From: kish@athos.rutgers.edu (Bill Kish) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Ch'an, Rinzai, Soto, Obaku, Nembutsu, etc. The relationship between various strains of Zen with Nembutsu (Pure Land), Tendai, Shingon, and others we don't even have records of is something which needs time and effort in order to appreciate. An excellent work (perhaps even the only work translated into English) which does justice to the complexity of the issues involved is the two volume set by Heinrich Dumoulin, "The History of Zen in India and China (v1)" and "The History of Zen in Japan (v2)". Another good work available in English is "The History of Buddhism in China" by Kenneth Ch'en. If you combine this with "Zen in Transition" ed. by Kenneth Kraft, then you have a reasonably accurate thumbnail sketch of the long and intricate paths by which the innovations and spiritual genius traditionally attributed to Bodhidharma has made its way into the 20th century. I say "thumbnail sketch" here since the real work which is and has been done on these issues is in Japanese, Chinese, etc. With respect to the original question concerning the differences between Rinzai and Soto Zen, I think Yamplonsky's (sp ?) contribution to "Zen in Transition" is as good a description of how they differ in modern day Japan as you will get in 10 - 15 pages. The main difference involves the use of koans and, to a lesser extent, what might be referred to as the "crazy wisdom" or "shock tactics" usually associated with Rinzai masters. There are additional differences involving how these two Buddhist schools interfaced with Japanese culture and politics, but these have more to do with the life and history of the Japanese people than with Buddhism per se. The statement made by someone in a previous post about Rinzai being for the "desperate" is rubbish. This is no more true than saying that Soto is only for those who enjoy wallowing in pathetic and shallow self absorption. I think if anyone bothers to look closely, they will see the differences between Rinzai and Soto as more the product of the idiosyncratic nature of teachers, students, and the reality of waking up rather than as some sort of deep and fundamental rift. Dogen and Hakuin have seen each other "face to face" along with all the other patriarchs. Read the section on Dogen in Dumoulin v2. He trained with koans under Lin Chi masters as well as in Tendai practices before connecting with a Tsao Tung (Soto) master who turned out to be what for all intents and purposes was his "root guru". Likewise Hakuin began with a Nichiren and Tendai background before becoming perhaps the quintessential Rinzai Zen master. I don't think in either case that the preparatory practices each master underwent before striking gold was somehow in vain. The awakening which Dogen experienced by "just sitting" is what any Zen teacher, Rinzai or otherwise, hopes to precipitate in students with his or her own particular methods and teaching style. The Buddha has infinite skillful means at his disposal. The Rinzai and Soto methods are just two samples. Yours in Dharma, -Bill From: lyeh@alleg.edu (Hun Lye) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: The joy of "letting go" according to Buddhism. Most, if not all of us want happiness. It is natural to want to be happy. All sentient beings are constantly doing everything to make sure that they obtain a taste of happiness. Very often when we are happy we do not know it. It is only when we look back when we know how to say "ah! I was so happy then". Therefore, we constantly look back and compare our present situation with past experiences. "I was so happy the other nite", "Last year, at this time I was so happy" and it goes on and on. Why can't we be happy now? Many ask this question. Of those who do not ask, they must either be truly happy or they are so caught up in their own unhappiness or disatisfaction that they seem to have even forgoten what happiness is all about! Based on his on observation and enlightenment, the Buddha saw that if there is one thing we can say about existence, it is that existence is marked by "duhkha" - often (but not entirely accurately) translated as "suffering". Duhkha carries the meanings of unhappiness, disatisfaction, unease and suffering. Far from being pessimistic, the Buddha was just stating the obvious - although often not very obvious to us. If we look around the world we see that duhkha is prevalent. In our own microcosm, we see that we constantly experience duhkha. For example, the process of birth is duhkha. Illness is duhkha. Our body cannot even tolerate a thorn in it or a spark of flame. Mentally we cannot find rest. We need to constantly reassure ourselves, to go all out so that we do not encounter duhkha. And of course aging and death is duhkha. The Buddha did not say that since duhkha is the mark of existence, accept duhkha or glorify it. He did not say "end existence so that you end duhkha". But instead, he teaches that there is an end to duhkha. We are not hopelessly stuck with duhkha. We can end duhkha. So, how do we do this? To be continued.... Any comments welcome. Please feel free to contact me or anything.... -- lyeh@alleg.edu (Hun Lye) From: kish@kish.rutgers.edu (Kish) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: Ch'an, Rinzai, Soto, Obaku, Nembutsu, etc. I misquoted the title of Kenneth Kraft's book - it is " Zen - Tradition and Transition". Also, Obaku is actually Rinzai Zen with some borrowing from Nembutsu. For anyone who might be asking "what is Nebutsu ?", Nembustu is Pure Land Buddhism, and in Japan the main practice is centered around chanting "Namo Amida Butsu". With respect to the Rinzai/Soto thread, I just purchased Thomas Cleary's partial translation of Dogen's Shobogenzo. His introduction is one of the best essays I've read which underscores the subtle interbeing between koan practice and zazen. Yours in Dharma, -Bill PHONE: (908) 932-5026 UUCP : {ames,att,harvard}!uunet!rutgers!jove.rutgers.edu!kish INTERNET: kish@jove.rutgers.edu From: mayne@phi.cs.fsu.edu (William Mayne) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: Question on Buddhism and Vegetarianism NOTICE: This is still specifically related to vegetarianism, but strictly from a Buddhist point of view. Anyone offended by religious or philosophical discussion in rec.food.veg or elsewhere is advised to hit 'n'. I am trying to be informative and not preachy. How well I have succeeded is an open question. It might be good to move this to soc.religion.eastern. I am reluctantly cross posting there even though it is moderated. Followups from there should not be sent back to rec.food.veg. In article <18042@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> darsie@eecs.ucdavis.edu (Richard Darsie) writes: > [Bill Mayne's excellent response deleted] Thanks. >I would just add that two Buddhist principles or ideals are involved here: >one, obviously, is "non-harm", the principle of not taking life or causing >harm. This is an *ideal*, as almost *anything* you eat involves the >taking of life, even plant life which is considered in Buddhist cosmology >to be endowed with the same Buddha-nature as animal and human life. Possibly true (about plants - I'm not really sure about that), but the precept is to abstain from killing animals. Of course the precepts are just the minimum standards, not the whole of Buddhist ethics. However the point of Buddhist ethics is to do the best you can not to make problems for yourself, not to get caught up in seeking some unrealizable ideal. Ethics (the actual word is "sila") is just a foundation for other things, not the main practice. >Fruits and nuts and the like are examples of food which would seem >to not involve the taking of life. To my knowledge there is no >*commandment* anywhere in Buddhist scriptures that eating meat is >*forbidden*. But obviously some sects or traditions do refrain from >meat as a matter of course. Strictly speaking there are no commandments anywhere in Buddhism. There are rules which must be followed in order to be a monk or nun, but nobody has to do that and any monk or nun who doesn't want to follow monastic rules is free to leave the Order. The precepts for lay people are just principles to be followed for one's own good, like changing the oil in your car every 3000 miles. The more you manage to follow them the better for you. But in the loose sense, as I mentioned briefly in my earlier response which you so kindly complimented, without quoting any of it, the Lanka Vatara Sutra has the Buddha explicitly forbidding eating meat, a "commandment", if will. However not all sects accept that Sutra and even some which do do not require or routinely practice vegetarianism. There may be other examples but this is one that I know of. >The other principle is non-attachment. What this would mean in this >context is that being *attached* to a particular diet, i.e., a vegetarian >diet, is just as spiritually harmful as eating meat. So there might >be a tendency to use one's vegetarianism as a "prop" to "prove" to >yourself how "spiritual" you are, without actually confronting the >basic issues or seeing yourself as you really are. Although there is some danger of turning anything positive into a problem like that this does not compare to the harm which comes from willfully violating the precepts and most Buddhist sects aren't afraid to call for strict observance, at least by monks and nuns. Another important consideration is that killing necessarily involves some negative mental qualities or emotions. It is not like there is some deity who is going to punish you for breaking a rule. The more direct the involvement and the more voluntary the act the worse it is for the doer. Hence there is some rationality behind placing more emphasis on what one personally does rather than indirect consequences, even when the consequences can be foreseen. This is why, according to Theravadins, the Buddha forbid monks from eating meat if and only if they knew, heard, or suspected that the animal had been killed especially for them. The positive side of this emphasis on the quality of mind which goes with actions, and one of the primary reasons I am a vegetarian, is that every time I go out of my way to avoid meat, and when I deliberately chose vegetarian food, I think about avoiding causing unnecessary harm to living animals. I order to eat meat I'd have to suppress some of the little compassion that I have which motivates me to abstain. Positive mental qualities are to be preserved and increased, not suppressed. I believe this applies whether one is a Buddhist or not. Bill Mayne From: wong@rkna50.riken.go.jp (Wong Weng Fai) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Obaku Zen Someone brought up Obaku, another said it wasn't Zen because there is Pure Land in it and then Bill said that it is. Actually, Bill is right. Obaku IS Zen. "Obaku" is the Japanese rendition of Huang-po who was actually Lin Zhi's master. Since Lin Zhi is the founder of Rinzai Zen, I would say that that makes Obaku very much Zen ;-) There are said to be Five Families of Chan in Sung China but historians say that actually this count leaves out Obaku. It is also likely that Rinzai is consider Obaku. As for this character called Huang-po, Dogen (who introduced Soto Zen into Japan) was VERY impressed by him. In fact, he wrote that Lin Zhi was an unworthy successor of Huang-po who he considers the true master after Hui-neng. It is said that Dogen gave up Rinzai Zen because of this conclusion - that Rinzai is a poor continuation of Huang-po and that probably he considered the Obaku school to be even worst. As for Pure Land elements in Zen ... please bear in mind that Pure Land was NOT an independent school in Chinese Buddhism. The Pure Land schools are purely (pun ;-) Japanese innovations. In the good old days, any Buddhists can and many do practice Nembutsu ("Namo Amida Butsu" or "Nan mo Amito Fo" in Chinese). For example, it was one fo the standard meditation in Tiantai (Tendai) school. In China then, monks in the same temple can adhere to any school that appeals to them although of course there is almost always one dominating one in a particular temple and that the rules, activities etc. of that temple would then be based on this dominating sect. The increase in Pure Land elements came in the later Sung days especially around Hangzhou. The Chan schools there began forming "Dharma Societies" whose purpose was to ensure the proper support of the temples and monks and the public teachings of Buddhism - sort of a church-like thing. But unlike a church, and typically Chinese, within these societies, members held different positions with different duties. Roughly speaking, monks were expected to teach as well as practice, the "serious" ones do zazen and koans while the "lay folks" (which was the majority) is expected to do Nembutsu (for obvious reasons of simplicity). It was in these societies that Nembutsu became the popular practice while Zen (which founded them) were "reserved" for the "serious". The above is one way how Nembutsu got into Zen. As for Zen's relationship with Taoism and Confucianism (yes, many people seems to neglect this), it is much more complex involving political, philosophical as well as social aspects. I recently discovered an excellent book by one Choichi Abe (written in Japanese but with a short English outline) which examines the political and social aspects of the connection between the three religions - an often neglected area. Much of the above info are from this book. If I work up enough courage, I'll try to summarize the book. Also, a lot of the bashing of Pure Land on the net is due to a lot of common misunderstanding (which I too once held). Pure Land, especially after the reforms of Shinran, is much more complex and deep than what people on the newgroup makes it out to be. Again, if possible I would like to make a defense of Pure Land in the future. Till then ... with Metta, W.F. Wong. From: lyeh@alleg.edu (Hun Lye) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: The joy of "letting go" according to Buddhism 2 >From the last issue... "But instead, he teaches that there is an end to duhkha. We are not hopelessly stuck with duhkha. We can end duhkha. So, how do we do this?" First of all we have to ask "why do I experience duhkha?" What is the nature of duhkha? Let's consider this. How many times have it happened when we get all upset when someone says something nasty to us? How many times have we experienced duhkha because he heard something said about us that we don't like? Personally, I think I am constantly caught up in this. When someone says something nasty to me or about me, I get all upset. I get mad. I am pissed. This is not true and not fair. I am NOT like what he said! How can she say that about ME? There goes my day..or perhaps days. We do not recognise that as far as that person is concerned he might have totally forgotten about what he has said about us. But there we are grasping and carrying that mental disturbance for a few days. We let that affect us. As a result we start to behave nastily towards other people. We project our hell on to others. Isn't that duhkha? Isn't that suffering? It's *normal* to react that way but it is not *natural*. why is it not *natural*? Because, truly we do not want duhkha! But if you truly don't want duhkha why are you carrying so much junk in your head? Isn't it heavy? Don't you think you should dump it somewhere or maybe recycle it? If it is not heavy, it's probably smelly anyway. Drop it! Let go! Don't grasp to things that are not really there. The nature of duhkha is non-real; impermanent (anitya) It only arises when we have an unhealthy relationship with the world. The world as such is okay but it's our relationsgip with the world that often mess up things. Therefore, do not deny the world. That's not where the problem is. The problem is our self-originated duhkha. It rises out of causes and conditions. Apart from causes and conditions, duhkha is non-existent. It is illusory. So, why do we create our own nightmares and scare the hell out of ourselves? The Buddha says "Drop It!" Drop the grasping and clinging. All things have the nature of arising and ceasing. Other than that there's nothing. Duhkha arises, duhkha ceases. It is only when we try to grasp at it when we start the nightmare. Stop grasping! If we note the nature of our mind, we will observe that thoughts come and go. They arise, they cease. When we look at the world, it's the same. Things arise and things cease. There's no problem with that. But the problem comes in when we try to hold on to something, thinking that we can keep it for good. We had a good time say...last week when a very special friend visited us. That's fine, that's okay. But when we try to hold on to that - THAT's IT! We are causing duhkha to arise. If we keep thinking about it, keep complaining that the present moment is not as fun as THEN; we create duhkha. When we are experiencing something good, that's great. But let it go when it's time to go. It is the nature of all things not to abide permanently. Don't grasp at that good experience and that is not to say good experiences should be avoided. experience by itself has no problems. It only becomes a problem when we establish an unhealthy relationship with it Likewise, when due to unavoidable circumstances we experience unpleasant situations, don't grasp at it. Don't get all upset trying to get rid of it. This is traditionally called "adding one head on top of another". As if the first problem is not unpleasant enough, we add more problems by getting all upset over it. Don't do that. Don't grasp at duhkha. recognise it for what it is and let it go. It will go because it's its nature to cease after arising. The way people use to trap monkeys in India is to put a jar with a narrow mouth near where the monkeys are. Inside the jar there are usually bananas or sweets. When a monkey comes and puts its hand into the jar, it will grasp at the banana. But when the monkey tries to remove its hand with the banana from the jar, the hand can't come out. The monkey panics and thinks that someone or something is pulling its hand from inside. But in reality, there is no one there pulling the monkey's hand. It is just its own grasping that got it trapped. Don't this describe us well? When we experience duhkha, we think there's someone or something causing it. But in reality it's our own grasping. No doubt the world is there just like the jar and its goodies are there. But by themselves, there's no problem. Only when we try to grasp at things, when we don't know how to let go. So, the Buddha saw that and explained to us that non-grasping is the way to attain calmness and happiness. He said "Let Go!" He did not concern himself with speculative thinking. He saw the problem of sentient beings, he prescribed a cure. It's as simple as that when you get down to it. The Buddha mostly rejected metaphysical questions because he didn't think that those questions will answer to the basic problem of duhkha. For the metaphysics and speculations - go somewhere else, the Buddha teaches "duhkha and the end of duhkha". To be continued....part 3 Any comments welcome. Please feel free to contact me or anything....I am writing from my own experience based Buddhism - particularly on the Theravadin and Tibetan backgrounds. I DO NOT claim that this is the only understanding of Buddhism or life as a whole, but this is my own experience and teachings I have recieved from different teachers. I just want to offer them to others. If you can use them - great. If it is non-sensical to you - I'm sorry. -- lyeh@alleg.edu (Hun Lye) From: dkarma@pro-nbs.acme.fred.org (Druta Karma) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: Chanting In <1b1o3oINNad5@sandman.caltech.edu> emiddlec@mora.gac.edu (Eric Middlecamp) writes: >There is a third school called Obaku, I believe. >It holds that chanting the nimbutsu will "save" a >person. When they die, they go to Nirvana.. > >Nothing more is recquired but this act of faith. >I think it's sad. It's not what Buddha asked people >to do. It's not what Christ asked people to do. It's >just an easy way out. On the other hand, spiritual >capacity varies. Rather, stubborness varies. > I think this could be the beginning of an interesting discussion about the merits of chanting as opposed to whatever. First of all, are there any nimbutsu experts out there who could comment on the idea that Buddha never asked people to chant. That may be true. But I just don't know. I imagine, however, that followers of that path might have a different opinion. But as I said, I don't know and would like to hear. Same thing for Christ. Over the centuries, many Christ followers have gotten into meditation on the names of God. And in other paths there is something similar. I myself am a follower of the bhakti-yoga system, and in this system, and in the Vedic system in general, there is a lot of stress placed upon chanting mantras composed of names of God. For example, I chant the Hare Krishna mantra (Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare, Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare) on meditation beads for about two hours daily as part of my meditation vows. It is my primary spiritual practice. And I can tell you that it is not easy. The basic principle is that Krishna is spiritually present in His name. Hare is an address to Radha, the personified energy of devotion to Krishna (female in form), Krishna is Krishna, of course, and Rama is another name of Krishna meaning "spiritual enjoyment." Without getting into the whole philosophy behind the chanting, I can just briefly say that the atma, or conscious self, is naturally conscious of God, but has forgotten this original object of love and devotion. Therefore the soul is now entangled in thinking of getting enjoyment through the material senses with material sense objects. Refocusing the mind on Krishna can deliver the soul from this entanglement. It is not so easy, because the mind is accustomed for millions of lifetimes to meditating on objects of material sense enjoyment and also on plans for obtaining these objects in the form of sex, money, position, power, prestige, etc. So focusing the mind on the mantra can be quite a difficult task, and it requires lots and lots of spiritual work. If you actually get into it, then you also find there are various obstacles that have to be overcome. So it really isn't so easy as you make it sound. But in another sense it is easy in that one can rather quickly make some progress if one is serious. And even a child can do it. Druta Karma ---- ProLine: dkarma@pro-nbs Internet: dkarma@pro-nbs.acme.fred.org From: lyeh@alleg.edu (Hun Lye) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: The joy of "letting go" according to Buddhism....3 To try to run away from the world like a prey would from its predator cannot be a healthy or skillful way of relating with the world. Many people think the Buddhism is a form of "escapism." No doubt if you are a scholar in religious studies or a historian you can find traces of "escapism" in the Buddhist tradition. But is it justified to call Buddhism "escapism"? The Buddha did teach us how to "escape." It is escape NOT from the world, not from our responsibilities and parts in the world. Rather it is escape from duhkha (loosely translated as "suffering" or "unsatisfactoriness"; refer to my first posting). No one in their right mind wants to remain in duhkha. If the Buddha is considered a "pessimist" or "escapist" because he taught a way to end duhkha, then perhaps all other great teachers are pessimists and escapists. To try to run away from the world denotes fear and disgust on our part. It shows that we do not recognise the true nature of phenomena. Like I've mentioned many times, the world is the way it is. It is not evil or good. These are just judgements and mental fabrication we put on to our experience of the world. In reality, the world is just as it is. We do not run away from the world. Instead, we learn how to experience it and establish some kind of healthy relationship with it. In order to know how heavy something is, we need to pick it up. After picking it up, we will not know how light it can be unless we are able to put it down again. Likewise, when we are faced with a negative situation where there is no way for us to avoid - don't run away! Face it and learn from it. Recognise it for what it is - impermanence and non-self- that's what all things are. Understanding their true nature of impermanence and non-self, we will cease to cling on to them. When we are sick, go to the doctor by all means. But the doctor only takes care of the body. It is pointless if she heals your body while you let your mind get sicker and sicker. Recognise the discomfort. Note how it arises, abides and ceases. It is not there for good. Nothing is! This is how we learn from the world. From the Buddha's teachings we know that he discouraged self-mortification. Some people think that the body is bad. It is evil. It traps the pure spirit or soul that inhabits the body. To release the soul from this corrupting body and world, one must torture the body so that we become "detached" from the body. This is not the Buddha's way. Have you heard of the phrase "pleasures of the flesh"? This seems to imply that the flesh or the body is capable of experiencing pleasures. Think about this then "can a dead body (still a body) experience pain or pleasure?" "Can you arouse a dead body?" When we contemplate this we realize that it is not the body! It is our conceptualizing minds that are working. It is the deluded mind that craves for this and hates that. On the other hand, to chase after the world like a dog chasing its own tail is just as absurd. Deludedly we imagine that we can have things we like for ever. We want this, we want that. When we finally get this or that, we find that now that we have them we begin to lose interest in them after sometime. Ultimately we still can't keep it. When something nice happens, enjoy it! But don't get trapped. Don't get caught! To make things more complicated we fail to recognise that we ourselves are the origins of the traps. If there is intrinsically a "trapping" value in something, then everyone no matter who it might be will be trapped when encountering it. But this is not the case. Some people fall in the trap of power while it's wealth for others. For some it's relationships while for others it's chocolate! Hence, the things themselves don't trap. It is us the do the trapping. Pleasurable experiences are no doubt more problematic than unpleasant ones. It is true that it is easier to establish an unhealthy relationship with pleasurable things than those that are not. One gets easily attached to good things. So, there should be more awareness and mindfulness when we experience fun times. Don't let yourself cling on to them. Anything that has the nature of arising also has the nature of ceasing. When you can have this kind of awareness with regards to the nature of all things, then fun things are okay. Infact, not-so-fun things are okay too. The enlightened mind is lucid, empty and calm. It is lucid because it is able to shine and recognise all things as the are (not as what we *think* they are or what we *want* them to be). It is empty because it does not contain loadfuls of junk like hatred, jealousy, worry, doubt, uncertainness or insecurity. It is empty of all defiling entities that are in their respective nature impermanence and non-self. It is calm because, the winds that stir up the waves are no more. The fire that keeps consuming our energies have been extinguished. The enlightened mind is expansive, humorous and compassionate. It is expansive because it has been freed from the cages of prejudice, conceptualizing, and greediness. It is able to open itself up to truly experience existence as it is. The expansive quality of the enlightened mind allows one to open oneself up to the world, to those around us and to gather everyone in. It is humorous because it knows that in reality we are free and peaceful. It is able to laugh at itself and laugh with others. It is compassionate because it recognises that all sentient beings share a common "problem" - the "problem" of duhkha. Recognizing the way to end duhkha, it aspires and works towards the removing of duhkha from all beings. BUT why are we still carrying some much rubbish around? It's heavy, it's smelly - let go of it! Drop it! Drop it and you'll know how light it can be. To be continued..... This is the third posting I am doing. I welcome questions, comments and suggestions. As I noted in my second posting, what is written here is not meant to be an definitive explanation of Buddhism in particular or life in general. It's written based on personal experience and teachings received from other kind and insightful teachers. Please give me feedback on the usefulness of the posting so far and what particular aspects of this approach to Buddhism that you want to know more - I will also try my best to answer to you personally thru the e-mail. If you find the stuff here useful and meaningful, I am glad I can share them with you. If you find them meaningless, I hope you will be able to find something that makes more sense to you and apologize for my inability to help. The next posting will probably be on the topic of "Becoming Enlightened?" It is about how we constantly try to "become" something or someone when the Buddha taught that the desire to "become" only leads to duhkha. And also, if anyone is interested in getting into the actual practice, feel free to contact me. I hope I can give you some suggestions. Finally, let go and be happy! "When our mind is open and in the state of wonder...that's the state of love - truly being with something as it is, whether it is horrible or pleasant" - Ajahn Kittisaro -- lyeh@alleg.edu (Hun Lye) From: lyeh@alleg.edu (Hun Lye) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: The joy of "letting go" according to Buddhism ...4 I remember that when I was small I wanted to *become* "one of those big guys." I used to think how cool it would be to be a high school kid. When I finally got to high school, I wanted to *become* a college student - wow...that should be the best.... And then college came and what next - I want to *become* one of those working guys out there! When I started getting interested in spirituality, I wanted to become "self-realised", to *become* "one with God" or when I started testing out Buddhism - I wanted to *become* enlightened! However, is this how we should think? Is this the right way to relate to things? How healthy is this constant desire to *become*? Very often we are so obssessed with the idea or wish of *becoming* that we forget what we should actually be doing. This becomes especially true when we look at spiritual cultivation. So many people go into practice to *become* this and *become* that. It is of course normal and fine to begin something with a desire to want to *become*. The reason why we even start to practice is because we want to become free from duhkha. This is indeed very valid. Later, we might want to view our practice as not only for ourselves but also for the welfare of others. This is also very valid. No problems. But very often we again set traps for ourselves. These kinds of traps are even more dangerous than other kinds because these traps can often be "justified" by "religion". It is impossible to truly practice if we are constantly wanting to become. It takes the focus out of what we should be truly doing. You will find that when you meditate, the more you try to become free from wandering thoughts, the more the thoughts would trample all over the place like a mad elephant - crusing and destroying everything. The more you want to become enlightened, the further youy see to be moving away from it. This is because of the sickness of wanting to *become*. The Buddha taught us that *becoming* is duhkha. No matter what you want to *become* only more duhkha is produced. Now, instead of meditating we are projecting our hopes and ambitions into the practice. We want to *become* enlightened. We want to *become* a great teacher that can "save" everyone else. Become, become, become and that's all that we are truly doing. And duhkha, duhkha and more duhkha is what we get. Enlightenment does not involve *becoming* because what *becomes* must cease as well. Sarva dharma anitya - "all things are impermanent." That which have the nature to arise will have the nature to cease. What *becomes* must cease. Therefore, enlightenment has nothing to do with *becoming*. Enlightenment is rest, peace and calmness while *becoming* is duhkha. Quit occupying our minds with thoughts or desires of *becoming*. Do not sit on the meditation mat thinking "when will I *become* enlightened?" If you do that you are not meditating, you are "becoming" and that leads to duhkha. Just be aware of the nature of all things - the constant arising and ceasing. Just contemplate of the non-self nature of all phenomena and rest in that simplicity. When thoughts of *becoming* creep up, do not try to *become* free from them. Just note them arising and ceasing. You don't have to fear these thoughts or desires on *becoming*. Just learn how to recognize them. The moment you recognize them, you will understand that there is no point in trying to get rid of anything of to acquire anything. Why? Because they are essentially impermanent and non-self. They have no real existence so that either becoming attached to them or hate them is an absurdity. It is disturbing to the mind. The nature of the mind is calm and silent. When you recognize the nature of all phenomena as empty and impermanent, you won't let them bug you. You easily rest in simplicity. You rest in the calm, expansive, luminous amd humorous nature of your mind. but the minute you let ideas and desires of *becoming* take charge, you fall into your own trap again. Recognize the true nature of phenomena and that's when you will truly rest. Stop *becoming* and just *be*! This is the fourth in the series. Comments, questions, and any other kinds of feedback welcome. This is written based on my own experience and the teachings received from various teachers of the Buddhist tradition. This series is NOT for discussion on Buddhist philosophy or metaphysics. It is posted with the hope that it will be of help to some people. If it is, I'm happy to be able to help. If it is not, I apologize for it. The next topic in this series will probably be about the place of tradition in practice. I know this is a hotly debated topic in this soc.religion.eastern part (especially with regards to the Guru-disciple question) and I hope this forthcoming topic in the series will not lead to that. This series is meant for "letting go" - not "holding on"! Be happy! -- lyeh@alleg.edu (Hun Lye) From: dkarma@pro-nbs.acme.fred.org (Druta Karma) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: Becoming aware In <1bb5m4INNhmm@sandman.caltech.edu> mw@ki.fht-mannheim.de (Marc Wachowitz) writes: >Druta Karma wrote: >: 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. > >Maybe the miseries you associate with the natural changes is "only" a result >of an inappropriate way of living? >Find out how to live, and death is nothing to worry about (nor to repress). >[And I mean without assuming rebirth or similar hopes - whether true or not.] Yes, the miseries are a product of inappropriate living--living in the material world rather than the spiritual world. But anyways, let's look at all four of the miseries and see if you think they could be enjoyable. The first is birth. This for the child and the mother is a painful experience. Of course, you can say that after it's all over, one sees it as beautiful, but the physical experience itself, I am told, is one of the most painful one could imagine. Next is disease. Try as you may, you cannot avoid disease in the material world. And no one thinks it is pleasant. Otherwise, the latest kick would be to go down to your local neighborhood disease shop and try out the latest new disease like AIDS, or colon cancer, or Alzheimer's or whatever. Of course, one can always learn to tolerate and "grow" and so forth. But the bedrock experience of disease is quite painful. And we can include in that all the mental diseases that people suffer. I would agree that a lot of disease is caused by inappropriate lifestyles. Eating meat, for example, is a big cause of heart disease and cancer according to many medical reports. But try as one may one cannot become free from disease of the material body by material means. There is a means to become free. But if you are satisfied with the options before you, and aren't interested in the cure recommended in the Gita, then that is of course your prerogative. Next is old age. I know there is a lot of propaganda about the wonderful golden years. And one can adopt different mental attitudes. But I don't think most women look forward to menopause with very much anticipation. I don't think men or women like to see their physical capacities degenerate, their bodies become old-looking, and so on. I am not denying that one can adopt some kind of stoic attitude in the face of this inevitable decay of the body and try to get along as best one can. But at rock bottom the experience is not very pleasant, and most people, as far as I can see, make every attempt to postpone old age, deny it, etc. Again, it is possible that good lifestyle choices can lessen the pain of the ordeal, but it is still an ordeal. And finally death. People do seem to go through quite a bit of trouble to avoid it. And although some people do go "quietly in their sleep" in a great many more cases there does appear to be some trauma involved. I think there is also a lot of mental pain involved as one's emotional connections with friends and family are about to be finally severed. I am aware that some people are not going to feel that these are things that one should be trying to get free of by taking up a process of spiritual realization such as the bhakti-yoga system described by Krishna in the Bhagavad-gita. Everyone has free will, and everyone has particular desires they are trying to satisfy. So some people feel it is better to concentrate on going after whatever material pleasures are available to them in this life, and tolerate the four miseries as inevitable parts of life. And they are free to do that. It is a question of taste, ultimately. Aesthetics, if you will. Of course, if one thinks there is no alternative, and that all talk of a spiritual self, afterlife, spiritual world, etc. is just imaginary, then one has no choice but to make the best of a bad bargain. But as far as I am concerned, I have encountered sufficient reason to accept that there is an alternative, and I find life in the material world so aesthetically unsatisfying, that I am willing to make an attempt to achieve a more satisfying experience, starting now. But to each his/her own. Of course, if one becomes self-realized and detached from material sense desire, then one can become relatively free from the changes of the material body. In this case, one identifies completely as the eternal spirit soul within the physical machinery of the body. And one seeks pleasure not from the contact of the material senses with material sense objects, but from contemplation of the spiritual sense objects and Krishna, the reservoir of spiritual pleasure. But as long as one is identifying the self as the body and is depending upon material sense gratification for happiness, one is bound to become disappointed as one's instrument of gratification begins to detiorate and finally disintegrates completely. > >: Material sex life is brief, mixed with unpleasantness, and the more you try >: to enjoy it the less enjoyable it becomes due to physical limitations, > >One might "try" (read: strive) less (but not reject) and enjoy more what's >already there. What's there is available to any cat or dog. And as I said, the pleasure of material sex depends on the body. And if you want to have sex in a material body, then you are going to have to accept everything that goes with that body, including birth, death, old age, and disease. If that sounds like a good bargain to you, then fine. That is your choice. And if you think that is the only choice, that is fine too. But there is evidence that there is another choice, and I personally have accepted that. But that is my choice, and I guess I will have to live with the consequences. Undeniably, there is some pleasure connected with sex. As I said in a previous post, that pleasure is there to insure procreation. In fact, one of the big miseries one has to undergo in the course of one's sexual career is avoiding pregnancy. It seems like quite a bit of anxiety goes into that. And if one does not succeed in avoiding pregnancy, then all kinds of problems come up with the abortion question. No matter what position one takes, one has to agree that this issue, on the personal as well as the societal level, is the cause of quite a bit of anxiety. And then there is the question of sexually transmitted diseases, which seem to be more and more a cause of anxiety these days, especially for those who contract them. Then there is the whole question of sexual harassment.Sexual discrimination. Sex crimes, including child molestation, rape, and so forth. And then there are all the interpersonal things that go along with sexual relationships--ranging from, on the light side, all the mind games and "trips" that go on from junior high on to the very heavy things like finding your steady sex partner has been cheating on you, all the things that go into divorce, and so on. And getting back to pregnancy, then usually one is married, and has kids, and a tremendous amount of work and anxiety goes into that. One has to settle down, be responsible, work hard, save money, and one never thinks one has really done enough. And then if there is divorce,and there are children, that creates a tremendous amount of anxiety. I could go on, but I just want to suggest that the brief moments of pleasure that material sex affords are not unmixed with material pain, anxiety, etc. But the main point is that material sex means a material body, and a material body means birth, death, old age, and disease. Among other things. Obviously this is an analytical approach. And it may seem like a negative approach. But as I have indicated in other posts, there is in the bhakti-yoga system a legitimate form of sex, and that is between a married couple, followers of bhakti-yoga, who desire to bring a soul into this world. In some few cases, the soul that comes is already a greatly realized soul who takes the opportunity to take birth in a spiritual family. In other cases, it may be a soul that is given the opportunity to become advanced spiritually by taking birth in a suitable family.So that kind of man woman relationship, including a sexual component, is allowable. And if the couple follows the bhakti-yoga principles, they will be able to cruise through the minefield of sex in the material world with a minimum of material unhappiness and a maximum of spiritual advancement. And if one can remain celibate by experiencing the higher taste of transcendental rasa available through the bhaki-yoga system, so much the better.So it is not a negative approach, although it may look like that at first. People naturally are looking for happiness (rasa) in their personal relationships, but the real rasa they are looking for is in their spiritual loving relationship with the Original Person, Krishna, whose name means "reservoir of pleasure." Druta Karma ---- ProLine: dkarma@pro-nbs Internet: dkarma@pro-nbs.acme.fred.org From: r.senjen@trl.oz.au (Rye Senjen) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: electronic buddhist texts Here is a list of stuff that's available from coombs.anu.edu.au by ftp /coombspapers/otherwork/electronic-buddhist-archives about-electr-buddh-archiv.txt - inf. leaflet (Jun 92) /buddhism-general about-buddha-l-dbase.txt - about the BUDDHA-L listserv database about-soc.religion.eastern.txt - about the USENET discussion/news group about-tricycle-buddh-magaz.txt - about the TRICYCLE magazine buddhist-etexts-info.txt - 1990 list of machine-readable Buddhist texts projects canonical-buddhist-texts.txt - a summary list of Canonical Buddhist texts nw-usa-buddh-medit-list.txt - 1992 directory of NW USA buddhist groups /buddhism-tibetan sakya-lam-bras-bibl.txt.Z - Lama Choedak T. Yuthok's complete catalogue of Sakya Lam 'Bras literature tibetan-buddhism-1bibl.txt.Z - Dr. G. Samuel's refs (up to early 1991) tibetan-buddhism-2bibl.txt.Z to research onTibetan societies and religion (Buddhism & shamanism) /buddhism-vietnamese about-sbc.txt - inf. about Canberra Sakyamuni Buddhist Centre (c.1989) /buddhism-zen about-diamond-sangha.txt - inf. leaflet (c. 1990) about-kannon-do-zen-center.txt - inf. leaflet (1992) about-moon-mind-circle-jrnl.txt - inf. about Sydney Zen Centre quarterly about-r-stone-roshi - about Roselyn Stone Roshi & Brisbane Zen Group (1992) about-sydney-zen-centre.txt - inf. leaflet (c. 1990) aitken-on-2nd-paramita.txt - lecture by Robert Aitken Roshi (late 1980s) aitken-on-sesshin-conduct.txt - teisho by Robert Aitken Roshi (late 1980s) aitken-on-western-zen.txt - paper by Robert Aitken Roshi (1987) chinese-buddhism.txt - John McRae's (Mar 92) prelim. survey of studies of Chinese (chiefly Ch'an) Buddhism + 185 items of bibliography (version 2) daily-zen-sutras.txt - Sanbo Kyodan (Three Treasures) sutras (in English) dawson-on-breathing.txt - paper by Geoff Dawson of the Sydney Zen Centre diamond-sangha-zen-sutras.txt - Final (1991) version of the Sanbo Kyodan sutrasjaffe-79-thesis-abstract.txt - P.D. Jaffe's 1979 MA thesis on Hakuun Yasutani's commentaries to Dogen's Genjokoan meals-zen-sutras.txt - Sanbo Kyodan (Three Treasures) sutras (in English) modern-zen-bibl.txt - references to modern Zen Buddhism (1600-present) sesshin-conduct-guidelines.txt - description of Western Zen ritual/practice sesshin-evening-ceremony.txt - description of Western Zen ritual/practice sesshin-ino-notes.txt - description of Western Zen ritual/practice sesshin-jikijitsu-notes.txt - description of Western Zen ritual/practice sesshin-jisha-notes.txt - description of Western Zen ritual/practice sesshin-time-structure.txt - description of Western Zen ritual/practice south-american-zen.txt - interview with Augusto Alcalde Roshi (1991) szc-audiotapes-list.txt - catalogue of modern teishos and lectures (c.1987) szc-zen-poetry-file.txt - contemporary Australian Zen poetry tarrant-on-bread-for-life.txt - teisho by John Tarrant Roshi (1991) tarrant-on-luminous-life.txt - teisho by John Tarrant Roshi (1991) tarrant-on-tanks-and-pears.txt - teisho by John Tarrant Roshi (1991) western-zen-gathas.txt - paper by Gilly & Tony Coote of SZC (late 1980s) zen-email-directory.txt - Jun92 list of 15 e-mail addresses zen-precepts.txt - Sanbo Kyodan (Three Treasures) sutras (in English) zen-shodoka.txt - Sanbo Kyodan (Three Treasures) sutras (in English) /shamanism shamanism-bibliogr.txt.Z - G. Samuel's April 92 bibliogr. (57kb) on shamanism /taoism tao-teh-ching-intrpltion.txt.Z - May 92 amateur interpolation of the 5 western transl of the TTC taoism-bibliogr.txt.Z - B. Howarth's April 92 bibliogr. (94kb) on taoism ========================================================================== Details of the current holdings of the COOMBSPAPERS collection are given in it's INDEX file. They are also available via TELNET from one of the ARCHIE world-wide databases of files kept by the anonymous FTP sites (e.g. archie.au in Australia, archie.ans.net in USA [NY], archie.mcgill.ca in Canada or archie.funet.fi in Finland). Since 10th April 1992 the COOMBSPAPERS files are fully mirrored (on daily basis)by wuarchive.wustl.edu site located at the Washington University, St. Louis, USA[sub-directory /doc/coombspapers]. Since 10th April 1992 the COOMBSPAPERS files are fully mirrored (on weekly basis) by ftp.uu.net site located at the US national gateway, California, USA. [sub-directory /doc/coombspapers]. Since 16th April 1992 the COOMBSPAPERS files are fully mirrored (on irregular basis) by capella.eetech.mcgill.ca site located at the McGill Univ., Canada. [sub-directory /wuarchive/doc/coombspapers]. Since 28th April 1992 the COOMBSPAPERS files are fully mirrored (on weekly basis) by samba.acs.unc.edu site located at the Univ. of Nth Carolina, USA. [sub-directory pub/wuarchive/doc/coombspapers]. These arrangements allow people in North America and Europe to fetch copies of articles without having to traverse the overloaded trans-Pacific link. ========================================================================== From: lyeh@alleg.edu (Hun Lye) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: The joy of "letting go" according to Buddhism...5 The joy of "letting-go" according to Buddhism...5 In the practice of "letting go", a question that comes up is "how useful is religious convention?" or "what is the role of a teacher?" Within Buddhism, depending on which tradition you are coming from, you would respond to the above questions in different ways. Especially in the Vajrayana tradition, the role of the lama is very important. It is said that without the lama's (guru's) blessings not much can be accomplished. This is particularly true when we are refering to the role of a lama in higher tantras. However, in this article I will be taking the approach of the Thai Forest tradition (again, it is only my understanding of the Thai forest tradition and not a definitive statement of the tradition). I hope I have accurately understood and presented the teachings of the Thai Forest tradition (with particular reference to Ajahn Chah's "lineage") Some of us are very attached to religious conventions. For example, in the east most people practice Buddhism as a set of religious conventions they inherit from their parents and elders. We go through a whole series of ceremonies, rites, festivals day after day, month after month and year after year. For some of us this is our way of life and it's fine. For others, it has become meaningless and useless and we abandon them. And yet for some, it is the *only* way of life and anything less than that is not worth living for. Of those who find the traditional conventions meaningless, some would try to find the meanings that used to be behind all those conventions and try to appreciate them. For others, they abandon the conventions completely and substitute them with something else. As for the west, we observe that many people who practice Buddhism or some other eastern religious tradition tend to hold to the conventions very seriously. Some get to the point of thinking and arguing that "our tradition is the best, in fact it's the ONLY". "Mahayana is "greater" than Therevada - we are more compassionate, we have more skilful means!" "Oh no, you're utterly wrong. We Theravadins are more pure, we accurately preserved the Buddha's teachings. You others have corrupted the *original teachings*" And it goes on and on. Isn't all this grasping? Isn't all this just a different kind of junk that we carry around us? Now that we have "given up" or become totally "detached" from arguing whether "*my* house is bigger and better than *yours*" or "*my* Lamborghini attracts more attention than *your* Audi" or "*my* dress is more expensive than *yours*; let's start arguing on *my* tradition, *my* lineage, the meditation *I* practice, the teacher *I* am training with. This is just another sickness. It's just another trap set in another place but essentially trapping the same "victim". If you think compassion, skillful means, purity and accuracy with regards to the original teachings can appear out of arguing and debating, you've missed the point. You've just created more duhkha for yourself. Practice is about recognising duhkha and its nature and NOT about creating duhkha. Religious conventions and teachers are there to help and guide. Like all things they can be traps or keys. It again comes back to our relationship with others. Are we forming a "grasping and attaching" relationship? Or are we having a relationship that is non-grasping? Is our practice dependent on these conventions and teachers? I remember one teacher advising us to contemplate this "is my practice dependent on religious conventions and teachers so that if those things are not there, my practice collapses?" For example, I am very inspired by the Dalai Lama and my refuge Master. That's okay. But the real test comes when someone says something nasty about either the Dalai Lama or my refuge master, what is my reaction? To tell you the truth, I use to (not so frequent now but not entirely non-existent!) get very upset! I get mad at whoever was passing a negative remark about my inspirations. "How can you say that about *MY* master?" "You ignorant fool, you know nothing better but to slander the Dalai Lama - you know what? Just wait and see; your karma's gonna get *YOU*!" Isn't this foolish? Isn't this more rubbish to carry around in our minds? Instead of being keys to the calmness and coolnes of "letting-go", my grasping mind has turned the Dalai Lama and my refuge master into traps! Again, what if the Dalai Lama decides to disrobe settle down? Is that going to affect my practice? Is my practice dependent on what others do or say? What if my refuge Master's disciples are convicted of bank robbery? Is that going to affect my practice of "letting-go"? The ability to not let others affect your practice is a sign of maturity in practice. Of course I am not saying we should blindly follow anyone. But rather, if you have any teacher or inspiration, make sure you don't make them into traps. Establish a healthy relationship with them. But if you find yourself on the verge of setting up a trap for yourself, recognise it and get out of it. It is easy to allow ourselves to build the trap because we don't want to appear as if we have failed and leave a teacher or a community. But this is not practice - this is grasping. the least you can do in practice is to be true. The opposite to this is to think we must be totally free from all conventions and teachers. We reject all conventions and imagine that now we are truly free. We see others practicing with their gurus and "pity" them for being so stupid as to imagine that they are ever free under a teacher. We say that we are free from all authority and we don't want to do anything with conventions or teachers. This is another trap! This way of relating to things only shows that we don't understnad the nature of things, i.e. non-self, impermanence and duhkha. We think that conventions and teachers are definitely traps and they are only out to get us! we do not recognise that nothing has a definite "self" in them and the problem don't lie so much in things themselves but in the kind of relationship we establish with things. To quote one teacher, imagine that you are confined in a prison cell. Someone comes by and gives you the key to open the door. What do you do with it? You take it and hang it on the wall of your cell and say "oh...this great savior gave me this key, it must be powerful, I shall bow down to it and have faith in it". This goes on for days and we keep bowing and believing in that key. After sometime we realise that we have been "cheated" by this great savior. Sometime later this great savior gives us another key - what do we do? We throw the key out of the window and say "to be truly free, I don't need the key. Last time I had so much faith in the key but nothing happenend therefore I am not going to have anything to do with this key anymore!". Isn't this foolish? The wise one knows what the precise relationship between herself and the key should be. But the foolish one either becomes attached to it or despises it. When you are still in "confinement" - use the key wisely and don't throw it away. When you're out of the prison, then you can do what you like to the key. Perhaps give it to someone else who needs it? It is our relationship with others that decide whether they are going to be traps or keys. Inherently, they are neither traps nor keys. Potentially they can be traps or keys. So, trap or key? The choice is ours. Practice should issue from non-grasping and letting-go and culminate in non-grasping and lettin-go! The above is based on my own experience and teachings received from teachers. It is not meant to be definitive. If it is useful, take it. If it's not, leave it alone and don't let it bother you. Just let-go! This particular post is NOT meant as a response to the on-going debate about the guru/disciple discussion in this net. From: RADAMS@cerritos.edu (Roger Adams) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Undreamed of Possibilities (Part 1) "When you go beyond the consciousness of this world, knowing that you are not the body or the mind, and yet aware as never before that you exist - that divine consciousness is what you are. You are That in which is rooted everything in the universe." Paramahansa Yogananda [The following is a brief excerpt from a free booklet called _Undreamed Of Possibilites, printed by Self-Realization Fellowship Copyright 1982 by Self-Realization Fellowship. If anyone wants more information on SRF or information on how to get this booklet, send me email for address of Self-Realization Fellowship]. "Ordinarily our awareness and energies are directed outward, to the things of this world, which we perceive through the limited instruments of the five senses. Because human reason has to rely upon the partial and often deceptive data supplied by the physical senses, we must learn to tap deeper and more subtle levels of awareness if we would solve the enigmas of life - Who am I? Why am I here? How do I realize Truth? Yoga is a simple process of reversing the ordinary outward flow of energy and consciousness so that the mind becomes a dynamic center of direct per- ception - no longer dependent upon the fallibe senses but capable of actually experiencing Truth. In past centuries many of the higher techniques of Yoga were little under- stood or practiced, owing to humankind's limited knowledge of the forces that run the universe. But today scientific investigation is rapidly changing the way we view ourselves and the world. The traditional materialistic con- ception of life has vanished with the discovery that matter and energy are essentially one: every existing substance can be reduced to a pattern or form of energy, which interacts and interconnects with other forms. Thus modern science is confirming the ancient principles of Yoga, which proclaim that unity pervades the universe. The word yoga itself means "union": of the individual consciousness or soul with the Universal Consciousness or Spirit. There are various paths of Yoga that lead toward this goal, each one a specialized branch of one comprehensive system: Hatha Yoga- a system of physical postures, or asanas, whose higher purpose is to purify the body, giving one awareness and control over its internal states and rendering it fit for meditation. Karma Yoga- selfless service to others as part of one's larger Self, without attachment to the results; and the performance of all actions with the consciousness of God as the Doer. Mantra Yoga- centering the consciousness within through japa, or the repetition of certain universal root-word sounds representing a particular aspect of Spirit. Bhakti Yoga- all-surrendering devotion through which one strives to see and love the divinity in every creature and in everything, thus maintaining an unceasing worship. Jnana Yoga- the path of wisdom, which emphasizes the application of dis- criminative intelligence to achieve spiritual liberation. Raja Yoga- the royal or highest path of Yoga, formally systematized in the second century B.C. by the Indian sage Patanjali, which combines the essence of all the other paths. At the heart of the Raja Yoga system, balancing and unifying these various approaches, is the practice of definite, scientific methods of meditation that enable one to perceive, from the very beginning of one's efforts, glimpses of the ultimate goal - conscious union with the inexhaustibly blissful Spirit. Such methods are an integral part of the Self-Realization Fellowship teachings." "It is not a pumping-in from the outside that gives wisdom; it is the power and extent of your inner receptivity that determines how much you can attain of true knowledge, and how rapidly. You can quicken your evolution by awakening and increasing the receptive power of you brain cells." Paramahansa Yogananda The Science of Kriya Yoga "The quickest and most effective approach to the goal of Yoga employs those methods of meditation that deal directly with energy and consciousness. It is this direct approach that characterizes Kriya Yoga, the particular system of meditation taught by Paramahansa Yogananda. Specifically, Kriya is an advanced Raja Yoga technique that reinforces and revitalizes subtle currents of life energy in the body, enabling the normal activities of heart and lungs to slow down naturally. As a result, the consciousness is drawn to higher levels of perception, gradually bringing about an inner awakening more blissful and more deeply satisfying than any of the experiences that the mind or the senses or the ordinary human emotions can give. All scriptures declare (wo)man to be not a corruptible body, but a living soul. The ancient science of Kriya Yoga reveals a way to prove this scriptural truth. Referring to the sure and methodical efficacy of devoted practice of the Kriya science, Paramahansa Yogananda declared: 'It works like mathematics; it cannot fail'." ---------- The Autobiography of a Yogi gives an excellent description of Kriya Yoga for those who are interested. Self-Realization Fellowship carries on the work of Paramahansa Yogananda and is the sole authorized source of his teachings. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 (Roger Adams) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Undreamed-of Possibilites (Continued) "The aftereffects of Kriya bring with them the utmost peace and bliss. The joy that comes with Kriya is greater than the joys of all pleasurable sensations put together." Paramahansa Yogananda [The following is a brief excerpt from a free booklet called _Undreamed-of Possibilites_, printed by Self-Realization Fellowship Copyright 1982 by Self-Realization Fellowship. If anyone wants more information on SRF or information on how to get this booklet, send me email for address of Self-Realization Fellowship]. Self-Realization Lessons "Through a series of printed lessons that can be studied at home, Self-Realization students devote themselves to a period of preliminary study and meditation in order to prepare themselves physically, mentally, and spiritually for Kriya practice. During this time they learn three important techniques of the Self-Realization teachings: 1. Technique of Energization: enables one to draw energy consciously into the body from the Cosmic Source. This technique of life-energy control purifies and strengthens the body and prepares it for meditation, making it easier to direct the energy inward in order to reach higher states of consciousness. Regular practice also promotes mental and physical relaxation and develops dynamic will power. 2. Technique of Concentration: helps to develop one's latent powers of concentration. Through practice of this technique one learns to withdraw thought and energy from outward distractions so that they may be focused on any goal to be achieved or problem to be solved. Or one may direct that concentrated attention toward realizing the Divine Consciousness within. 3. Technique of Meditation: shows one how to use the power of concentration in the highest way - to discover and develop the divine qualities of one's own true Self. The technique expands the awareness beyond limitations of body and mind to the joyous realization of one's infinite potential. Since Yoga is based on practice and experience rather than adherence to a particular set of beliefs, followers of all religions can benefit from these techniques. When practiced regularly, the methods of Yoga lead unfailingly to deeper levels of spiritual awareness and perception. After the preliminary period of study and practice, which takes about a year to complete, students may decide whether they want to receive Kriya Yoga, which signifies the establishment of the disciple-guru (see footnote on _guru_) relationship. Before making such a decision, however, all students - whether already versed in metaphysics and meditation or just beginning - study the first two steps of the Self-Realization Lessons and practice the three techniques described above. These techniques prepare the body and mind to receive the liberating power of Kriya Yoga. And such practice also gives students the opportunity to apply the teachings and make them a part of their lives and consciousness before deciding to go on to Kriya Yoga. Should students wish, they may continue to study the teachings and practice the basic methods of meditation taught in the Lessons without receiving Kriya Yoga. All those who are sincere and earnest in their practice will realize for themselves the truth in Paramahansa Yogananda's assurance that one can reach the highest states of Divine Consciousness through any of the Self-Realization techniques of concentration and meditation. *Guru = Spiritual teacher (from the Sanskrit gu, 'darkness', and ru, 'that which dispels'). The real meaning of the word guru is sometimes lost sight of. Today it is commonly misused to refer simply to a teacher or instructor. But a true, God-illumined guru is one who, in her/his attainment of self- mastery, has realized her/his identity with the omnipresent Spirit. Such a one is uniquely qualified to lead the seeker on her or his inward journey toward perfection." ---------- The Autobiography of a Yogi gives an excellent description of Kriya Yoga for those who are interested. Self-Realization Fellowship carries on the work of Paramahansa Yogananda and is the sole authorized source of his teachings. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: wong@rkna50.riken.go.jp (Wong Weng Fai) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: Obaku Zen Hi, Bill writes ... >Are you sure about Huang Po being founder of the Obaku school ? The >Shambala Dictionary of Zen/Buddhism says this is pure folklore, and >Dumoulin seems to indicate that this school was started in Japan >centuries after Buddhism had all but died in China - he also does not >mention Huang Po as being its founder. > >Yours in Dharma, >-Bill The Shambala Dictionary may or may not be right - depends on who's point of view you take. Here's what I managed to come up with so far. Huang-po is actually the name of a kind of Chinese cork tree. There is a place in Fujian, China, called Mt. Huang-po. In 789, a monk named Chen-gan set up a small temple there. The famous Huang-po Xi-yun (?-850) was brought up from that temple. Xi-yun (I'll avoid the confusion by rudely refering to his name) was, of course, the teacher of the famous Lin-Zhi (?-867) founder of Rinzai Zen. Xi-yun's left his teachings in just one book (which I do not have the priviledge of reading). Xi-yun also taught at various places. The guys at Mt. Huang-po after Xi-yun, however, do consider themselves a separate Zen entity. This was not widely accepted though as Huang-po is not included in the traditional classification of the "5 Families, 7 Sects of Chinese Chan". Anyway, during the Ming dynasty, the emperor built a new temple on Mt. Huang-po, the Man-fu Temple. One monk from that temple, Ingen Ryuki, was invited to go to Japan in 1654. He is the founder of Obaku Zen in Japan. In 1661, he built a temple in Kyoto and named it Manpuku Temple, which when written in Chinese is Man-fu Temple. In 1874, Obaku Zen combined with Rinzai Zen (in Japan) but merely 9 years later, they parted ways again. One of the major contribution of Obaku was the complete printing of the Ming Chinese Tripitaka. As I described in another post, Pure Land elements were incorporated into Chinese Zen. I am not sure though whether the Pure Land element in Obaku came from the Chinese side or the Japanese side. My guess is that the former is more likely. Today, Obaku Zen has about 400 temples and 200,000 adherents. And another thing ... Buddhism never "died out" in China - even Communist China. I hope that clarifies the situation. with Metta, W.F. Wong. PS : Source for the above info : H. Nakamura (ed), "New Buddhist Dictionary", (in Japanese) 1979. From: mcfarlan@zeno.math.washington.edu (Thomas J. McFarlane) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Symmetry and the Middle Way (An essay--Long) The following is an essay I wrote some time ago that may be of interest to readers of soc.religion.eastern. It relates the concept of symmetry in mathematics and science to the concept of the Middle Way in Buddhism, as well as to analogous concepts in other religious traditions. Comments on this essay are welcome. Symmetry n. 1. (beauty resulting from) right proportion between the parts of the body or any whole, balance, congruity, harmony. 2. such structure as allows of an object's being divided by a point or line or plane or radiating lines or planes into two or more parts exactly the same in size and shape and similar in position relatively to the the dividing point etc., repetition of exactly similar parts facing each other or a centre; [f Gk summetria: sum like + metron measure.] --The Concise Oxford Dictionary. I will show in this paper how the above definition of symmetry may be generalized to a universal principle. Far from being limited to art and geometry, the essence of symmetry pervades the world at every level. Just as the artist mirrors the world and reveals its symmetrical structure, so does the mathematician, physicist, and religious philosopher. Symmetry is the archetypal key that unlocks the true nature of the world. Let us begin our investigation of symmetry with a simple example. Consider an isosceles triangle with a horizontal base and two equal sides that meet directly above the midpoint of the base. (Draw yourself a picture.) Since a vertical line through the center of the triangle bisects it into two equal halves, such a line is an axis of symmetry. This symmetry is called a reflection symmetry since an imagined reflection along this axis leaves the triangle unchanged. Note that any other line does not have this property. Next suppose that the length of the base is equal to the length of the two other sides, i.e., all three sides are equal. (Draw another picture.) In addition to the symmetry axis just described, we now have two other axes of symmetry. (Can you find them?) Upon reflection through any one of these three lines, the triangle remains unchanged. Choose any other line, however, and the triangle will end up different upon reflection. Now notice that this triangle also has a rotational symmetry: if you rotate the triangle around the point at its center by 120 degrees or 240 degrees, it is not changed. Rotation by any other angle, however, will leave the triangle different. You can experiment with other figures in the same way to discover their symmetries. (What are the reflection and rotation symmetries of a square? A rectangle? A circle?) In each case, the principle is the same: how can you change the figure so that it is left unchanged? This formulation of the idea behind symmetry suddenly reveals a paradox: we want to at once change the figure and leave it unchanged, create a difference and yet leave it the same. What's going on here? Let's return to our example of the triangle and try to isolate these opposing elements of difference and sameness. On the one hand, we recognize that symmetry without any distinction is impossible, for if the vertices of our triangle are really identical then a symmetrical "change" does not change anything at all, so there can be no symmetry. On the other hand, symmetry with absolute distinction is also impossible, for if the vertices are really distinct then the change does not leave anything unchanged, so there is no symmetry in this case either. The point here is that there can be no symmetry if difference is taken as real or unreal. The harmony of symmetry is revealed upon the recognition that distinction is neither real nor unreal. When we recognize it as imagined, the distinction becomes transparent to the underlying unity, and archetypal symmetry unfolds as the harmonious play of our imagined distinctions amidst the abiding unity. Thus, rather than mistaking symmetry for the extremes of unity or diversity we see it truly as the playful creation of diversity-in-unity. From this simple example of the triangle we have extracted an archetypal principle which applies in general: whenever we find an underlying unity amidst apparent distinction, we have an instance of symmetry. But since all distinctions are only imagined, in truth there is always unity beneath apparent diversity, and thus symmetry is the true nature of every distinction. Moreover, since every object's existence (literally "to stand out") depends on its distinction from a background, symmetry reveals the true nature of all existence. "All things were made by it," we read in John 1:3, "and without it was not anything made that was made." We have thus found the archetypal principle at the heart of all creation. As Plato put it in Philebus 15D, "we say that the one and many become identified by thought, and that now, as in time past, they run about together, in and out of every word which is uttered, and that this union of them. . .[is] an everlasting quality of thought itself, which never grows old." In his Commentary on Plato's Parmenides, Proclus adds, "The cosmos is not a unity here and a plurality there, but a unity and a plurality at the same time throughout its whole being. . .and there is nothing you can take within it that is not both one and many." The 20th century mystical philosopher Franklin Merrell-Wolff described this principle of symmetry as Equilibrium, the Law which appears as subject-object relationship. This symmetry of subject and object is revealed in the ultimate mystical insight: the recognition of the imaginary nature of the subject-object distinction, and hence the underlying identity of subject and object. Every object that comes into being is thus governed by this harmony of diversity -in-unity, this Logos mediating between the one and the many. Just as we applied the principle of symmetry to the triangle, so we can apply this analysis of relationship to any object whatsoever, revealing the symmetry in all relationships, the unity amidst all distinctions. As Simone Weil writes in her book Intimations of Christianity, "By analogical transposition [these relationships] furnish the key to the whole of human knowledge. There is great profit in meditating indefinitely upon these relationships."--which is just what the Buddhists have done for 2500 years. An analytic meditation on the true nature of distinctions forms the foundation of their philosophic practice. Through meditation on the symmetry of all objects we follow the Middle Way between the extremes of real and unreal, walk the razor's edge along the straight and narrow path. This is what you must do, Plato tells us in Parmenides 136C, "if you would train yourself perfectly and see the real truth." Let us take this sagely advice and apply this analysis to objects other than the triangle. Consider these words before you right now. They appear as objects distinct from you. Now let us investigate the nature of this distinction. Suppose there is a real distinction between you and these words. Then since you and the words are absolutely distinct and independent of each other, there is no common basis, and hence there can be no way for you and the words to relate. But this contradicts your awareness of them right now: since you have an immediate apprehension of these words right now, they cannot possibly be completely distinct from you. On the other hand, suppose that the distinction is absolutely unreal, that there is no distinction whatsoever between you and these words. This also contradicts your awareness of them right now, for your awareness of these words is made possible by the fact that there is distinction between you and them: with no distinction whatsoever, there can not be any words at all. Therefore these words are neither absolutely distinct nor absolutely nondistinct from you. This analysis passes between the extremes, negating the exclusive claims of both absolute distinction and absolute nondistinction. Without making any positive assertions, it show us our error simply by refuting the extremes on their own grounds. Thus the analysis (literally, to loosen up, to free) liberates us from our clinging by revealing the contradictions inherent in holding onto one extreme or the other. In particular situations in our lives, we often find ourselves clinging repeatedly to an extreme. In order to free us from this extreme, we apply the half of the analysis that refutes it. For example, to develop compassion toward objects of aversion, we apply the half that shows the error of absolute distinction. On the other hand, to develop detachment from objects of identification, we apply the half that shows the error of absolute nondistinction. This amounts to the practice of discrimination. In either case, the archetypal symmetry guides us along the razor's edge between extremes. And through the recognition of symmetry in our lives, the true nature of creation comes into focus until it is all seen to be the symmetrical play of imagined distinctions in utter unity. In addition to revealing the true harmony of symmetry, this understanding of the imaginary nature of distinction also shows us how paradoxes and illusions arise. When we cling to the imaginary distinctions as real, the underlying unity is denied and the two distinct triangles cannot be related in any way. Conversely, when we cling to the imaginary distinctions as unreal, the difference is denied and there are then no distinct triangles to be related. In either case, there is ignorance of unity-in-diversity, and hence a denial of symmetry. But since symmetry is the true nature of all things, we end up in conflict with the world. And in this illusion lies the true origin of all our suffering. The very existence of this world apart from its source is Maya, an illusion which breaks symmetry, or ruptures equilibrium. As Simone Weil writes, "the energy which moves [the universe] is the principle of rupture of equilibrium. But, nevertheless, this becoming, composed of ruptures of equilibrium, is in reality an equilibrium because the ruptures of equilibrium compensate each other." Or in the words of Merrell-Wolff, "An object exists as a tension. Although, in the ultimate sense, every tension is balanced by its opposite phase, so the equilibrium is never actually destroyed, yet consciousness, taken in a partial aspect, may comprehend only one phase, or may be only imperfectly conscious of the counterphase. For this partial aspect of consciousness, equilibrium does not exist." Thus, although in reality everything is blended in a harmonious whole, through Maya we mistake the imagined asymmetry as real, and equilibrium is apparently ruptured. This is only a trick of the imagination, though, an unconsciousness of the true nature of things. In reality, there is no breaking of symmetry. Not even in Maya is symmetry really broken. It is only imagined as really broken--and that is Maya. In his book Kashmir Shaivaism, J. C. Chatterji describes this process of apparent division creating the world of Maya as an orderly unfolding. Indeed, "its operation is marked by steps or stages, which follow one another as logical necessities--each successive step following inevitably from the one preceding it, as the deduction of a certain conclusion of a particularised kind follows inevitably. . .from certain premises of a general type." In fact, G. Spencer-Brown has developed a mathematics of distinction which he compares to "Levels of Eternity." Beginning with the Void, we create a single distinction, and out of this a whole calculus of distinctions unfolds. As he once described these Laws of Form, "it's what would be if distinction could be." The lawful order of the universe and its mathematical structure are thus seen as a direct consequence of the principle of symmetry, the nature of distinction. We can now understand the creation of this illusory world as a symmetry-breaking process which veils the underlying unity, leaving behind the residue of a divided world. Conversely, through insight we rediscover the lost unity and return back to the recognition of the ultimate unity of all things in symmetry. The One is both our origin and destiny. In this world of apparent diversity, symmetry is both the link to our origin and the key to our destiny, connecting diversity with unity on every level. Although physics deals with levels far removed from the original Void, we can still clearly see the symmetry-breaking process in its theories. >From the universal laws, we descend down through progressive imposition of conditions which distinguish one situation from another and limit the laws accordingly. Beginning with the universal law of gravitation, for example, we impose constraints on the equation so that it describes our particular experimental conditions, say an apple falling off a tree. The equation we thus deduce has only limited validity and is very different from the equation we might deduce for calculating the moon's orbit around the earth. Nevertheless, as Newton's genius was able to see, these two particular laws both derive from a single universal law of gravitation. So from the unity of a law we break the symmetry by imposing distinctions which limit its scope and validity. But if we recognize the universal law behind the derived particulars, the true symmetry is not lost. While the practical application of these physical laws pretends to break symmetry, insights such as Newton's bind broken symmetry back together. This act is therefore religious in the deepest meaning of the word. (religion: literally, to bind back.) So the whole of physics is a religious quest, for its purpose has always been to unify our understanding of nature, to rediscover the symmetry behind the apparently diverse phenomena. For example, when Maxwell discovered the equations which unified electricity and magnetism, separate laws pertaining to different parts of reality were united in a single, more universal law. Before Maxwell, the laws of electricity and magnetism were distinct. Now they are understood to be merely different manifestations of the same underlying electromagnetic laws. While electricity and magnetism still manifest as relatively distinct phenomena, today we recognize the identity behind these apparent differences, we see their symmetry. Thus, embedded in the mathematical representation of the world by physics we find the same archetypal principle as in the religious philosophies. With our vision guided by symmetry, we have glimpsed the inner meaning of both scientific and religious thought, united under one archetypal symbol. But this principle of symmetry offers us much more than a vague glimpse of the unity behind science and religion. It provides a deep mathematical foundation which can show this unity explicitly. From the perspective offered by such a unification, science and religion as we know them today would be seen as particular and limited views of the world which may be derived from a more comprehensive theory of symmetry. Such a theory would combine the coherence of mathematics with the spirit of religion to give us a truly sacred science. In the visionary words of Simone Weil, "I believe that one identical thought is to be found--expressed very precisely and with only slight differences of modality--in. . .Pythagoras, Plato, and the Greek Stoics. . .in the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita; in the Chinese Taoist writings and. . .Buddhism. . .in the dogmas of the Christian faith and in the writings of the greatest Christian mystics. . .I believe that this thought is the truth, and that it today requires a modern and Western form of expression. That is to say, it should be expressed through the only approximately good thing we can call our own, namely science. This is all the less difficult because it is itself the origin of science." --Tom McFarlane mcfarlan@math.washington.edu From: billc@devnull.mpd.tandem.com (Bill Carter) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: virtual conciousness So I was reading through the Oct. 10 issue of Science News the other day, and I came across an article on the nature of concious experience. It reminded me of the recent thread in this group about the soul, and who reincarnates. Here are some quotes from the article that I though were relevant. The scientific discipline is called "cognitive science". Much of the article deals with a book written by philosopher Daniel Dennett called "Conciousness Explained". From Science News; "Dennett compares human conciousness to an evolved "virtual machine", a sort of computer software program that shapes the activities of its hardware - the brain. The logical structure of the virtual machine relies on flexible rules that can incorporate one or more drafts [streams of information] into conciousness, fostering the deluded intuition that a single stream of conciousness pours forth." "Over the years, the brain's virtual machine composes the shifting representations of an individual's "self", which are based largely on social experiences, Dennett argues. The self exists as a crucial fiction for getting around in the world, not a real thing; if all goes well, the created self endows its owner with the capacity for free will and moral responsibility, he holds." "Conciousness neither interacts with the brain nor can it be reduced to a state or function of the brain, Velmans contends. Yet conciousness serves a purpose, he adds - it allows an individual to to experience enough of the world to endow his or her survival with a sense of purpose. In a nutshell, conciousness gives us the will to get on with our lives, even though unconcious processes orchestrate our thoughts and feelings." "Computer scientist Drew McDermott of Yale University summarizes the multiple drafts model this way: "I am a character in a story my brain is making up. Conciousness is a property I have by virtue of my brain's attributing it to me. ... If people are valuable, it is not because they are imperishable souls connected to bodies only for a brief sojourn, he asserts. For now, we just have to take it as a postulate that creatures that invent concious selves are to be cherished and protected more than other information-processing systems." --------------- Just another virtual machine, Bill Carter From: U30776@UICVM.UIC.EDU (Benson Lo) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: The Giving Rise of the Ten Kinds of Mind of the Bodhisattva "The Buddha addressed Maitreya saying: `Maitreya, the ten minds like this cannot be brought forth by any common foolish and unskilful man who is full of defilements. What are the ten? Firstly, to give rise to great loving kindness towards all beings with a mind free from injuring and harming. Secondly, to give rise to great compassion towards all beings with a mind free from harrassing and vexing. Thirdly, not to spare one's life with regard to all the true Dharmas of the Buddha with a mind of rejoicing in protecting them. Fourthly, to develop supreme endurance regarding all Dharmas with a mind free from clinging and grasping. Fifthly, not to be covetous for gain, support and respect with a mind that esteems the pure bliss of mind. Sixthly, to search for Buddha wisdom at all times with a mind free from forgetfulness and negligence. Seventhly, to be towards all beings reverential and respectful with a mind free from contempt and disdain. Eighthly, not to hold worldly discussions but give rise to a determined mind regarding the factors of illumination. Ninthly, to plant all good roots with a pure mind that is not adulterated and stained. Tenthly, to give up and discard all the characteristics as regards all the Tathagatas giving rise to a mind of continuous recollection (of them). Maitreya, this is called the giving rise of ten kinds of mind of the Bodhisattva. It is because out of this mind that one will obtain rebirth in the World of Highest Bliss of Amithaba Buddha. If a man regarding these ten kinds of mind follows them and achieves one pointedness of mind. If he were to have a longing to be reborn in that Buddha world and would not obtain birth there, this would be an impossibility.'" * From the ARYA ADHYASAYA SANCODANA NAMA MAHAYANA SUTRA OF THE MAHARATINAKUTA-SUTRA TAISHO TRIPITAKA NO. 310 Translated from Chinese by Saddhaloka Bhikkhu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Benson Lo | "As like a deep spring u30776@uicvm.cc.uic.edu | clear, still, pure and lucid UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS | are the wise hearing Dharma AT CHICAGO | with a pure mind rejoicing." | -- Dharmapada ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: kish@athos.rutgers.edu (Bill Kish) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: Obaku Zen > Anyway, during the Ming dynasty, the emperor built a new temple on > Mt. Huang-po, the Man-fu Temple. One monk from that temple, Ingen Ryuki, was > invited to go to Japan in 1654. He is the founder of Obaku Zen in Japan. Dumoulin points to Ingen Ryuki as the provisional founder. I'm not sure what sources were used in making the Shambhala dictionary I quoted before, so I can't substantiate the non-Huang-po view any further than this. > And another thing ... Buddhism never "died out" in China - even > Communist China. I did say "all but died out". Master Sheng-yan (who now splits his tims between Taiwan and Queens NYC) is living testament to Buddhism having survived in China. But you have to admit, however, that Buddhism in China has been riding a centuries long decline. And as much as I'd like to see a Buddhist revival in the PRC, certain causes and conditions would seem to make this unlikely at the moment. Yours in Dharma, -Bill