1992Sep16.105041.2595@qiclab.scn.rain.com> dkarma@pro-nbs.acme.fred.org (Druta Karma) writes: >If there is no soul, what is the source of the individual distinct units of >consciousness. If you say there is just one soul, then how did it divide? >What made it divide. Obviously it is not one. Where are these individual units of consciousness? You say "obviously it is not one." How so? Where are these free-floating consciousnesses? Where are these entities that exist apart from everything else? >And if there is nothing, >ultimately, where did anything come from? Including consciousness. If you >say matteris eternal, where did consciousness come from? Logically >speaking, and that of course is not the only way to speak, the existence >now of distinct conscious entities is best explained by proposing a >multiplicity of eternal souls. > You talk as if individual consciousness were a foregone conclusion. Perhaps the question ought to be, where does this sense of awareness come from. And we need to be clear on what we mean by consciousness. Do we want to look at it from a physiological point of view? Clearly, our neurological makeup forms one kind of consciousness. There is, however, a kind of awareness that is without the flow of thought--an awareness that looks directly without interposing anything between the observer and the observed. When the observer and observed disappear, what remains? Where is the individual or the soul? >Druta Karma > >ProLine: dkarma@pro-nbs >Internet: dkarma@pro-nbs.cts.com >UUCP: crash!pro-nbs!dkarma Jim Travers From: mcfarlan@corona.math.washington.edu (Thomas J. McFarlane) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Clinging (was Re: No Soul) In article <1992Sep16.105543.3502@qiclab.scn.rain.com>, radams@cerritos.edu writes: > >This concept of 'non-clinging' is a concept which many people cling to. For >example, I could think that I am going to practice non-clinging so that I >can be enlightened. I would then be clinging to non-clinging. If you practice >any philosophy or religion, this is clinging. Even embracing the philosophy >of rejecting all philosophies and authority is clinging to that authority and >philosophy which says so. I agree completely. Indeed, as Nagarjuna put it in the Karika, The Victorious Ones have announced that emptiness is the relinquishing of all views. Those who are possessed of the view of emptiness are said to be incorrigible. And again, "Non-clinging, I shall be free. Freedom will be mine." For whosoever there is clinging in this manner, that will be a gigantic clinging. >You cannot escape clinging because to do so is >another clinging (like a dog chasing its tail). To *try* to escape clinging is another clinging. To *actually* escape clinging is to simply stop clinging. And this, I believe, is possible. (Of course, here I'm speaking on the level where there is a distinction between clinging and non-clinging. Ultimately, there is no difference and there is nothing to escape and nothing to attain.) >So why not cling to Truth so >as to be free of what is temporal. If I am having a bad dream, I hold on to >the thought (cling) of waking until I wake up but once I am awake, I don't >need to cling anymore to wakefulness because I am already awake. Of course, I >could have just let the bad dream play out to the end until I naturally awaken >but that takes too long! The true meaning of non-clinging IMHO is to be >non-attached to temporal things such as all the things of the world and seek >That which is non-temporal. > This is the function of any teaching, I think: to use our compulsion to clinging to lead us to non-clinging or non-attachment. In a sense, we must cling to the raft if it is to take us to the other shore. But once there, we must let it go, for the raft is not the destination, the finger is not the moon. This idea helps us to awake, as you put it, and then we no longer need it. The danger, of course, is that we will cling so much to the teaching that it will cease to function properly. Thus the "safest" teaching is that which ultimately undermines itself--but not too soon. :) Tom McFarlane From: tt@wag.caltech.edu (Toshi Takeuchi) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: The silent Buddha (was Re: No Soul) wong@rkna50.riken.go.jp (Wong Weng Fai) writes: ... Nowhere did the Buddha assert that the ego (the smallish one) or the individual do not exist (although he never said that they do too - this is one of the famous "silences")... W.F. Wong. From my understanding, Buddha didn't discuss the soul and the ego and such because: Knowledge of the soul, ego, etc. is NOT important towards the ending of suffering, acting with compassion, being conscious of your actions... ---- Although the discussion of soul and such are very interesting, I hope W.F. Wong and others don't ONLY intellectualize about the existence/non-existence of soul, higher beings, consciousness, and other topics. I see alot of people posting their final word: "I have intellectually come to the conclusion that there is no higher will (or whatever), and it is bad to believe that because look at all the terrible things it has done to some people." I too, carried certain mindsets like these. HOWEVER, it wasn't my final word. I continued to meditate, practice various exercises (which I have posted several of), and tried to UNDERSTAND more about life and soul, God, etc. THROUGH EXPERIENCE, NOT intellectualization. We live in intellectual, scientific countries. I lived and grew up with that mindset. However, I tried learn how to meditate to try to discover whether or not there is something valid in the Eastern religions, which are based largely upon personal experience rather than faith. All the reading in the world would NOT have proved to me that there is something valid in the concepts of soul, God etc... However, experience from meditation and practice has shed some light upon what these things may mean... Practice well, Toshi tt@wag.caltech.edu From: cup.portal.com!Tagi%portal@uunet.UU.NET Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: Soul 9209.15 e.v. Druta Karma (nice to see you again!) writes: If there is no soul, what is the source of the individual distinct units of consciousness? Response: You assume that individual distinct units of consciousness are real (i.e. have lasting existence). You seem to assume that they are not their own source. Druta: If you say there is just one soul, then how did it divide? Response: If there is just one soul, then it never does divide, for it exists in a place which is beyond time and space. Druta: What made it divide? Response: If it did divide (and ceased being one), then it divided of its own accord. Druta: Obviously it is not one. And if there is nothing, ultimately, where did anything come from? Response: Perhaps this is obvious to you. To me it is not so obvious. No-thing and any-thing are Yin and Yang. They play back and forth along the Invisible Central Pillar called 'Yggdrasil', the World Ash Wonder Tree. Where did these come from? They sit atop the Great Tortoise of Mystery who crawls slowly through the Eternal Realm in search of scraps of let-us. Druta: Including consciousness. If you say matter is eternal, where did consciousness come from? Response: Matter (Mater/Mother) is not eternal. She is Kali (Time). Is Time timeless? Consciousness (Shiva) is primordial. He has no origins beyond the Self. Druta: Logically speaking, and that of course is not the only way to speak, the existence now of distinct conscious entities is best explained by proposing a multiplicity of eternal souls. Response: Logic is as logic does. I do not follow your logic, but I am glad that you share it with us. Thyagi -------------------------------------------------------------- In Vulcan what is called 'cthia' we have badly translated as 'logic'. From: cup.portal.com!Tagi%portal@uunet.UU.NET Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Clingingness 9209.15 e.v. Roger Adams quotes Tom, then writes, I respond: In article <1992Sep12.002227.22836@cco.caltech.edu>, mcfarlan@corona.math.washington.edu (Thomas J. McFarlane) writes: Referring to quote of Buddha: > This quote does not, in itself, reify anything. If anything is reified, it > is reified in the mind of the reader when clinging to the conceptions of > "Unborn," "Uncreated," and so on. Roger: This concept of 'non-clinging' is a concept which many people cling to. For example, I could think that I am going to practice non-clinging so that I can be enlightened. I would then be clinging to non-clinging. If you practice any philosophy or religion, this is clinging. Even embracing the philosophy of rejecting all philosophies and authority is clinging to that authority and philosophy which says so. You cannot escape clinging because to do so is another clinging (like a dog chasing its tail). Response: I enjoyed this paragraph very much. 'Clinging' in modern 'eastern tradition' is often portrayed in much the same way that 'the world' is portrayed in some Gnostic traditions. We must 'avoid it', we must 'seek a way to escape it', we must 'transcend it', 'leave it behind'. These are all very important concepts. In Tantra I am taught to play with clingingness. I feel like I wish to cling. I choose to do so or no. There is no compulsion, there is no imperative, there is no wrong or right. Clingingness is the pearl and I am the Dragon. I play with ignoring/eschewing the pearl, batting the pearl about, grasping the pearl tightly. I'm told that eventually I'll get bored with the pearl or that I'll cease to distinguish between the pearl and myself, but even these are foolish concepts. Roger: So why not cling to Truth so as to be free of what is temporal. If I am having a bad dream, I hold on to the thought (cling) of waking until I wake up but once I am awake, I don't need to cling anymore to wakefulness because I am already awake. Of course, I could have just let the bad dream play out to the end until I naturally awaken but that takes too long! The true meaning of non-clinging IMHO is to be non-attached to temporal things such as all the things of the world and seek That which is non-temporal. Response: Temporal/non-temporal; dream/wakefulness; clingingness/non-attachedness. I see a pattern here. :> Thyagi ------------------------------------------------------------------- Did you cling to this post long enough to see this sentence? From: cup.portal.com!Tagi%portal@uunet.UU.NET Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: No Soul 9209.15 e.v. Roger Adams quotes Pat and writes, I respond: In article <1992Sep13.032051.13903@cco.caltech.edu>, pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo) writes: > (*)The Self in Buddhist terminology is the matter/mind complex which > make up an individual. i believe it contains subtle components > which are *similar* to your Atman and Brahma theories, but > all are subject to the laws of Dependent Origination. > Roger: This Buddhist definition of Self is very different from the Vedantic one. One of the affirmations in jnana yoga is "I am not the body, I am not the mind, these are only tools or instruments; I am the immortal, blissful Self". Response: I'm glad you responded in this way, Roger. It is important for those such as myself to see the variations of definition in one context. In Tantra I am taught that Truth consists of weaving apparent opposites to arrive at a transcendent or fundamental resolution. This process directly involves that 'self' of which you and Pat speak, for this 'self' (however you'd like to define or undefine it), joins the two opposites in a Trinity to produce the Child of the Divine. Our ability to firmly join such apparent opposites determines the extent our divinity is realized. Roger: If you are right about the Buddhist definition of Self (atman), then they are indeed referring to the Vedantic concept of ego (ahankara) which is said to be relatively temporal in Vedanta/Yoga and not the Atman of Vedanta. It is really amazing as well as amusing how the same term can be defined in a almost opposite way. Response: Quite amazing. This is paralleled in myths of the Hindu and Buddhist Tantrics, wherein the masculine deity-form is associated with either active or passive energies. There are many many instances where Buddhism and Hinduism become mirrors for one another. I wonder if Sakyamuni Buddha intends this. Roger: One of the reasons why discussions like this can be endless is that we are using the same terms but not talking about the same things. If we are to seriously make comparisons between Buddhist and non-Buddhist eastern philosophies, we need to be willing to see terms such as "soul" or "God" as having different definitions for different philosophies. Response: I think that there is value in doing this. I also think that there is value in comparing how the same terms are used to represent opposite things. If one can come to understand BOTH ideologies and then join them, one will 'go out' (nirvana/moksha). Roger: Some of us have all-inclusive definitions of "God" (I have been sometimes accused on this net of having a movable definition of God to avoid having it denied but this is a misunderstanding of my philosophy), eg. God is the uncreated, unoriginated, unformed, unmanifest, and God is the created, originated, formed, and manifest. Response: I often wonder how well the term 'God' stands for the many complex Sanskrit and other Asian names for the divine. In Tantra I learn that 'The Tao that can be named is not the true Tao'. Roger: Vedanta has no problem with this but I think current Buddhist thought (if there is such a thing) has a big problem with this because this *apparently* moving definition does not stay put long enough to be denied and this denial may be part of the doctrine of Buddhism. Response: I didn't think that 'a' thought-system could be associated with Buddhism OR Vedanta, though I understand that certain concepts are associated quite often with both of these flavors of wisdom. Roger: I think the apparent barrier can be bridged by seeing that "God" can be seen as equivalent to terms such as "Buddha-nature" or "Nirvana (Nibbana)" or Love, Compassion, all terms used in Buddhism, but one must be prepared to break away from traditional judeo-christian-churchianity and other organized and institutionalized definitions of "God" or "Self" or "soul" in order to reach across this apparent communication gap; nor does doing so constitute an abandonment of one's religion since it can be reasonably argued that the barriers between different religions are the results of man-made doctrines or distortions and misunderstandings of the original teachings of the founders. Response: While I understand that it is possible to associate 'God' with buddha-nature, I find myself making associations which do not agree with this. It seems more appealing to me to forego concrete associations outside specific schools (and I tend to see Western Scholarship as 'one school') and examine ALL the possible relationships between terms, Eastern and Western alike. In this light, I sometimes associate 'buddha-nature' with 'atman', since both are names for the essentiality of the person. I also associate 'God' with 'Buddha' and 'Brahman'. In Western literature, and I presume in Eastern as well, there are so many different definitions of 'God' or 'Buddha' that it becomes less an activity of making one coherent thought- system and more one of tasting all the thoughts, consuming those which please one in one's meditations, and then using them to move beyond simple, lingual thought-constructs. In Tantra I am taught that ALL difference is illusory. This is not a simple concept for me to grasp. The primary revelation is that I am One with All. The secondary is that difference is illusory. The tertiary is that illusion is not different than reality. The fourth is that the self is not different than the Self. The fifth is that thought and feeling are not separate. The sixth is that these words (i.e. these thoughts) are not different than their context. How far can one go with this? I am unsure, but comparision and contrast seem to yield the Child of the Divine eventually. :> Thyagi (the convoluted) --------------------------------------------------------------- Did you write this? From: mcfarlan@corona.math.washington.edu (Thomas J. McFarlane) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: No Soul Mr. Roger Adams writes ... >>Again, I feel that there is >>confusion between ego and soul (Self) whenever any of these discussions take >>place between Buddhists and non Buddhists. I feel that many Buddhists are >>taking the "Atman" of Vedanta to mean ego or deluded self... >>Any discussion >>of a soul in Vedanta should be seen in the light of ultimate vedantic truth >>of a non-dual, no beginning and no end, entity that may be called Self or God >>and all else such as individual souls are relative truth in comparison. To which Mr. Wong replies, > OK, now for the confusing part ;-) Prof. Hajime Nakamura is of exactly >the opposite opinion as Mr. Adams. Lets us call the smallish soul >"ego" and the biggish one "soul". Prof. Nakamura assert that the teaching of >anata means that the "there is no such thing as the soul" (the biggish one). >So Buddhism rejects the >ABSOLUTE existence of a METAPHYSICAL self while acknowledge the RELATIVE >existence of individuals. This is a very interesting topic. The mystical philosopher Franklin Merrell-Wolff has written a few things on this topic that seem relevant: (Excerpts from Introceptualism, pp 244-254): There is a seeming discrepency between Buddhism and the teaching of Shankara of high importance. It has already been shown that the doctrine of Anatman, or the non-reality of the self, is fundamental to Buddhism. In contrast, Shankara taught the Atmavidya, or Knowledge of the Self. . . But, in other respects, the fundamental similarity between Shankara's teachings and Buddhism has been well recognized. . . There is no reasonable ground for doubt that the Way taught by the Buddha served as an effective means whereby an undetermined number of individuals achieved Enlighenment. This Way, in so far as it involved an orientation by a doctrine, involved the teaching of anatman. This, at the very least, gives the teaching a pragmatic justification, since it facilitated the primary objective of the Buddha's mission. But the same may be said of Shankara's teaching of the Atmavidya, or Knowldge of the Self. This, also, has provided an effective Way. Further, I know that it can initiate a process which, in its final stage, gives the Buddhistic State of the two-fold egoselflessness. The implication is that the apparent incompatibility of the two teachings is not a real contradiction. For my part, I am convinced that the apparent contradiction is actually a paradox. . . I believe we have today developed the necessary logico-conceptual equipment for the resolution of the seeming contradiction of the anatmic doctrine of Buddha and the Atmic doctrine of Shankara. . . The approach of Shankara is through the ego and, hence, the Ground is reached as pure subjectivity or the potential of all awareness--an absolutely permanent principle containing time. . . Pure subjectivity, when reached or realized, by its own nature transforms into the subjective- objective, and then to Its real nature as neither subjective or objective, and then there remains only the ineffable Ground of Consciousness- without-an-object and without-a-subject. . . From the standpoint of the Ground, all Gods and all men, all egos, whether higher or lower, inhere in the Ultimate which is neither subjective nor objective. Meister Eckhart reveals his profundity in that he has realized the relativity of God and man and also the ultimate inherence of both in the Godhead, which. . .is identical to the Ground, or Consciousness-without-an-object and without- a-subject. (end of quote) Tom McFarlane From: raj@globe1.att.com (Rajendra P Sharma) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: Soul Thyagi writes: [responding to Druta's question: If you say there is just one soul, then how did it divide?] > If there is just one soul, then it never does divide, for it exists > in a place which is beyond time and space. There is no division. It 's a question of drishti (sight). Outward directed drishti is sansara; inwardly directed it's Brahman [also given the names: Buddha Nature, Atman, Kingdom of Heaven, Allah (God), The Great Spirit, Tao, etc]. The thougts are endless. But when a thought appears, it's quickly followed by another thought viz., I am thinking this thought. And another thought, and another, and yet another, and so on. Do all thougths appear to one thinker? [all is one] Is thought different than its thinker? [endless] Who is present in deep sleep when there are no thoughts? Is that presence I? Or, are there multiple I's? [that appear and disappear with each thought] So, either take all thoughts as I [no self] [expand the mind]; or take I [Self] as beyond all thoughts [renounce the mind]. Then, what is beyond all duality, perceptions, ideas, concepts, etc., may be "perceived" [language does not reach it, so the word perceived is put in quotes]. Insa-Allah - God willing! ---raj From: dkarma@pro-nbs.acme.fred.org (Druta Karma) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: philosophical question In <1992Sep16.111213.4302@qiclab.scn.rain.com> rgopi@calypso.eng.uci.edu (Ramesh K. Gopi) writes: >one hears in the Hindu Scriptures that `one must realize one's true >identity or nature'. Well, maybe I'm oversimplifying things, but >if all that we are comprised of are the body, mind and atman, and the >atman is perfect and realised, because as Lord Krishna points out >in the Bhagavad Gita fire cannot burn it, neither can water wet it >or wind dry it, etc, then surely it must transcent the maya of space >time as we know it. IF the atman is already in a realised state, then >what is it that must seek this reality or it's true nature. > The atma is beyond the body and mind. It is a distinct conscious entity that, as you say, is, in a sense already realized. In Vedic literature, the example is sometimes given of the moon reflected on various liquids. The moon may be compared to the atma, and the liquid to material nature. The moon never really touches the water, for example. But one may see the reflection on the water. And if the water begins to move, one will think that the moon itself is being put through changes. Being in material consciousness is an illusion, in the sense of making a mistake. One mistakes the moon reflected in the water for the real moon. To put it another way, one mistakes the atma reflected in the material mind and body for the real self. That is called ahankara, or false ego. As long as we remain under the influence of false ego, we remain entranced by the moving reflection of the atma in the medium of the material energy, specifically the material mind and body. Enlightenment comes when we understand the true nature of the atma and its relationship with the Param Atma, Krishna. Druta Karma ProLine: dkarma@pro-nbs Internet: dkarma@pro-nbs.cts.com UUCP: crash!pro-nbs!dkarma From: radams@cerritos.edu Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: No Soul In article <1992Sep18.095506.3249@qiclab.scn.rain.com>, pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo) writes: >>This Buddhist definition of Self is very different from the Vedantic one. >>One of the affirmations in jnana yoga is "I am not the body, I am not the >>mind, these are only tools or instruments; I am the immortal, blissful Self > exactly, most Buddhists would dismiss this concept of Atman > (I am the immortal, blissful Self). this is the whole point. > why are you surprised? Not surprised, the word I used was "amused". Before taking a knee-jerk reaction of rejecting a term like Self, I think it good to examine it. For instance you referred to a matter/mind complex which has nothing to do with the Vedantic concept of Atman which you said you and most Buddhists reject. Now you say you reject the actual Vedantic concept of Atman also but it would be interesting to examine the statement "I am the immortal blissful, Self" for a moment and see if there may be misunderstanding here also. If something was not born, it cannot die either, thus the term "immortal" is used. "Blissful" is an attempted description of the state of freedom or nirvana for this uncreated, unformed, unoriginated. "Self" is a name given to this uncreated, unformed, unoriginated. When you look at this statement in this manner, the seemingly unnegotiable chasm between Buddhism and Vedanta disapears (at least for me it does :-). The things that you are rejecting are not what I am proposing ;-). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Adams radams@cerritos.edu To those in whom love dwells, Cerritos College the whole world is one family. 11110 Alondra Blvd A Hindu Proverb Norwalk, California 90650 USA 292 Dwapara :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MORIARTY@vm1.nodak.edu Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: No Soul I think the doctrine of anatta is one of the most profound and interesting of the Buddhist doctrines. It helps me to consider the five skhadhas, the bundles that constitute consiousness. The five bundles are variously described, but they can be stated as form, feelings, mind, illusions, and thought. I've been entirely certain what the difference between mind and thought would be; I'm not certain that it is important to know fully in an intellectual way. I'm only guessing, but it seems to me that the bundles are what an Aristotelean might call the motions of the soul. Aristoteleans need to believe in a soul Buddhists do not need that belief. The doctrine of the five bundles helps to break up the immense idea of soul into functions that can easily be observed in meditation. The emptiness (sunyata) of each of the bundles is recognizable. From there it is a modest step to recognize the emptiness of the soul itself. Even more important to remember is the most important thing of all...that the Lord Buddha Himself remained silent many times on the question of the existence or non-existence of the soul. In Buddhism, the important thing is not whether or not the soul has existence; the important thing is to achieve silence and allow the Buddha-Mind (anuttarasanyaksambodhi) to emerge in perfect Enlightenment. In gassho, Michael/Email:Moriarty@vm1.nodak.edu From: dkarma@pro-nbs.acme.fred.org (Druta Karma) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: No Soul In <1992Sep18.095506.3249@qiclab.scn.rain.com> pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo) writes: >exactly, most Buddhists would dismiss this concept of Atman >(I am the immortal, blissful Self). this is the whole point. >why are you surprised? > If you are not an immortal, blissful self, then what are you, ultimately? What did you start out as? How did you get in your present position? I take the Vaishnava Vedanta position because it is the most sensible. We experience ourselves as individual conscious entities because that is what we are. We are not blissful now because we have misidentified ourselves with our material minds and bodies. That is called ahankara, or false ego. But false identification means that there is something that is misidentifying and it also means that there is a correct identification. It is the conscious self that is misidentifying itself as the material mind and body. When the conscious self is free from its material misidentification it remains an individual conscious entity, but is freed from birth, death, old age, disease, and other factors connected with matter. Druta Karma ---- ProLine: dkarma@pro-nbs Internet: dkarma@pro-nbs.acme.fred.org From: dkarma@pro-nbs.acme.fred.org (Druta Karma) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: Soul In <1992Sep18.095621.3338@qiclab.scn.rain.com> travers@iWarp.intel.com (Jim Travers) writes: >In article <1992Sep16.105041.2595@qiclab.scn.rain.com> dkarma@pro-nbs.acme.fred.org (Druta Karma) writes: >>If there is no soul, what is the source of the individual distinct units of >>consciousness. If you say there is just one soul, then how did it divide? >>What made it divide. Obviously it is not one. > >Where are these individual units of consciousness? You say "obviously >it is not one." How so? Where are these free-floating consciousnesses? >Where are these entities that exist apart from everything else? Just look at yourself. You are a distinct conscious entity. At least you are distinct from me. The proof. We have different ideas. You are in fact a distinct conscious individual, and your behavior here on the net proves it. You identify yourself as a distinct conscious individual with ideas different from mine. So we are conscious, we are distinct, and we are different. And I will say the same of everyone else on the net. > > >You talk as if individual consciousness were a foregone conclusion. >Perhaps the question ought to be, where does this sense of awareness >come from. And we need to be clear on what we mean by consciousness. >Do we want to look at it from a physiological point of view? Clearly, >our neurological makeup forms one kind of consciousness. There is, however, >a kind of awareness that is without the flow of thought--an awareness that >looks directly without interposing anything between the observer and the >observed. When the observer and observed disappear, what remains? >Where is the individual or the soul? > Okay, one thing at a time. I do take individual consciousness as a foregone conclusion and so do you. Your behavior proves it. You, a distinct conscious entity, are taking the trouble to deliver messages toward other distinct conscious individual entities who are not you. Just the fact that you post messages is proof that you take individual consciousness as a foregone conclusion. You have something to say to someone else. You are conscious, and you assume the target of your message is conscious. And I will tell you, yes, I am conscious. And I am different and distinct from you. I have received the message that you conceived in your consciousness, I disagree with it in my consciousness, and therefore I am responding to you, as one conscious individual to another. So we both take individual consciousness as a foregone conclusion. You cannot identify consciousness with the neurological mechanisms of the body, such as the brain. Take consciousness of the color red. When electromagnetic energy of a certain wavelenght hits the retina, certain electrical impulses are biochemically transmitted along the optic nerve to the brain (a certain region of it), and in the neurons of the brain, certain electrical impulses are transmitted. But that does not explain our consciousness of the color red as such. There is no neurological explanation of consciousness. If you don't accept a soul, you just have to assert that somehow consciousness arises in the brain. I would agree that there is consciousness beyond the flow of thought. But that consciousness remains distinct and individual. Otherwise it would not be aware of being beyond the flow of thought. Actually, we can all experience this if we just concentrate on it. We all experience the flow of thoughts. The reason we can experience the flow of thoughts is because our individual consciousness is permanent and distinct whereas the thoughts that flow through consciousness are impermanent, and are not really the essence of consciousness. Thoughts are subtle material constructs. At no time does the distinction between observer and observed break down. If the observer is observing that there has occurred a break down between observer and observed, that is still an observation of something, and therefore the distinction between observer and observed remains. You never get out of it. You can try if you want. But if you are serious about that, then I think you would have to stop debating on the net, where the distinction between observer and observed is a definite and permanent feature of reality. Cheers. Druta Karma ---- ProLine: dkarma@pro-nbs Internet: dkarma@pro-nbs.acme.fred.org From: dkarma@pro-nbs.acme.fred.org (Druta Karma) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: Soul In <1992Sep18.104611.6191@qiclab.scn.rain.com> billc@devnull.mpd.tandem.com (Bill Carter) writes: > Well, I figure it this way. There is a sort of root of existance > underlying space and time. Some call it God or Brahman, but I > call it the Cosmic Dreamer. Without space and time not a whole > lot happens, see, and you get dreadfully bored and lonely being > the only thing there is. Fortunately, the Cosmic Dreamer has this > handy power of imagination, and through a trick which he doesn't > care to examine too closely (otherwise it wouldn't work) the > Dreamer kicks off a minute sense of change which rapidly proliferates > into a rather entertaining stream of experiences. Let's start with your premise that there is some Great Dreamer who originally exists beyond time and space and matter. This implies that GD is a conscious personality consisting of a substance that is totally nonmaterial, and hence spiritual might be a good word for it. So let's say GD does want to experience some enjoyment. The Vedas say that: anandamayo abhyasat. GD is pleasure seeking. You have already admitted that GD can expand His potencies. But why should GD just expand into some cheap transitory fantasy? GD is existing in a nonmaterial realm and GD is in possession of nonmaterial energies. There is no reason why he cannot manifest from those nonmaterial, eternal energies personalities from which GD can derive eternal, real, nonmaterial pleasure. The problem, however, is that these myriad personalities, have emerged from the same substance of the GD, have the same qualities, including individual desire and independence. Having this independence some of these LDs (Little Dreamers) might attempt to imitate the activity of the GD. Unfortunately the LDs don't have the power of the GD. They cannot actualize their dreams. So the GD expands makes a Dream Universe, where the LDs can go to sleep and dream that they are GDs. In their dreams, the LDs take on dream bodies and through these dream bodies, experience dream activities in their dream world. Some, however, grow dissatisfied with the dream world, because it does not answer their real need--to be with the GD in the real spiritual dream world. So the GD enters into the dream world, and displays pastimes from the spiritual world. The LDs who get attracted to these images and meditate upon them transfer back to the spiritual world. Druta Karma > ---- ProLine: dkarma@pro-nbs Internet: dkarma@pro-nbs.acme.fred.org From: pingali@helios.ucc.umass.edu (Sridhar Pingali) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: Nirvana with residue In article <1992Sep20.123505.13262@qiclab.scn.rain.com> pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo) writes: >The main essence of Dependent Origination is this "Seeing" >the interplay of mentality and materiality as the play of Mahamaya. >This is the insight leading to the realization of anatman. >It is Nirvana with residue. At this point one develops >path consciousness which leads to Nirvana without residue. >So is Nirvana without residue Atman? I dont know. >But i think Nirvana (with residue) here and now is >part of the Buddha's message. I have Theravadan tendencies and equate the attainment of cessation to nibbana also, but many Mahayanists seem to disagree. What, for example, did the Buddha mean when he said that wise ones see the deathless reflected in arising and passing away of formations? Why is birth and death the same as nirvana and what abides in the Bodhisattvas who have taken the Great Vow and yet have attained to supreme incomparable enlightenment? Why is the Bodhisattvayana such a skillful way? Regards, Sridhar -- anicca vata sankhera upadava yadhammino upajitva nirujhanti tesam upasamo sukho "All mental formations are impermanent They are of the nature to arise and pass away The understanding of this brings deep peace" From: farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: Meditation .... questions This is my response to a question I received about my post on the technique of meditation I practice. I didn't include the querant's name, 'cause I don't know if he wants to be known. This post is geared to someone just developing an interest in meditation. So if you aren't interested in a deluge of didactic pedagogical verbiage (too many words, for you lexically challenged types ;-), just skip on. >Thanks for writing all this for us. >> The goal is to stop your thoughts while you are meditating. >Why ? This is one kind of meditation. What does it achieve ? As I mentioned (I think), this is a Buddhist meditation. One of the main premises of Buddhism is that this world that we perceive is not real. To put it in more concrete terms, you perceive the world through cognitive filters. The world is the way you see it because you tell yourself this is what it is like. Because you get your idea of what the world is like from other people (your parents, friends, etc.), you all tend to perceive a similar world. You act the way you do primarily because your varied responses to the world have been programmed or conditioned into you. You tend to occupy your mind with regrets about the past and worries about the future. (I mean you rhetorically here, I don't mean to imply that YOU are such a domesticated primate! :-) This is of course a worst case scenario, but not far off from the truth of most peoples' lives. A lot more exists, even within the physical world, let alone non- physical worlds, that we could ever hope to consciously perceive. So, in this context, the point of such meditation is two-fold. If you stop telling yourself what the world is like, you create the opportunity for expanding your awareness. By not telling yourself what YOU are like, you create the opportunity for getting to know who you really are, beneath all the programming and conditioning that has been piled up on top of your essence. You create the possibility of being a much more fluid creature, open to change and growth, which create opportunities for further change and grown, ad infinitum or liberation, whichever comes first. There are certainly times when it is appropriate to think, but most of the chatter going on in your head is just the same few things being repeated over and over and over again. You tell yourself what other people are supposed to be like, etc. And, you may or may not accept this idea, but we are all psychic creatures, and especially in such a crowded world, most of the thoughts in your head, 90%, are not even yours! All this useless repetition of thoughts, living in the past or in the future, (neither of which actually exists!), soaking up other peoples' silliness, keeps you from experiencing the world directly. The only place is Here and the only time is Now. Think when there is a purpose to thinking, including enjoyment of thought. But don't waste your energy with aimless repetition. You practice this stopping of thoughts in meditation, and be mindful of what goes on in your head the rest of the day, and learn not to waste your life on the above foolishness. Now, for the purpose for this. Number one, by learning to caste off your preconceived notions of the world, you can develop and act out of a deeper and broader understanding of yourself and your-not-self. Number two, the energy you save by doing everything with purpose and by not allowing other people to drag your mind down is available to you. All this can be achieved with any form of meditation in which the point is to stop thoughts. The meditation I wrote about, focussing on the chakras, helps release the spiritual energy known as kundalini, which energy can be used for your spiritual advancement. The ultimate goal of meditation is: God-realization, Nirvana, dissolution of the ego-self, mystical union with God, realization of the Buddha-mind, recovering your original mind, etc. The names are varied, but the experience is the same. And I can't tell you what's so good about it. I think you either know or you don't, in your heart, and that's why you strive for it. According to the Yoga-Sutra of Patanjali, if you can stop your thoughts for about 6 hours, then you achieve this. An added note, that I responded to in more detail in my response to the question. A person undertaking meditation should consider a program of physical exercize as well. A healthy body is much less likely to be a distraction when meditating, not to mention providing much more energy for it. Yours in long-winded-ness Lorenzo -- "Ordinary human love is capable Lorenzo Farris of raising man to the experience farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu of real love" -Hakim Jami From: dkarma@pro-nbs.acme.fred.org (Druta Karma) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: Soul In <1992Sep20.122925.12710@qiclab.scn.rain.com> raj@globe1.att.com (Rajendra P Sharma) writes: > Do all thougths appear to one thinker? [all is one] Yes, all thoughts do appear to one thinker. That is the Supersoul, Paramatma, the expansion of God, or Krishna, who is situated in the heart of every living thing, along with the individual jiva soul. Supersoul knows all, sees all. But the individual jiva soul does not. > Is thought different than its thinker? [endless] In the case of the jiva soul, the answer is yes, at least in the conditioned state, when the soul is in a material body in the material world. Thoughts are subtle material constructs that float through consciousness. But for the Supreme Soul, Krishna, there is no difference between thought and Himself, and whatever He thinks immediately is reality. > > Who is present in deep sleep when there are no thoughts? You, the jiva soul, are there. Otherwise you wouldn't be here talking about deep sleep. But the Supersoul is also there. It is the Supersoul who brings us through the different stages of consciousness, one after another--waking, dreaming, deep sleep, and back again, and from the sleep of death to the awakening of each new life, until we come to or original pure state of consciousness, which is transcendental to waking, dreaming, and deep sleep. > > Is that presence I? Yes it is you, or else you wouldn't be here talking about it. > > Or, are there multiple I's? [that appear and disappear with > each thought] No there are not multiple I's. If there were, you would not know it. If you do sense multiple I's [in terms of your self], then there is one I that is sensing them. So you are one self. If the I disappeared with each thought, then you would always have the same thought. > > So, either take all thoughts as I [no self] [expand the mind]; > or take I [Self] as beyond all thoughts [renounce the mind]. But how to renounced the mind? The Vedas teach that one should absorb the mind in meditation upon spiritual sense objects--such as mantras like Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare, Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare. Eventually one will come to the point beyond the duality of material mind and conscious self. > > Then, what is beyond all duality, perceptions, ideas, concepts, > etc., may be "perceived" [language does not reach it, so the > word perceived is put in quotes]. > > Insa-Allah - God willing! > In the Padma Purana it is said: atah sri krishna namadi na bhaved grahyam indriyaih sevonmukhe hi jihvadau svayam eva sphuratyadah This means that the name, form, qualities, pastimes, abode, associates, etc. of the Supreme Absolute Personality of Godhead are not perceivable by the blunt material mind and senses. But if one takes a humble attitude and renders transcendental loving devotiol service with these same senses, especially the tonue (by chanting certain mantras, such as the Hare Krishna mantra), then by His mercy, He will cause these things to become perceivable, even though we independently, by our own efforts, cannot perceive them. Druta Karma > ---- ProLine: dkarma@pro-nbs Internet: dkarma@pro-nbs.acme.fred.org From: dkarma@pro-nbs.acme.fred.org (Druta Karma) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: Soul In <19lf1pINN8ot@sandman.caltech.edu> cup.portal.com!Tagi%portal@uunet.uu.net writes: >Is one finger distinct from another? Where does one thing end and another >begin? If the body is distinct from the soul (atman), then where does >one end and the other begin? Do they have a common area? If so, where is >it? If there is no common area, then how do they interact? Yes, one finger is distinct from another, as you can experience typing messages for posting on the net. The area of contact between body and soul is called ahankara, which means "false ego.The real self is reflected in the material mind and body like the moon on water. Ahankara is the mistaken impression that the moon is the reflection on the water, or in other words, that the conscious self is actually the reflection of the self in the form of the material mind and body.The contact between the two is quite subtle. Ahankara is the most subtle material element, finer even than the mind and intelligence. But it is possible to detect false ego. Sometimes the example is given that a person may be frightened in a dream, seeing that one's head has been cut off. But if you can see your head has been cut off, then that means you are misidentifying something. With a little introspection one can see that one is not the body.This is reflected in our common way of speaking. We speak of my hand, my finger, my head, my leg, etc. As conscious entities we can see that we are not those things, but that we possess them.The same is true of our mind and intelligence. We can perceive passing thoughts, different phases of awareness. That means there is a persistent center of consciousness. That persistent center of consciousness is the real self. As some have pointed out on the net, this intellectual perception is not the ultimate experience of the self. To really cut through false ego and get down to the real self, one has to engage in some practice of meditation that will establish one fully in that state of awareness. But in these messages one can only talk about things and point toward things with words, logic, and reason. This is said in the Vedas to be like pointing out the moon through the branches of a tree.You say, look on the branch going to right, and at the end of the branch you see the moon. Actually, the moon is quite far from the tree, and if you climb the tree and crawl out the end of the branch you are not going to get to the moon. But at least you know where it is. To go there takes another process.Meditating on the Hare Krishna mantra (Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare, Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Har) is one way to go about it. Druta Karma > ---- ProLine: dkarma@pro-nbs Internet: dkarma@pro-nbs.acme.fred.org From: mailrus!gatech!BOURBAKI.MIT.EDU!jbaez@uunet.uu.net (John C. Baez) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: Eastern Philosophy In article <2925@news.cerf.net> mitsu@nic.cerf.net (Mitsuharu Hadeishi) writes: >jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes: >>True, but this is a similarity between Buddhism and Buddhism, not >>between Buddhism and Taoism. > > Yes, but the whole point is that Zen is widely known >to be quite similar to Taoism (in fact I have even heard it said >by some Taoists that they think Zen was a Taoist conspiracy >to infiltrate Buddhism, the similarity is so profound.) Since Zen >is also similar to Tibetan Buddhism at its core (which is the >closest thing to Indian Buddhism surviving today), I don't think the >argument that the reason Zen is so much like Taoism >can be attributed entirely to Chinese influence, since Tibetan >Buddhism antedates Chinese Buddhism. Of course, this >is all getting rather silly.... Indeed. Red is similar to orange, which is similar to yellow, which is similar to green. > Okay, okay, some quotes, then. Sheesh! :-) Good, some quotes. These quotes are much more interesting than anything WE are going to say about this. > There are several central Taoist teachings, for >example, from the first chapter of the Tao Teh Ching: > > The Tao that can be expressed is not the eternal Tao; > The name that can be defined is not the unchanging name. > > This is, of course, an admonition to avoid >the trap of the discursive mind; it is saying that any fixed >system of ideas (the nameable) is going to miss the truth to some >degree. Now, from an original Indian Buddhist sutra >(the Diamond Sutra in loose translation): > > (Quoting Subhuti, a bodhisattva in attendance in a >conversation with Shakyamuni Buddha): > > " . . . . the things taught by the well- >traveled one are, in their essential nature, inconceivable and >inscrutable; they are neither existent nor non-existent; they are >neither phenomena nor noumena. What does this mean? It means that >buddhas and bodhisattvas are not enlightened by fixed teachings, >but by an intuitive process, spontaneous and natural." > > Elsewhere in the Diamond Sutra, Shakyamuni says: > > "When the well-traveled one, in teaching, uses >conceptions and ideas, people should remember the unreality >of all such concepts and ideas. They should recall that the >well-traveled one, in teaching spiritual truths, always uses >such notions in the way that a raft is used to cross a river." > > This is what I mean by "fluid epistemology." >Both Taoism and Buddhism exercise a tremendous amount of >non-effort (:-) to get this point across to their students >in a direct way, that is, in a way in which they *really* >understand this directly, with their whole being (not just >intellectually). Of course, with some effort I could also yank out similar passages from the "negative theology" of Orthodox Christianity, or from Sufi mysticism. While the points all these folks are trying to get across are very interesting, I don't think that saying "so they're similar" gets one too far. For example, isn't it interesting that Chinese has no concepts equivalent to what you are translating as "phenomena" and "noumena"? For that matter, I am very suspicious of using this pair of words, with such strong Kantian associations, to translate something from Sanskrit. We are much too likely to think we understand what is being said when we don't. Another example: saying "the Tao" is very misleading since the singular and the capital reify it. (To some poor fools they practically deify it.) In Chinese there are no singular and plural forms of "nouns" - indeed, the whole structure of Indo-European grammar is foreign to Chinese. (A famous example is that in classical Chinese one can use "ten thousand" as a "verb", a la "the army ten-thousands". There is, of course, no inflection like "s" to say it's a verb. The debate over whether classical Chinese has ANY grammar has raged on for many years.) In particular, the word "tao" is often used in the plural, and the better translations never capitalize it. I will try to get my fiancee to provide an alternate translation of that famous first passage in order to illustrate.) > This is essentially the same notion of non-action, >in my opinion. Taoists obviously are not advocating that >people do nothing at all; simply that when they act, they >do not act in a kind of ego-centered manner. Since Chinese has no concept of an "ego," I can't imagine that Lao-Tsu (the quasi-mythical author) could have been arguing against acting in an "ego-centered manner." Indeed, there have been many studies of Chinese culture and politics which try to understand the implications of the very different Chinese concept of "person". >I have tended to lean toward the Buddhist >view, though, and I have noticed that Buddhists in >general seem to be quicker to notice similarities with >Taoism than Taoists are willing to do the converse. I'm >not really sure why this is. I suppose I must be a Taoist then. Us Taoists aren't interested in "nirvana" and "compassion for all beings," and bodhisattvas make us snicker, so you'd better watch out! :-) From: raj@globe1.att.com (Rajendra P Sharma) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: Soul Druta Writes: "The area of contact between body and soul is called ahankara, which means "false ego.The real self is reflected in the material mind and body like is quite subtle. The area of contact between body and soul is called ahankara, which means "false ego.The real self is reflected in the material mind and body like the moon on water. Ahankara is the mistaken impression that the moon is the reflection on the water, or in other words, that the conscious self is actually the reflection of the self in the form of the material mind and body.The contact between the two is quite subtle. Ahankara is the most subtle material element, finer even than the mind and intelligence. But it is possible to detect false ego. Sometimes the example is given that a person may be frightened in a dream, seeing that one's head has been cut off. But if you can see your head has been cut off, then that means you are misidentifying something." It has been said [by Ramana]: The inert body is silent, the Self is silent, Between the two appears this spurious ego. Find its source, and then it will be found to be non-existent. "With a little introspection one can see that one is not the body.This is reflected in our common way of speaking. We speak of my hand, my finger, my head, my leg, etc. As conscious entities we can see that we are not those things, but that we possess them. The same is true of our mind and intelligence. We can perceive passing thoughts, different phases of awareness. That means there is a persistent center of consciousness. That persistent center of consciousness is the real self." Thanks for this excellent exposition. "As some have pointed out on the net, this intellectual perception is not the ultimate experience of the self. To really cut through false ego and get down to the real self, one has to engage in some practice of meditation that will establish one fully in that state of awareness. But in these messages one can only talk about things and point toward things with words, logic, and reason. This is said in the Vedas to be like pointing out the moon through the branches of a tree.You say, look on the branch going to right, and at the end of the branch you see the moon. Actually, the moon is quite far from the tree, and if you climb the tree and crawl out the end of the branch you are not going to get to the moon." "But at least you know where it is. To go there takes another process. Meditating on the Hare Krishna mantra (Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare, Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Har) is one way to go about it." There has been proposed various methods to "focus" the mind: Mantra, Tantra, and Yantra. In the end though, one must find the source of this "spurious ego." Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krisna Krishna Hare Hare, Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama Hare Hare, Krishna, Krishna, Rama, Rama, Krishna, Rama, Kr... Ra... K... R... ... ... ---raj From: dkarma@pro-nbs.acme.fred.org (Druta Karma) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: Soul In <19rn5rINNd5j@sandman.caltech.edu> MORIARTY@vm1.nodak.edu writes: >D. Karma asks, What is the source of consciousness? The source of >consciousness is ignorance, the origin of all suffering. >D. karma also maintains there is a distinction between the >observer and the observed. At a low level of awareness, that is >factual. At a higher level of consciousness, it seems that the >observer and the observed and united in the net of illusions. At >the absolute level of awareness and enlightenment, form is emptiness >and emptiness is form. Well, if we take a look at everything you just said, we will see that ignorance cannot be the source of consciousness. First of all, ignornace presupposes consciousnesss. Therefore ignorance is a state of consciousness, and cannot be its source. Also, you mention many other states of consciousness, including enlightenment, awareness, absolute awareness, and illusion. So according to your own statements, we see that consciousness is absolute, distinct, and individual, but that it can exist in different states ranging from illusion and ignorance to complete awareness. You also mention suffering. That implies the existence of happiness, or pleasure as a postive state. Indeed, the term suffering can only have meaning in opposition to such a positive state. So the real question is not the "origin" of the conscious individual entity, but of the state of illusion and ignorance and suffering in which it now finds itself. To get out of that requires not the elimination of consciousness but its purification. The distinction between observer and observed never disappears, as is apparent from your very statement. You say that it "seems" that the distinction disappears, but if it is "seeming" that the difference disappears, that indicates that you once more have an observer that is making an observation of a state or condition. So the statement is meaningless. It refers to an imaginary nonexistent. You always have the distinction between the observer and the observed at every state of consciousness, high or low. The same is true of emptiness. There is no emptiness, anywhere at any time. If you have a thought, that is something, not nothing. Again, the reference is to an imaginary nonexistent. If you try to hold on to the idea of that imaginary nonexistent, what to speak of talk to me or anybody else about it, it is not emptiness. Even the idea of emptiness is something. Something, somebody has to have the idea of it, even though it is an imaginary nonexistent. So there are as you say, higher and lower levels of consciousness. At the low end there is ignorance, suffering, etc., which come from misidentification with the temporary material mind and body. Even this suffering is of the nature of an illusion, just as we may become afraid when seeing a tiger in a dream. I am real, the fear is really experienced, but only because of falsely identifying with the imagined tiger. At the higher end of consciousness, there is liberation from false identification with the material mind and body, and situation in the natural condition of consciousness--sat, cid, ananda--eternality, knowledge, and ever-expanding transcendental pleasure. Druta Karma ---- ProLine: dkarma@pro-nbs Internet: dkarma@pro-nbs.acme.fred.org From: dkarma@pro-nbs.acme.fred.org (Druta Karma) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: Becoming aware In <19q9g3INNn6s@sandman.caltech.edu> mw@ki.fht-mannheim.de (Marc Wachowitz) writes: >Toshi Takeuchi wrote: >: How often do you feel sexual desires and feelings? >You are putting this in the context of things which are usually considered >negative. Is this meant to imply sexuality where somehow bad? >If so, I'd like to hear your reasons. > I don't know what Toshi will have to say about this, but some things occurred to me. According to many spiritual traditions, the usual sorts of sexual desires and feelings are considered in a negative way. Why? Because they foster identification with the material body and ego in the heaviest possible way. It is, for many, the highest material pleasure. But it is still material. Thus, for those on the path of spiritual progress, or vairagya (detachment) material sex and sex feelings present an obstacle. This was certainly recognized by the Advaita Vedantists, who would only teach Vedanta to members of sannyasa, the completely renounced (sexually) order of life. The Patanjali yoga system is also for celibates. I don't know what the Buddhist position is. In the bhakti-yoga system, which I practice, material sex is considered an obstacle to spiritual perfection. But there is an allowance for a kind of spiritual sex, which is sex that is performed for sacrifice. Sacrifice means you are doing something not for your own personal pleasure (or that of your sex partner) but for the satisfaction of the Supreme. In the Gita, Krishna says I am sex that is not contrary to the principles of spiritual sacrifice. So in that case, the sex pleasure is considered allowable, even good. What are the principles? The principle is that sex should only be used to invite a spiritually advanced soul to come to this earth. That is a rare occurrence, of course. Here we are talking about the appearance of a soul on the level of a Christ, or Buddha, etc. In any case, those who engage in sex should do so for the deliberate purpose of having a child, who would be raised by the parents to become a spiritually progressive person whose main interest is spiritual advancement and helping others make spiritual advancement. Arranging one's life to accomplish this, before-during-and after the sex act itself is an act of spiritual sacrifice, and in this context the enjoyment of sex is spiritually legitimate. Even so, according to the progressive stages of life outlined in the system of varnas and ashramas, at around age 50 or so, the husband and wife would abstain from further sex and prepare themselves to reach their spiritual destinations at the time of death. Druta Karma ---- ProLine: dkarma@pro-nbs Internet: dkarma@pro-nbs.acme.fred.org From: dkarma@pro-nbs.acme.fred.org (Druta Karma) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: Soul In <1992Oct1.151725.20563@qiclab.scn.rain.com> pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo) writes: >human consciousness is based on ignorance, through the process >of karma. karma is a type of lambda binding which is dependent >on something being unknown to operate. karma is like the lisp >apply function, before application the lambda binding must >take effect. binding is an association of name and form. You are obviously conscious and you think you know something. You make a distinction between knowledge and ignorance. You are consciously defining ignorance as a state of consciousness. You are a conscious being, and ignornace and knowledge are states of consciousness of which you become aware and make statements about. There can be no karma without consciousness. Think about it. >> >> >there is nothing that isn't emptiness. >-- But that's something. Druta Karma ---- ProLine: dkarma@pro-nbs Internet: dkarma@pro-nbs.acme.fred.org From: RADAMS@cerritos.edu (Roger Adams) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: Sex (was Re: Becoming aware) In article <1aq7e7INN1jp@sandman.caltech.edu>, dkarma@pro-nbs.acme.fred.org (Druta Karma) writes: > There is a pleasure connected with sex in order to insure procreation. But > that pleasure is also available to the cats and dogs. And if one is attached > to that level of pleasure, then one remains in the cycle of birth and death, > because in order to enjoy the pleasure of genital contact, one has to have a > material body. And the material body is subject to birth, death, old age, and > disease. So the pleasure of material genital sex is intimately tangled up with > the miseries of birth, death, old age, and disease. If you like to eat certain foods like curries, that also is a material pleasure that one needs a material body to enjoy and, following your logic, we would have to keep taking on material bodies to keep fulfilling the desire for culinary pleasure unless we either found some way to stop eating (which has been done by some saints but not necessary IMHO for graduating from the cycle of incarnations) or to cultivate a sense of indifference to tastes and the pleasure of eating which I also think unnecessary. I think the important thing to do is to practice moderation regarding the basic instincts - ie. not too much food, not too little food, not too much sleep, not too little sleep, etc. As for sex, which can be argued to cause stronger attachments to a material body than food or sleep etc., moderation is also possible and also indicative of - control of rather than slavery to - the senses, and therefore not incompatible to spiritual progress. It is true that great souls have no attachment to sex. This non-attachment is what is necessary but it comes first through spiritual understanding and moderation and not _forced_ celibacy when the disposition for such a practice is lacking. I have heard of too many cases of perversions and sickness regarding sexuality of persons who for religious reasons have taken vows of celibacy without having the disposition for such a lifestyle and without having the whole issue of sexuality and transmuting this force properly explained and well prepared for. There are many attacments that can keep us on the material plane and it is one-sided to single out only sex and then encourage repression and suppression while arguing against moderation as being useful. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Adams radams@cerritos.edu To those in whom love dwells, Cerritos College the whole world is one family. 11110 Alondra Blvd A Hindu Proverb Norwalk, California 90650 USA 292 Dwapara :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dkarma@pro-nbs.acme.fred.org (Druta Karma) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: Soul In <1992Oct1.160711.21937@qiclab.scn.rain.com> travers@iWarp.intel.com (Jim Travers) writes: >Dear Druta, > >A little comment, a little poem. > >It is true that for convenience sake there are references to I, you, they, >it etc.. These are emptiness; they are form; as is everything else we may >assert absolutely. Convenient indeed. And what do you mean by convenient anyways? Convenient for you of course. No question of convenience for a nothing. Every word you have written demonstrates that you and I and he and she are distinct, conscious, individual entities. You write "Dear Druta" and that is out of regard for an other,a conscious distinct entity (person) who appreciates the gesture. It is not simply out of convenience that you make these references. It is out of absolute necessity, given our absolute nature as distinct conscious entities. It is because there is no other way to function on the real absolute plane upon which you exist. If it is just a matter of convenience try giving it up. Try it for a week. See how you like it. > > > Conscious is . . . perhaps > Something . . ephemeral . . . > Connected . . > Interpenetrating . . . empty The images reflected in the mirror of consciousness may be ephemeral, but the conscious self is always there. It may be connected in falsity to the reflected images, but its real connection is with the supreme conscious entity that is its source, and through that source to other conscious entities. And consciousness cannot be emptied of itself. > > It's nice to meet a part > Of me I didn't know. > I and me, you and you; > They and them, he and she; > Thin lines, etched carefully: > Blown away with the morning fog. > > It's nice to meet you to, but I am not a part of you, nor you a part of me.We are thoroughly distinct and individual, and we can get into demonstrating that. The morning fog of the body and mind will undoubtedly be blown away, but the brillian sun of the self will be there shining on eternally. You really are a very distinctive and thoughtful conscious individual Jim. Don't try to run away from it. Druta Karma ---- ProLine: dkarma@pro-nbs Internet: dkarma@pro-nbs.acme.fred.org THE BLUEPRINT OF HAPPINESS by Ven. Anoma Mahinda PREFACE The author of this little booklet, found in an ancient teaching, a philosophy which he believes can bring happiness, contentment and the ultimate release from physical and mental suffering, to all who are willing to study it. He wishes, in a humble way, to share it with the thousands of people in western countries, now seeking and willing to enquire into a better way of life. It is for those who wish, amidst the confusing hubbub of the busy world, to recapture the peace and tranquility of an ancient past, that this work has been undertaken. Away from the tumult and the noisy streets, in the quiet solitude of our little rooms, let us sit, read and meditate on the Sublime Doctrine of the Enlightened One. Let us put aside, for the moment, the philosophy of modern civilization with its greed, ill-will and delusions. Let us journey for a whil along the Path the Master found for us, exchanging the troubled mind and the whirl of twentieth-century life for the peace and boundless bliss of the Buddha's Teaching. Many of you who will read this booklet may have searched a long time to find the key to happiness and peace of mind. I too have made that search and my dearest wish is that you will but realize the same truth. May you all be well and happy! THE BUDDHA The Buddha was neither a god or the prophet of a god. He was born, lived and died a man. He left no room in his teachings for any other supposition. The Buddha's mortality is man's greatese hope for the future, since in Him we have no deity or supernatural being, but One who showed the greatest man who ever lived, but few of us will possess the courage and determination to approximate His great example. Yet it is within the province of all of us to follow His Teachings and eventually attain the Goal of Sublime Peace. We can do this without becoming Buddhas ourselves, (although it is in the nature of everyman to become a Buddha), by following the Path of Deliverance which we call the Buddha Sasana, or as it is known among western people Buddhism. Let us learn more about this man, who conquered what is least easily conquered; who attained what is least easily to attain; and who left the world a treasure of philosophy which has been the guiding light for a great part of mankind and which has endured for more than twenty-five centuries. He was born about 623 BC, at Kapilavatthu, a hundred miles north- east of Benares, at the foot of the majestic Himalayas. The city of Kapilavatthu was once the small capital of the Sakya Clan, an Aryan people who had the same ancestors as the people of Europe, American and Australia claim today. The area now lies within the frontiers of Nepal. The son of a noble family and having advantages denied to many, he enjoyed the pleasures of life which come easily to a child born of wealthy parents. After he passed the stage of boyhood and became a young man, his thoughts turned to the suffering of mankind which the philosophies of those days held to be inescapable. He realized that although wealth and position gave great advantages over less fortunate people, it could not save one from the sufferings of birth, desease, old-age, or death. While confronted with this problem the transient pleasures of life began to lose their value and he no only felt that there must be some way of escape from suffering, but he was determined to find it. He was not the first to recognize the universal nature of suffering, for many in those days, had sought or were seeking for a cure, but none had ever been successful. With the determination, that he would seek and find, he renounced his home, family and position; and clad in the yellow robes of a penniless mendicant, wandered alone to find Eternal Peace. [to be continued] T H E B L U E O F H A P P I N E S S =============================================== by Ven. Anoma Mahinda PART 1 OF 7 [to be continued] At his birth he had been named Siddhattha Gotama, but after the renunciation, he became known as the Sage or Ascetic Gotama. Gotama was the family name of his father. He did not shrink from experimenting with the most painful and tedious practices which were so highly praised. It was the current belief that the greater the suffering endured during this life, the better would be the rebirth into the next, until suffering disappeared. For six long weary years, he went from teacher to teacher, and though he learned much, he knew their doctrines could not lead him to the Goal he sought. The austerity and fasting were taken to the extreme limits until he nearly died for want of food. Even this desperate situation he turned to profit because it brought him to the realization that if the Goal was ever to be attained, he would need health and strength to do so. He reverted to a normal diet and a balanced mode of living, but in so doing, earned the disgust of his followers, for they considered him to have abandoned the struggle and to be seeking a life of luxury. This, however, was far from the case. Although these disciples deserted him, he continued the search with as much intensity as before. The difference was a mode of living, which avoided extreme practices which were useless and even ruined the health. He called this the Middle way or the Middle Path. Now he was alone again but still he journeyed on and on mediating and thinking things over whenever he rested. None who saw him walking the dusty road or sitting beneath a shady tree could guess that he was soon to undergo the greatest event in history and unfold the most momentous discovery of mankind. On, on he went, until he came to a quiet and beautiful spot near Uruvela on the banks of the Neranjara River. Nearby was a village where he could beg food and here also was a giant tree, of the species Ficus Religiosa, under which he sheltered and meditated. The moment he had sought so long, now came, and beneath this tree, which became the BODHITREE or Tree of Awakening, he attained Supreme Enlightenment and became the BUDDHA or Enlightened One. By virtue of this phenomenon, the vast panorama of life and philosophy, fell together like the interlocking pieces of a jig-saw puzzle, into one complete whole. He had realized TRUTH and the exact nature of REALITY and the Dharma or Law of life became known by man for the deliverance of mankind. For forty five years He preached, counseled and instructed. Thousands followed His way of life or became His lay-followers. The rich and noble, the low born and the poor, flocked to hear Him preach and to find happiness and grace in His Teachings. Although many of His supporters were kings and princes, the Buddha recognized no nobility of caste except that which a man attained by his morality and purity. In the Sangha, or Order of Monks, which He founded, He admitted alike the nobleman, the merchant, or the scavenger. At the age of eighty, the Lord passed away at Kusinara and so closed a life of unequaled struggle and unselfish service to mankind. Soon after His death, His immediate followers, collected together all the sermons, teachings, and rules of conduct for the monks. At first these were preserved by memory but were later written down in palm-leaf books. These Teachings have been carefully preserved and passed down through the centuries. Today, they rank as some of the world's greatest literature and serve as an unfailing guide just like they have done in the past. T H E B L U E P R I N T O F H A P P I N E S S ========================================================= by Ven. Anoma Mahinda part 2 of 7 THE GOAL The goal of most religions is either vague, ill-defined or without appeal to the modern mind. Heaven and Hell, Paradise and Purgatory, are the products of man's primitive past and served to account for mysteries which could not be other-wise explained. None of these concepts occur in Buddhist Philosophy. Scientific discoveries and advancing knowledge are playing havoc with these legendary beliefs. As these, and many other ideas, crumble before the onslaught of science, we observe, the astounding fact that the Dhamma, in spite of its ancient origin, is being vindicated. We are finding, more and more, that the discoveries over the last decade, were taught by the Buddha more than twenty-five centuries ago. This, however, will not surprise those who understand the profound depth of the phenomena of Enlightenment, or that the Buddha when He attained it, had insight into the facts of life which would naturally conform to the knowledge which science has unraveled. The Buddha explained, in simple language, that if we fulfill the obligations of morality, we can overcome the continual horror of rebirth. This morality is the Noble Eightfold Path which leads to the end of greed, hatred and delusion. This is the goal and we call it Nibbana. It is not a place where people go when they die or a land of departed spirits. It is a state of utter tranquillity of the mind which we can enjoy in this life, leaving no conditions which will give rise to a new birth. For most of us it has taken countless rebirths to arrive at our present standard. How many more will be required to reach the perfection of Nibbana, depends on the efforts we are prepared to make now. The Master never pretended that the Path was an easy one. The attainment of the goal requires both understanding and determination, but to say it is not easy does not mean that it is impossible to follow for an intelligent man or woman. Buddhism, or the Buddhist way of life, may be described as good conduct brought about by mind development and training and leading to Perfect Peace. The Buddha made an unsurpassed analysis of the evils and troubles of mankind. They were due, He said, to GREED, ILL-WILL and DELUSION. It would be difficult to find any man-made evil or tragedy which did not fall under one or more of these categories. Yet it is precisely the conquest, the overcoming, of greed, hatred and delusion which lifts us to attain Nibbana which is, "Tranquillity of the mind when the passions are brought under control and all attachment ceases." The fruits of the Buddhist way of life are both immediate and ultimate. Results are very quickly observed by those who accept the Dhamma and begin to walk on the Path of the Master. If we do not attain Nibbana in this life, the experiences and progress we have made, not only lead to a more rapid attainment in a successive birth, but will provide more favorable conditions to do so. The more immediate fruits of happier living, contentment and peace of mind, are the priceless rewards of those who walk in the Light of the Buddha's Teaching. "Through greed, ill-will and delusion and through being overwhelmed by them, one aims at the ruin of oneself, of others, and of both parties, and mental pain and grief come about. But when greed, ill-will and delusion are overcome, one aims at neither the ruin of oneself, of others, or of either party, and mental pain and grief are not brought about." (Ang Nikaya 3) "There, Ananda, the disciple considers thus: This is Peace, this is the Sublime, this is the end of all rebirth producing kamma, the relinguishing of all the underlying causes of existence, the fading away of craving, the attainment of detachment, Nibbana." (ibid) "The extinction of greed, the extinction of anger, and the extinction of delusion: this indeed is called Nibbana." (Sang Nik 38) T H E B L U E P R I N T O F H A P P I N E S S =================================================== BY VEN. ANOMA MAHINDA [ PART 5 OF 7 ] CONFIDENCE IN ONESELF Because the Buddha taught his followers that they themselves make or mar their own happiness, it becomes necessary for us to reply on our own efforts and not seek salvation from a deity or supernatural being. Now if man must rely on himself, it is weakness to seek aid and favors by praying. Instead of prayer, He taught us to meditate and develop the mind so that we would be able to face the difficulties of life, and overcome them. Neither suffering nor happiness is permanent. It only requires a little patience and fortitude to wait for things to change. The Buddhist is at a great advantage with this knowledge, because he does not lose sight of reality during the happy moments and he does not give way to despair in the face of misfortune. The Buddhist knows that existence is controlled by balanced natural laws and prayer can only be to express a desire that these shall change for one's individual benefit, or that we wish for something we have not earned or are entitle to. If natural laws could be upset in this way we would be obtaining things at the expense of someone else. The Buddha was not silent on the matter of deities possessing creative power or controlling the destiny of men. He not only explained the real nature of things but derided the idea of the all-powerful Creator. He went further and showed us that such superstitious beliefs were harmful if people relied on gods to do what only they could do for themselves. We are not asked to accept that the universe was created from nothing or that a deity had achieved the impossible. Matter, we know today, cannot be destroyed and cannot be produced from nothing. For centuries, men have speculated about the beginning and end of life and the universe, although they are matters beyond the conception of the human mind. The Master advises us not to participate in this useless speculation because they are problems to which we cannot find the answer, and which have nothing to do with the moral life or helping us to the goal of Nibbana. FAITH OR CONFIDENCE In practically every one of the great religions of the world, 'faith' is required of the followers, because many of the teachings and doctrines are incompatible with reason. The Dharma strikes a great contrast in this respect. The Buddha asked only for confidence, based on understanding and reason. Blind acceptance is of no use to an individual because it does not require the depth of knowledge which makes it of value or serve as a guide on the Path. This broad outlook is probably one of the reasons why it is now finding so many ready converts in the West. There are no dogmas or articles or creed or faith in Buddhism. No disciple is asked to accept anything until he is ready to do so and there are no confirmations of beliefs or creeds to recite. The Master, on many occasions, stressed the need for one to consider and carefully investigate, before acceptance. That is why, in Buddhism, there are no records where it has sought converts at the points of a gun or under the threat of torture. People can only become good followers of the Enlightened One when they are convinced of the superiority of the Buddha Sasana, as a way of life, over all other systems. He never encouraged hysterical or emotional acceptance of the Dharma. If people appeared too ready to do so, He advised that they took more time to carefully consider the matter. There is a notable example of this in Buddhist history. It is recorded, that during the time of the Buddha's ministry, there was a certain General of the Licchavis, named Siha, who was a follower of the Jains. This was a sect which existed about the same time as Buddhism. Siha discussed his intention of visiting the recluse Gotama, with Nataputta, their leader. Nataputta did not favor this suggestion and tried to discourage Siha from making the visit. He did not wish to lose a wealthy and influential supporter like Siha and wished to take no chances of doing so. However, in spite of Nataputta's advice, the General decided he would go and see Gotama for himself and find what He was teaching. The next day he saw the Enlightened One and questioned Him. The first discovery he was to make, was that the Jains had given him a distorted account of the Buddha's Dharma, and as soon as he heard the real doctrine he knew that he had found the philosophy he had been seeking. As the Master unfolded the fundamentals of the Higher Life, His listener knew that here was a Teacher among Teachers. Siha responded to this realization by asking the Buddha to accept him as a lay-follower, to take refuge in Him and the Dharma, for the remainder of his life. The Exalted One's reply came as a great surprise to Siha when He tried to discourage him from accepting after so short a discussion. The Lord pointed out the position and responsibility of Siha in the community, and in the case of well-known and important citizens, it was advisable to make a thorough investigation before embracing a new teaching. This, however, only increased Siha's enthusiasm for the Buddha. He knew that if the position had been reversed, and he had left the Buddha to follow the Jains, they would not only have accepted him without hesitation, but proclaimed his new discipleship far and wide. Three times the Lord repeated this advice but Siha had firmly made up his mind. This, however, was not the conclusion. The Enlightened One pointed out, that Siha and his family had for a long time been supporters of the Jains, and even though he may not wish to follow their philosophy, he should continue to give alms to any of them that asked. Here again Siha knew that this was not the instruction he would have received from the sect he had just left and his confidence in the Master rose higher and higher. Then the Lord instructed Siha further, discussing morality and the goal; the perils from the pleasures of the senses and the advantages of conquering them. Then He taught him the nature of suffering, its cause, its cure and the Path. In this manner did Siha, the General, became numbered among the followers of the Enlightened One. At this stage, we must quote the instructions given by the Buddha to the Kalamas of Kesaputta, when they pointed out that all teachers extol and magnify their own views, claiming that their doctrine is the only right one. This only left them confused and they did not know how to judge the true from the false. After explaining that they did right to doubt if they did not properly understand, He said: "Do not go by what is reported by others, what is hearsay or taught by tradition. Do not go by proficiency in reciting the scriptures or by mere logic and inference; not because if fits in with views already held; nor out of respect for your teacher. It is only when you know for yourselves that these teachings are good, they are acceptable by the wise, that when practiced they do not conduce to loss or suffering; then only must you accept them." HOMAGE TO THE BUDDHA The homage and respect paid to the Buddha, is but a symbolic veneration of His greatness and the happiness we find in His Teaching. The Master is, at all times, an example in thought and deed, of the way and manner we should conduct ourselves. It is therefore, not unnatural that this respect should express itself in some of the finest and most beautiful art and sculpture the world has ever seen. The images we see of the Buddha, are symbolic representations of qualities and do not pretend to be 'photographic' likenesses. It was hundreds of years after the Master's death that these images began to appear. In the very oldest sculptures and paintings, the Buddha was represented by a wheel or footprint, while in some cases, a blank space was used to indicate, rather than portray, His presence. The first images were made by Greek converts to Buddhism, at Gandhara in North-West India. These Greek craftsmen gave the images the same likeness as Apollo. These sculptures, and the millions which have followed, have given a tangible representation of the Buddha to many. There are no esoteric or exoteric Teachings of the Master. He did not expound one thing to the public and keep back some secret information for a few chosen disciples. That which He knew was necessary for man's salvation, He taught freely to all. It must, however, be realized, that though there is none of this esoteric and exoteric discrimination, there remains a considerable difference of understanding among the millions of His followers. Complete understanding of the Dharma, requires a greater depth of vision than many possess. In Asia today, there are among the many millions, those to whom the Buddha is simply peasant with his simple views, is just as much a disciple as the monk or scholar. Simple people of all races require simple doctrines and many only conceive a mental idea through a symbolic image or ceremony. Without these tangible forms of devotion, they would have little to grasp. Consistent with the Master's Teaching, we know that those who are not ready for right understanding of this life, will do so in a successive birth. The important thing is to guide these people along a path of good morality so that their development is advance in another birth. Within the Buddha Sasana we must respect the degree to another's understanding and the point of view of those differing from ourselves. The enlightened Buddhist should be a guide but not a critic. The Buddha Himself, had little time for ceremonies and rituals because His way of life is a practical one of deeds and actions. In its higher stages, rules and rituals become fetters which impede the progress. The Master tells us that, the man who honors Him most is the one who practices His Teachings best. It should also be stressed, that to follow the Buddha does not require one to abandon their home and family and to live the life of a recluse. There are many fine Buddhists today who are married men and women with families and go about their daily life in a normal way. They become outstanding among their fellow men, by virtue of their morality and good conduct and the work they are doing to make the Dharma available to others. The great beauty of the Dharma is that each goes only as far as he is able. Not all are ready or willing to become Buddhist monks and it is better to be a good layman than a failure in the Sangha.