B U D D H I S M I N A N U T S H E L L ============================================== Chapter Four IS BUDDHISM AN ETHNICAL SYSTEM? It no doubt contains an excellent ethnical code which is unparalleled in its perfection and altruistic attitude. It deals with one way of life for the monks and another for the laity. But Buddhism is much more than an ordinary moral teaching. Morality is only the preliminary stage on the Path of Purity, and is a means to an end, but not an end in itself. Conduct, though essential, is itself insufficient to gain one's emancipation. It should be coupled with wisdom or knowledge (panna). The base of Buddhism is morality, and wisdom is its apex. In observing the principles of morality a Buddhist should not only regard his own self but should also have a consideration for others as well -- animals not excluded. Morality in Buddhism is not founded on any doubtful revelation nor is it the ingenious invention of an exceptional mind, but it is a rational and practical code based on verifiable facts and individual experience. It should be mentioned that any external supernatural agency plays no part whatever in the moulding of the character of a Buddhist. In Buddhism there is no one to reward or punish. Pain or happiness are the individual results of one's actions. The question of incurring the pleasure or displeasure of a God does not enter the mind of a Buddhist. Neither hope of reward nor fear of punishment acts as an incentive to him to do good or to refrain from evil. A Buddhist is aware of future consequences, but he refrains from evil because it retards, does good because it aids progress to Enlightenment (Bodhi). There are also some who do good because it is good, refrain from evil because it is bad. To understand the exceptionally high standard of morality the Buddha expects from His ideal followers, one must carefully read the Dharmapada, Sigalovada Sutta, Vyaggapajja Sutta, Mangala Sutta, Karaniya Sutta, Parabhava Sutta, Vasala Sutta, Dhammika Sutta, etc. As a moral teaching it excels all other ethnical systems, but morality is only the beginning and not the end of Buddhism. In one sense Buddhism is not a philosophy, in another sense it is the philosophy of philosophies. In one sense Buddhism is not a religion, in another sense it is the religion of religions. Buddhism is neither a metaphysical path nor a ritualistic path. It is neither sceptical nor dogmatic. It is neither self-mortification nor self-indulgence. It is neither pessimism nor optimism. It is neither eternalism nor nihilism. It is neither absolutely this-worldly nor other-worldly. It is a unique Path of Enlightenment. The original Pali term for Buddhism is Dharma, which, literally, means that which upholds. There is no English equivalent that exactly conveys the meaning of the Pali term. The Dharma is that which really is. It is the Doctrine of Reality. It is a means of Deliverance from suffering, and Deliverance itself. Whether the Buddhas arise or not the Dharma exists. It lies hidden from the ignorant eyes of men, till a Buddha, an Enlightened One, realizes and compassionately reveals it to the world. This Dharma is not something apart from oneself, but is closely associated with oneself. As such the Buddha exhorts: "Abide with oneself as an island, with oneself as a Refuge. Abide with the Dharma as an island, with the Dharma as a refuge. Seek no external refuge."(Parinibbana Sutta). B U D D H I S M I N A N U T S H E L L ============================================== Chapter Five SOME SALIENT FEATURES OF BUDDHISM The foundations of Buddhism are the four Noble Truths -- namely, Suffering (the "raiscn d'etre" of Buddhism), its cause, i.e. Craving, its end, i.e. Nibbana (the Summum Bonum of Buddhism), and the Middle Way. What is the Noble Truth of Suffering? "Birth is suffering, old age is suffering, disease is suffering, death is suffering, to be united with the unpleasant is suffering, to be separated from the pleasant is suffering, not to receive what one craves for is suffering, in brief the five Aggregates of Attachment are suffering. What is the Noble Truth of the Cause of Suffering? "It is the craving which leads from rebirth to rebirth accompanied by lust of passion, which delights now here now there; it is the craving for sensual pleasures (Kamatanha), for existence (Bhavatanha) and for annihilation (Vibhavatanha). What is the Noble Truth of the Annihilation of Suffering? "It is the remainderless, total annihilation of this very craving, the forsaking of it, the breaking loose, fleeting, deliverance from it. What is the Noble Truth of the Path leading to the Annihilation of Suffering? "It is the Noble Eightfold Path which consists of right understanding, right thoughts, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right endeavour, right mindfulness, and right concentration." Whether the Buddhas arise or not, these four Truths exist in the universe. The Buddhas only reveal these Truths which lay hidden in the dark abyss of time. Scientifically interpreted, the Dharma may be called the law of cause and effect. These two embrace the entire body of the Buddha's Teachings. The first three represent the philosophy of Buddhism; the fourth represents the ethics of Buddhism, based on that philosophy. All these four truths are dependent on this body itself. The Buddha states: "In this very one-fathom long body along with perceptions and thoughts. do I proclaim the world, the origin of the world, the end of the world and the path leading to the end of the world." Here the term "world" is applied to suffering. Buddhism rests on the pivot of sorrow. But it does not thereby follow that Buddhism is pessimistic. It is neither totally pessimistic nor totally optimistic, but, on the contrary, it teaches a truth that lies midway between them. One would be justified in calling the Buddha a pessimist if He had only enunciated the Truth of suffering without suggesting a means to put an end to it. The Buddha perceived the universality of sorrow and did prescribe a panacea for this universal sickness of humanity. The highest conceivable happiness, according to the Buddha, is Nibbana, which is the total extinction of suffering. The author of the article on Pessimism in the Encyclopedia Britannica writes: "Pessimism denotes an attitude of hopelessness towards life, a vague general opinion that pain and evil predominate in human affairs. The original doctrine of the Buddha is in fact as optimistic as any optimism of the West. To call it pessimism is merely to apply to it a characteristically Western principle to which happiness is impossible without personality. The true Buddhist looks forward with enthusiasm to absorption into eternal bliss." Ordinarily the enjoyment of sensual pleasures is the highest and only happiness of the average man. There is no doubt a kind of momentary happiness in the anticipation, gratification and retrospection of such fleeting material pleasures, but they are illusive and temporary. According to the Buddha, non- attachment is a greater bliss. The Buddha does not expect His followers to be constantly pondering on suffering and lead a miserable unhappy life. He exhorts them to be always happy and cheerful for zest (Piti) is one of the factors of Enlightenment. Real happiness is found within, and is not to be defined in terms of wealth, children, honors or fame. If such possessions are misdirected, forcibly or unjustly obtained, misappropriated or even viewed with attachment, they will be a source of pain and sorrow to the possessors. Instead of trying to rationalize suffering, Buddhism takes suffering for granted and seeks the cause to eradicate it. Suffering exists as long as there is craving. It can only be annihilated by treading the Noble Eightfold Path and attaining the supreme bliss of Nibbana. These four Truths can be verified by experience. Hence the Buddha Dharma is not based on the fear of the unknown, but is founded on the bedlock of facts which can be tested by ourselves and verified by experience. Buddhism is, therefore, rational and intensely practical. Such a rational and practical system cannot contain mysteries or esoteric doctrines. Blind faith, therefore, is foreign to Buddhism. Where there is no blind faith, there cannot be any coercion or persecution or fanaticism. To the unique credit of Buddhism it must be said that throughout its peaceful march of 2500 years no drop of blood was shed in the name of the Buddha, no mighty monarch wielded his powerful sword to propagate the Dharma, and no conversion was made either by force or by repulsive methods. Yet, the Buddha was the first and the greatest missionary that lived on earth. Aldous Huxley writes: "Alone of all the great world religions Buddhism made its way without persecution censorship or inquisition." Lord Russell remarks: "Of the great religions of history, I prefer Buddhism, especially in its earliest forms; because it has had the smallest element of persecution." In the name of Buddhism no alter was reddened with the blood of Hypatia, no Bruno was burnt alive. Buddhism appeals more to the intellect than to the emotion. It is concerned more with the character of the devotees than with their numerical strength. On one occasion Upali, a follower of Nigantha Nataputta, approached the Buddha and was so pleased with the Buddha's exposition of the Dharma that he instantly expressed his desire to become a follower of the Buddha. But the Buddha cautioned him, saying: "Of a verity, O householder, make a thorough investigation. It is well for a distinguished man like you to make (first) a thorough investigation." Upali, who was overjoyed at this unexpected remark of the Buddha, said: "Lord, had I been a follower of another religion, its adherents would have taken me round the streets in a procession proclaiming that such and such a millionaire had renounced his former faith and embraced theirs. But, Lord, Your Reverence advises me to investigate further. The more pleased am I with this remark of yours. For the second time, Lord, I seek refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha." Buddhism is saturated with this spirit of free enquiry and complete tolerance. It is the teaching of the open mind and the sympathetic heart, which, lighting and warming the whole universe with its twin rays of wisdom and compassion, sheds its genial glow on every being struggling in the ocean of birth and death. The Buddha was so tolerant that He did not even exercise His power to give commandments to His lay followers. Instead of using the imperative, He said: "It behoves you to do this -- It behoves you not to do this." He commands not but does exhort. This tolerance the Buddha extended to men, women and all living beings. It was the Buddha who first attempted to abolish slavery and vehemently pretested against the degrading caste system which was firmly rooted in the soil of India. In the Word of the Buddha it is not by mere birth one becomes an outcast or a noble, but by one's action. Caste or color does not preclude one from becoming a Buddhist or from entering the Order. Fishermen, scavengers, courtesans, together with warriors and Brahmins, were freely admitted to the Order and enjoyed equal privileges and were also given positions of rank. Upali, the barber for instance, was made in preference to all others the chief in matters pertaining to Vinaya discipline. The timid Sunita, the scavenger, who attained Arahatship was admitted by the Buddha Himself into the Order. Angulimala, the robber and criminal, was converted to a compassionate saint. The fierce Alavaka sought refuge in the Buddha and become a saint. The courtesan Ambapali entered the Order and attained Arahatship. Such instances could easily be multiplied from the Tipitaka to show that the portals of Buddhism were wide open to all, irrespective of caste, color or rank. It was also the Buddha who raised the status od downtrodden women and not only brought them to a realization of their importance to society but also founded the first celibate religious order for women with rules and regulations. The Buddha did not humiliate women, but only regarded them as feeble by nature. He saw the innate good of both men and women and assigned to them their due places in His teaching. Sex is no barrier to attaining Sainthood. Sometimes the Pali term used to denote women is "Matugama", which means mother-folk or society of mothers. As a mother, a woman holds an honorable place in Buddhism. Even the wife is regarded as "the best friend" (parama sakha) of the husband. Hasty critics are only making ex parte statements when they reproach Buddhism with being inimical to women. Although at first the Buddha refused to admit women into the Order on reasonable grounds, yet later He yielded to the entreaties of His foster-mother, Pajapati Gotami, and founded the Bhikkuni Order. Just as the Arahats Sariputta and Moggallana were made the two chief disciples in the Order of monks, even so He appointed Arahats Khema and Uppalavanna as the two chief female disciples. Many other female disciples too were named by the Buddha Himself as His distinguished and pious followers. On one occasion the Buddha said to King Kosala who was displeased on hearing that a daughter was born to him: "A woman child, O Lord of men, may prove Even a better offspring than a male." Many women, who otherwise would haven fallen into oblivion, distinguished themselves in various ways, and gained their emancipation by following the Dharma and entering the Order. In this new Order, which later proved to be a great blessing to many women, queens, princesses, daughters of noble families, widows, bereaved mothers, destitute women, pitiable courtesans -- all, despite their caste or rank, met on a common platform, enjoyed perfect consolation and peace, and breathed that free atmosphere which is denied to those cloistered in cottages and palatial mansions. It was also the Buddha who banned the sacrifice of poor beasts and admonished His followers to extend their loving kindness (Metta) to all living beings -- even to the tiniest creature that crawls at one's feet. No man has the power or the right to destroy the life of another as life is precious to all. A genuine Buddhist would exercise this loving-kindness towards every living being and identify himself with all, making no distinction whatsoever with regard to caste, color or sex. It is this Buddhist Metta that attempts to break all the barriers which separate one from another. There is no reason to keep aloof from others merely because they belong to another persuasion or another nationality. In that noble Toleration Edict which is based on Culla-Vyuha and Maha-Vyuha Suttas, Asoka says: "Concourse alone is best, that is, all should harken willingly to the doctrine professed by others." Buddhism is not confined to any country or any particular nation. It is universal. It is not nationalism which, in other words, is another form of caste system founded on a wider basis. Buddhism, if it be permitted to say so, is supernationalism. To a Buddhist there is no far or near, no enemy or foreigner, no renegade or untouchable, since universal love realized through understanding has established the brotherhood of all living beings. A real Buddhist is a citizen of the world. He regards the whole world as his motherland and all as his brothers and sisters. Buddhism is, therefore, unique, mainly owing to its tolerance, non- aggressiveness, rationality, practicability, efficacy and universality. It is the noblest of all unifying influences and the only lever that can uplift the world. These are some of the salient features of Buddhism, and amongst some of the fundamental doctrines may be said -- Kamma or the Law of Moral Causation, the Doctrine of Rebirth, Anatta and Nibbana. 9203.19 John Cha writes: [Much historical material is omitted. I don't want to start a debate about historical theories, nor regarding the 'afterlife', since these are beyond me and I keep getting the feeling that people make them up as they go along] ..The doctrines of transiency and dependent co-arising are continuous throughout. Shouldn't this figure into your discussion? Response: I only mentioned the theories presented by that professor of religion because it seemed to conflict with your ideas. I don't really care what the 'reality' is, tending to think that such concepts as 'reality' are unsubstantial. With regard to the 'doctrines of transiency and dependent co-arising', I think that they are important ideas, but only that. If people sieze upon them, then that is their samsara. Note that I'm only suggesting all concepts are limited and, faced with experience, unsatisfactory. Whether 'the Buddha' said this or not is irrelevant, in my mind. The past is just another of the countless fictions people dream up to feel good about suffering. It is useless in the long run. John: In the Arya-paryesana-sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya it lists the various teachings the Buddha encountered during his ascetic years, and his renunciation of them, not due to [their] falsity, but because they were incomplete and not conducive to full emancipation. I would suggest that you take this into consideration too. Response: Nah, why bother? Fun ideas, but I'd rather spend my time in the present moment, intellectually even, rather than argue about what happened at some remote time in a fictional past. I say, leave it to you and my Buddhist Prof to hash out. The important point, for me, is that The Buddha is all things and no thing. Go figure. --------- original John: And the notion that Buddha is an incarnation of Vishnu, etc., is also, well how can I put it..., one cannot argue with this because one does not hold such beliefs (i.e., totally different premises) in incarnations, and the like. Buddha is considered a human, one who has attained emancipation via great spiritual efforts, but a human nonetheless. Of course we can get into the doctrine of the Bodhisattva but then remember the true Bodhisattva who preaches Dharma is No Bodhisattva who teaches No Dharma! Response: When I originally responded to you, I was not thinking clearly. Here is a better argument in response to you. Your comment that 'one does not hold such beliefs' strikes me as dogmatic and doctrinaire. I don't think that Buddhists, on the whole, can be said to believe any one thing or not believe any particular idea. In fact, my own perspective of Buddhists is that we do not engage in 'belief' so much as 'thought'. I don't tend to assume the accuracy of ANY specific concept. Each has its merits and faults. There is some truth I find in the idea that Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu. I also think that it is an unnecessary position to hold unless one places value in Vishnu as an Entity. Interesting that you talk about the 'true Bodhisattva'. I'd be interested in how you go about defining what a 'true one' is. Incarnation is a natural process. One becomes 'incarnated' into bodily form. Vishnu would be just as human (albeit with transcendental qualities thrown in) as any other. It sounds as if you posit a LARGE difference between God and Human in your theories. Is this accurate? If so, why? I'm speaking to you now, not to all those people who have different ideas OTHER than you. ;> ------------- original Tagi: Yet, I think that considering Buddha (and Jesus, etc.) incarnations of Vishnu makes a lot of sense to those who understand both traditions.... One comes to a deeper, more profound understanding of one's tradition if one has a grasp on the foundation from which it arises. Buddhism is no exception. To truly appreciate it, I think it helps to have a firm knowledge of Hinduism, orthodox AND unorthodox. John: In other words, all religions are in essence "Hindu". I cannot verify this since I am still enmeshed in prapanca, but I would suggest we all are (again I cannot verify this). Response: I don't see how you reach this conclusion. I'd also like to hear your definition of the term 'prapanca'. I don't think I've run across it before. John: If we can assume this our only recourse in this "illusory" discourse is to be critical in our discussion. Do you realize I cannot argue with you, [except] for mentioning I am familiar with Hinduism and its "orthodox" schools of thought? My suggestion would be to study them and the MASSIVE, in volume, Buddhist critique of all Hindu forms of thought. Again, do take this into consideration. Response: I am confused about the meaning of this passage. What does your familiarity with ANY text have to do with the reasonableness of considering Buddha an incarnation of Vishnu? Do you think that 'social reality', 'orthodoxy', if you will, determines Truth? I doubt it, yet your appeal to texts here seems to beg the question. Please elaborate, thank you. Perhaps you are saying, though, that it is simply illogical to consider the possibility of such an incarnation? I'm curious about what it is that strikes ANY writer as illogical with regard to this. Out of that MASSIVE critique does anyone make an argument from logic? I presume so. Can you come up with ONE example? Or do I have to read it all to find out the 'true story'? I'd balk, I have to warn you. ------- John: Terms arise from concepts, in the Buddhist tradition, and when I stated the arguments concerning atman it is from the texts themselves. In the Madhyamika tradition, the Atman (yes the Hindu notion), and all derivative aspects of "It" are merely the product [of] mental fabrication. Emancipation IS the uprooting of the Atman illusion, BOTH as the notion of specific individuality and as the Ultimate, unchanging core of existence. The Yogacara likewise asserts the non-substantiality of Atman and lists both the concept of Atman as individuality AND as the ultimate as articulated by the various Hindu schools. If you want I can list the sources and page numbers. Response: My understanding of Buddhism, specifically the Middle Way School, is that any extreme views (i.e. that there IS an Atman *or* that there ISN'T an Atman) are false. What you state above seems to be completely counter to the emptiness philosophy as I know it. I don't claim to be an expert, however. Please explain why your assertion is not an extreme. Note: You did not address my question... was Buddhism wiped out of India? Are there now no Buddhists there? I was under the impression that there were yet a substantial number. Please at least express your views, as I don't care about 'relevant source material references' that back up any historical theories. I just like to hear the stories. -------- John: "Dharma" has different connotations, and the "hinduism=dharmaism" implies the law aspect of dharma, i.e., duty in social station. Though the terms are the same the meaning is quite different. Response: This seems unclear to me. Please give as many different meanings for the term 'dharma' as you can reasonably put forward in such small space. Also, please explain your last sentence above. Which terms are the same with different meanings? Hinduism and Dharmaism? -------- original Tagi: Also, if I may be so bold, perhaps Christianity is a pagan cult gone dogmatic in the same way that Buddhism is a Hindu cult gone wild. I'm suggesting that Buddhism is a subset of Hinduism (those traditions that arose within the geography of the Indus Valley Region) in the same sense that one might consider Christianity a subset of Paganism (albeit adversarial toward its competitors). There is some substance behind this assertion. I hope it is not simply dismissed out of hand. I don't know how much analysis it can stand, however. John: Define "cult". And which religion is "the standard" from which you justify the label 'cult'? Its not that you are incorrect, but I sense if not an infinite regress, surely one that reaches far past recorded history. Response: I mean by 'cult' a sect of a religion. Perhaps 'sect' is a better term here, yet the dogmatic, fanatical elements which create religions are sometimes described as 'cults' in other contexts. ISKCON is a good example. While it is, as I understand it, mainstream Hinduism it is considered 'cult-like' by those who study such things. The standards in the above I thought were obvious. For Christianity it would be Judaism and all the other Western orthodox and unorthodox sects. I call these 'Paganism' because Christianity likes to define itself in contrast to what it calls 'Pagan Religions'. I think that it has so many elements of what preceded it that it cannot legitimately call itself something new. I think that there is a case to be made for the same analysis of Buddhism. The standard from which Buddhism came is the complex of sects we have called 'Hinduism'. It is also interesting to me that both of these sects revolve around what they call 'historical legitimacy'. In Angus' tome on Christianity and the Mystery Religions, he makes the point that the reason that Christianity did as well as it did was because it was a personal, historical tradition. Both Buddhism and Christianity arose within cultures which were focussed on what the magical community would call 'telesmic images' or 'archetypes' and what the religious community would call 'gods'. Perhaps these two sects survived and prospered because they both offered a connection between the 'transcendent' and 'the man in the field', to the extent that Christ the Martyr could be emulated and Gotama the Buddha could be followed, it paved a road that is enticing and seemingly traversible. Brahma, Shiva, Kali, Jehovah, and Allah don't have this rather personal and historical advantage. Note that I don't make any claim for the ACCURACY of the theories reputed to be historical. Also, I don't why you talk about 'infinite regress' and historicity with regard to my argument here. Please elaborate if it is still relevant given my clarification. Yours in presentation, Tagi In article <1992Mar20.193604.19583@cco.caltech.edu> portal!cup.portal.com!Tagi@uunet.UU.NET writes: >9203.19 > >John Cha writes: > >[Much historical material is omitted. I don't want to start a debate about >historical theories, nor regarding the 'afterlife', since these are beyond >me and I keep getting the feeling that people make them up as they go along] > >..The doctrines of transiency and dependent co-arising are >continuous throughout. Shouldn't this figure into your discussion? > > >Response: > >I only mentioned the theories presented by that professor of religion >because it seemed to conflict with your ideas. I don't really care >what the 'reality' is, tending to think that such concepts as 'reality' >are unsubstantial. Do you understand my "ideas"? Who said anything about 'reality', anyway? >With regard to the 'doctrines of transiency and dependent co-arising', >I think that they are important ideas, but only that. If people sieze >upon them, then that is their samsara. Note that I'm only suggesting >all concepts are limited and, faced with experience, unsatisfactory. >Whether 'the Buddha' said this or not is irrelevant, in my mind. The >past is just another of the countless fictions people dream up to feel >good about suffering. It is useless in the long run. > Then why are you writing? My point is that when one talks of Hinduism and Buddhism in terms of doctrine, one should stick with facts (i.e., what the doctrines say), and not make muddlheaded jibberish of identity. I never even implied what "truth" is, and my ideas on Buddhism-intellectually speaking- are derived from data. >John: > >In the Arya-paryesana-sutta of >the Majjhima Nikaya it lists the various teachings the Buddha encountered >during his ascetic years, and his renunciation of them, not due to [their] >falsity, but because they were incomplete and not conducive to full >emancipation. I would suggest that you take this into consideration too. > > >Response: > >Nah, why bother? Fun ideas, but I'd rather spend my time in the present >moment, intellectually even, rather than argue about what happened at some >remote time in a fictional past. I say, leave it to you and my Buddhist >Prof to hash out. The important point, for me, is that The Buddha is >all things and no thing. Go figure. Stop taking this "I'm above facts" position. You act as though you're interested in "truth", while arguing a position that is in the context of historical doctrine. That Buddha is all things and no thing is not something I disagree with. But do you know this to be truth, or are you spewing theorized jibberish? If you assume the "facts are useless" position you imply a "position" of insight. If you want to inquire about this let me know. Understand? >--------- > > >original John: > >And the notion that Buddha is an incarnation of Vishnu, etc., is also, well >how can I put it..., one cannot argue with this because one does not hold >such beliefs (i.e., totally different premises) in incarnations, and the >like. Buddha is considered a human, one who has attained emancipation via >great spiritual efforts, but a human nonetheless. Of course we can get >into the doctrine of the Bodhisattva but then remember the true Bodhisattva >who preaches Dharma is No Bodhisattva who teaches No Dharma! > > >Response: > >When I originally responded to you, I was not thinking clearly. Here is a >better argument in response to you. > >Your comment that 'one does not hold such beliefs' strikes me as dogmatic >and doctrinaire. I don't think that Buddhists, on the whole, can be said >to believe any one thing or not believe any particular idea. In fact, my >own perspective of Buddhists is that we do not engage in 'belief' so much >as 'thought'. I don't tend to assume the accuracy of ANY specific concept. >Each has its merits and faults. There is some truth I find in the idea >that Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu. I also think that it is an >unnecessary position to hold unless one places value in Vishnu as an Entity. Well, the 'spirit' of Buddhism does imply a non-belief position, but Buddhists do take a critical attitude to ANY position. BTW, what do you mean that there is "some truth" to the idea that Buddha was an incarnation? This is a Hindu perspective, one that I neither deny or assume. But the belief that this IS the truth is doctrinare. >Interesting that you talk about the 'true Bodhisattva'. I'd be interested >in how you go about defining what a 'true one' is. Incarnation is a natural >process. One becomes 'incarnated' into bodily form. Vishnu would be >just as human (albeit with transcendental qualities thrown in) as any other. >It sounds as if you posit a LARGE difference between God and Human in your >theories. Is this accurate? If so, why? I'm speaking to you now, not >to all those people who have different ideas OTHER than you. ;> > You've misunderstood me completely. I was paraphrasing a mahayana phrase. What do you mean by incarnation is a natural process? And why assume I even hold a notion of God? You are superimposing too many beliefs on me. I argue from the position of historical doctrine because this is one way to avoid naive assumptions that we have on religion. I do not assume that these doctrines are "true", though. >------------- > >original Tagi: > >Yet, I think that considering Buddha (and Jesus, etc.) incarnations of Vishnu >makes a lot of sense to those who understand both traditions.... > >One comes to a deeper, more profound understanding >of one's tradition if one has a grasp on the foundation from which it arises. >Buddhism is no exception. To truly appreciate it, I think it helps to have >a firm knowledge of Hinduism, orthodox AND unorthodox. > > >John: > >In other words, all religions are in essence "Hindu". I cannot verify this >since I am still enmeshed in prapanca, but I would suggest we all are >(again I cannot verify this). > > >Response: > >I don't see how you reach this conclusion. I'd also like to hear your >definition of the term 'prapanca'. I don't think I've run across it before. > If you claim that Buddha is an incarnation of Vishnu, this is a "Hindu" notion because you assume the Hindu cosmology in describing Buddha. Again I don't say this is wrong, only that from the Buddhist point of view it is ludicrous (I speak from a doctrinal point of view). Prapanca means mental fabrication. >John: > >If we can assume this our only recourse in >this "illusory" discourse is to be critical in our discussion. Do you >realize I cannot argue with you, [except] for mentioning I am familiar with >Hinduism and its "orthodox" schools of thought? My suggestion would be to >study them and the MASSIVE, in volume, Buddhist critique of all Hindu forms >of thought. Again, do take this into consideration. > > >Response: > >I am confused about the meaning of this passage. What does your familiarity >with ANY text have to do with the reasonableness of considering Buddha an >incarnation of Vishnu? Do you think that 'social reality', 'orthodoxy', if >you will, determines Truth? I doubt it, yet your appeal to texts here seems >to beg the question. Please elaborate, thank you. You are saying that Vishnu is TRUTH and never mind what the Buddhist philosophers say. In other words, I don't need to consider facts just put forward a belief and argue for its truth. >Perhaps you are saying, though, that it is simply illogical to consider >the possibility of such an incarnation? I'm curious about what it is that >strikes ANY writer as illogical with regard to this. Out of that MASSIVE >critique does anyone make an argument from logic? I presume so. Can you >come up with ONE example? Or do I have to read it all to find out the >'true story'? I'd balk, I have to warn you. Its not that incarnation is "illogical", but do you see that by taking this position you assume the framework that does not agree with Buddhism (incarnation from Vishnu, that is)? If you want to analyze incarnation, leave Vishnu, Buddha out of it. You poo poo facts, doctrines, etc., and then take up a doctrine as some overarching reality. >------- > >John: > >Terms arise from concepts, in the Buddhist tradition, and when I stated the >arguments concerning atman it is from the texts themselves. > >In the Madhyamika tradition, the Atman (yes the Hindu notion), and all >derivative aspects of "It" are merely the product [of] mental fabrication. >Emancipation IS the uprooting of the Atman illusion, BOTH as the notion of >specific individuality and as the Ultimate, unchanging core of existence. >The Yogacara likewise asserts the non-substantiality of Atman and lists >both the concept of Atman as individuality AND as the ultimate as >articulated by the various Hindu schools. If you want I can list the >sources and page numbers. > > >Response: > >My understanding of Buddhism, specifically the Middle Way School, is that >any extreme views (i.e. that there IS an Atman *or* that there ISN'T an >Atman) are false. What you state above seems to be completely counter >to the emptiness philosophy as I know it. I don't claim to be an expert, >however. Please explain why your assertion is not an extreme. > It is extreme in terms of any "position". Middle way does not mean some uncritical lukewarm compromise between existence/non-existence, but the very efficacy of conceptualization. This opinion is not "mine", but from the Commentary to Nagarjuna's Karikas. >Note: You did not address my question... was Buddhism wiped out of India? >Are there now no Buddhists there? I was under the impression that there >were yet a substantial number. Please at least express your views, as I >don't care about 'relevant source material references' >that back up any historical theories. I just like to hear the stories. Tell you what the facts are without stating them? This kind of "thinking" pervades your whole reply. There are Buddhists there, but this is a recent movement called Ayodhya. >-------- > >John: > >"Dharma" has different connotations, and the "hinduism=dharmaism" implies >the law aspect of dharma, i.e., duty in social station. Though the terms >are the same the meaning is quite different. > > >Response: > >This seems unclear to me. Please give as many different meanings for the >term 'dharma' as you can reasonably put forward in such small space. Also, >please explain your last sentence above. Which terms are the same with >different meanings? Hinduism and Dharmaism? Look it up. > >original Tagi: > >Also, if I may be so bold, perhaps Christianity is a pagan cult gone dogmatic >in the same way that Buddhism is a Hindu cult gone wild. I'm suggesting >that Buddhism is a subset of Hinduism (those traditions that arose within >the geography of the Indus Valley Region) in the same sense that one might >consider Christianity a subset of Paganism (albeit adversarial toward its >competitors). There is some substance behind this assertion. I hope it >is not simply dismissed out of hand. I don't know how much analysis it can >stand, however. > > >John: > >Define "cult". And which religion is "the standard" from which you justify >the label 'cult'? Its not that you are incorrect, but I sense if not an >infinite regress, surely one that reaches far past recorded history. > > >Response: > >I mean by 'cult' a sect of a religion. Perhaps 'sect' is a better term here, >yet the dogmatic, fanatical elements which create religions are sometimes >described as 'cults' in other contexts. ISKCON is a good example. While >it is, as I understand it, mainstream Hinduism it is considered 'cult-like' >by those who study such things. > >The standards in the above I thought were obvious. For Christianity it >would be Judaism and all the other Western orthodox and unorthodox sects. >I call these 'Paganism' because Christianity likes to define itself in >contrast to what it calls 'Pagan Religions'. I think that it has so many >elements of what preceded it that it cannot legitimately call itself something >new. > >I think that there is a case to be made for the same analysis of Buddhism. >The standard from which Buddhism came is the complex of sects we have called >'Hinduism'. It is also interesting to me that both of these sects revolve >around what they call 'historical legitimacy'. > >In Angus' tome on Christianity >and the Mystery Religions, he makes the point that the reason that Christianity >did as well as it did was because it was a personal, historical tradition. >Both Buddhism and Christianity arose within cultures which were focussed >on what the magical community would call 'telesmic images' or 'archetypes' >and what the religious community would call 'gods'. > >Perhaps these two sects survived and prospered because they both offered >a connection between the 'transcendent' and 'the man in the field', to the >extent that Christ the Martyr could be emulated and Gotama the Buddha could >be followed, it paved a road that is enticing and seemingly traversible. >Brahma, Shiva, Kali, Jehovah, and Allah don't have this rather personal >and historical advantage. Note that I don't make any claim for the >ACCURACY of the theories reputed to be historical. > >Also, I don't why you talk about 'infinite regress' and historicity with >regard to my argument here. Please elaborate if it is still relevant >given my clarification. > > > >Yours in presentation, > >Tagi > If you are going to talk about this subject you need to stick to facts, theories, historical, doctrinal, and otherwise. If you don't ANYTHING can be put forward as fact with no standard to judge this. If you want to inquire into "truth" then I suggest you drop opinions, traditions, etc. -- ******************************************************************************* -- John Cha "The present is always more interesting than the future or the past" ******************************************************************************* The thread that won't die :-). In article <1992Mar18.225854.26116@cco.caltech.edu> dogen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (John Chq) writes: >That Buddhists "borrowed" terminology from the "tradition" is of course the >case; where else would the Buddhists develope their ideas? We are in >agreement that Buddhism did not develope in a vacuum. As for >terminological comparisons, just because terms, concepts, etc., from one >tradition are used in another does not mean that they are in essence "same" >(or that the new tradition tries to remain in the old). Here is a >difference in methodological approach. I think one should view the >tradition under scrutiny as a whole, and not make superficial word >comparisons. In most cases the use of a word within a context determines >its meaning, and not some concept stripped of context. I have not yet read >masefeild's book but I will take your suggestion Well apparently, some of the Buddha's contemporaries chose completely different terminology. If the words of an era are open to a variety of interpretations, then it is possible that their meanings had not yet settled. It is also possible that the choice of words was an indication of a desire to be considered part of the tradition, especially if the "tradition" was self-consciously innovative. We can only make some guesses about the intentions of the early practitioners. With that last arguement, we would seem to have reached a dead-end, and we might as well let that drop. >> And, in >>terms of practice, many others have also stressed the value of >>mindfulness - native Hawaiians are an example. >> >I think you are mixing up the context of discussion. I was not claiming >that Madhyamikans, or anyone else, are by nature of there adherence to a >particular philosophy were somehow more enlightened than others. As always >this depends on many factors including the adherents effort. But I do >think it necessary to delineate where the various schools stand in terms of >doctrine etc. > I was aware that I was mixing up the context. I was trying to say that others may not have taken the trouble to develop their language to a sufficient degree, but then that may or may not imply anything about their praxis or the content of their understanding. I tend to cast a sceptical eye on neat pigeon- holing of any tradition. You see, if someone says "brahman!" and immediately "eternalism!" flashes in our minds, chances are that we have fallen into exactly the very trap we think we are avoiding. >> My theory seems to keep changing, >>but the overall structure is mainstream modern western Theravadan (though >>it wouldn't seem so, from the way I have been going on, would it :-)). >>I don't really have an anti-intellectual stance - I think that right >>understanding is crucial and it has to begin somewhere. > >Why must it begin from the sociological perspective? Don't get me wrong, >I'm not challenging the validity of this discipline. But I want to bring >up the issue of perspective. If your interpretations are theory laden, >whose theories are they? Can you find traces of cultural bias in them, and >are you willing to rethink your stance in the context of the culture under >study? There is this _hubris_ of the efficacy of theorea (western!) to >analyze these "primitive" religions. But as you know, Buddhism is not >"primitive" and its own philosophies (at least Mahayana) rival that of >contemporary western ones. When confronted with a system that is as >sophisticated as the present method you hold, how can you not engage in >theoretical discourse (as opposed to mere interpretation)? > No, I was not clear. Let me be more explicit about *my* background. I did not begin with the sociological perspective, but came to that only after beginning meditation. I came to the meditation quite fresh, not self-consciously "Buddhist" or anything else. The "modern western" stuff was to emphasize that particular aspect of my practice (and to contrast it with much of lay praxis in Asia), and to indicate that such theories as I do hold are textual ("orientalist" if you wish) in regard to what Buddhism really is. I became interested in the sociological aspects because I was experentially bothered by pretensions to purity - both mine own and those of some Buddhists that I met. Of course, it may also have had something to with my particular cultural background and my defensiveness regarding lay praxis in that culture. I can refrain from engaging in theoretical discourse by claiming that my main purpose is "spiritual" or "experential freedom", and that that purpose is not served by engaging in such discourse (more on that below). Sociology has certain value as skillful means for me. >>> >>*Why* do the Buddhists speak at all - if they really believed what >>they say? Mahakaruna is an answer that I'll accept, though the >>polemicists seem dubious candidates for that (another view of mine). > >Two reasons: one is that different people have different capacities >therefore one must use words at a certain level; and two, a correct >understanding of doctrine with all its implications is _necessary_ for real >praxis (this is so in both Indian and Chinese Buddhism, and I think for >most Mahayana traditions). Spoken doctrine is needed to bring sentient >beings to maturity, while practice is the way to emancipation. Doctrine >and analysis is the foundation for meditational practice leading to wordless >realization. That sounds like a particular linear view of the practice to me. It may work like that, but chances are pretty high that the stated no-purpose is *not* served by this approach, particularly in these modern times. I have been watching my mind as I spout off on the net and what I see is papanca (Pali for "uncontrolled proliferation of thought") run riot as I engage in debate. There is an interesting interview with Stephen Batchelor (author of "The Faith to Doubt: Glimpses of Buddhist Uncertainity") in the Fall 1991 issue of the Inquiring Mind. He trained in the Gelugpa tradition, which emphasizes years of study in psychology and philosophy prior to serious meditation practice. While he was doing that, he had the opportunity to attend a 10-day vipassana retreat led by Goenka. He had powerful insights into anicca and dukkha during that retreat - in a way that his Tibetan teachers considered impossible. That threw the whole Tibetan approach into serious doubt for him. Most people who have had a modern education bring a great deal more (intellectually) to the practice than that particular tradition realizes. My own view is that we are *already* too much in our heads when we begin meditation. I don't support a Zennist anti-intellectualism which looks at all this as "just" discursive thought - but there is a lesson hidden somewhere in this. The main "danger" that I see with such an approach is that it encourages the idea that we understand how it really is. My experience of the practice seems to be that in some ways things become more mysterious, not less so. There is room for truth in "not knowing". My intuition tells me that some heart-centered practices are probably more skillful in many cases as preliminary practices. I am curious: what is the Madhyamist approach to qualities in the heart such as devotion, kindness etc? I *don't* mean that to be a loaded question. "Mindfulness" as a translation for "sati" is telling. That word could just as easily have been translated as "heartfulness", or better yet as just "fullness". Also, what would the Madhyamist reaction be to the "knawing on an iron stake" as someone described koan practice? An interview that Ram Dass (the American) speaks of in one of his books comes to mind. He and a Tibetan lama (perhaps Chogyam Trungpa) were being interviewed together on some show in the '70s. He felt very discomfited by that experience. Intellectually, the Tibetan tradition is very tight and tidy. Confronted with that, his talk about the transmission of love from his guru (Neem Karoli Baba) sounded like vague feel-goodism. Although I may agree with the Tibetan approach on some levels, I actually have a great deal of sympathy for the situation that Ram Dass found himself in. >I'm not exactly sure what you mean by Buddhist 'smugness'. Serious >students of Buddhism (as philosophers and scholars) understand the cultural >context from where Buddhism arose. But to claim that (and I don't know if >you are doing so) that Buddhist doctrine is really an inovation of, rather >than a difference from, some core Hindu notions is incorrect. The >historical connection and terminological adaptation do not translate into >some core identity. If as a Hindu one wants to include the Buddha in the >Hindu pantheon of saints, that's fine with me. But the moment one asserts >identity in doctrinal matters stemming from the foundational teachings one >oversteps some bounds. In the Indo-tibetan tradition a pupil learns the >core doctrines of both Buddhist as well as non-Buddhist schools so as to >differentiate between them. For Buddhists it is important to have a >correct view, a sort of spiritual blueprint, for the purpose of sucessful >praxis. "Smugness" may have been an ill-chosen word. I bring to the net not just my reactions to what I read here, but also the results of my interactions with Buddhists of all traditions in various contexts. I hear some Mahayanists (mostly Tibetan) clearly implying the inferiority of Hinayana, some Theravadans disapprove of Mahayanist heresies, Thai forest tradition folk disagree with the Burmese contemplative techniques, and western people talk on social activism or the lack of it, etc etc. I also have my own peeves. The only completely accurate way to understand any tradition is to actually practice it. So when Buddhists study the non-Buddhist texts, what is the methodology they adopt? Do they, for example, rely on what Buddhist texts say that the non-Buddhist texts say? And, what do they say about the actual experience of others? I realize that I haven't approached Madhyamika on its own terms, but I am curious about the issues I've raised anyway..... Regards, Sridhar B U D D H I S M I N A N U T S H E L L ============================================== Chapter Six KARMA OR THE LAW OF MORAL CAUSATION We are faced with a totally ill-balanced world. We perceive the inequalities and manifold destinies of men and the numerous grades of beings that exist in the universe. We see one born into a condition of affluence, endowed with fine mental, moral and physical qualities and another into a condition of abject poverty and wretchedness. Here is a man virtuous and holy, but, contrary to his expectation, ill-luck is ready to greet him. The wicked world runs counter to his ambitions and desires. He is poor and miserable in spite of his honest dealings and piety. There is another vicious and foolish, but accounted to be fortune's darling. He is rewarded with all forms of favors, despite his shortcomings and evil modes of life. Why, it may be questioned, should one be an inferior and another a superior? Why should one be wrested from the hands of a fond mother when he has scarcely seen a few summers, and another should perish in the flower of manhood, or at the ripe age of eighty or hundred? Why should one be sick and infirm, and another strong and healthy? Why should one be handsome, and another ugly and hideous, repulsive to all? Why should one be brought up in the lap of luxury, and another in absolute poverty, steeped in misery? Why should one be born a millionaire and another a pauper? Why should one be a mental prodigy, and another an idiot? Why should one be born with saintly characteristics, and another with criminal tendencies? Why should some be linguists, artists, mathematicians or musicians from the very cradle? Why should some be congenitally blind, deaf and deformed? Why should some be blessed and others cursed from their birth? These are some problems that perplex the minds of all thinking men. How are we to account for all this unevenness of the world, the inequality of mankind? Is it due to the work of blind chance or accident? There is nothing in this world that happens by blind chance or accident. To say that anything happens by chance, is no more true than that this book has come here of itself. Strictly speaking, nothing happens to man that he does not deserve for some reason or other. Could this be the fiat of an irresponsible Creator? Huxley writes: "If we are to assume that anybody has designedly set this wonderful universe going, it is perfectly clear to me that he is no more entirely benevolent and just in any intelligible sense of the words, than that he is malevolent and unjust." According to Einstein: "If this being (God) is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also his work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an Almighty Being? "In giving out punishments and rewards, he would to a certain extent be passing judgement on himself. How can this be combined with the godness and righteousness ascribed to him. "According to the theological principles man is created arbitrarily and without his desire and at the moment of his creation is either blessed or damned eternally. Hence man is either good or evil, fortunate or unfortunate, noble or depraved, from the first step in the process of his physical creation to the moment of his last breath, regardless of his individual desires, hopes, ambitions, struggles or devoted prayers. Such is theological fatalism." (Spencer Lewis) As Charles Bradlaugh says: "This existence of evil is a terrible stumbling block to the Theist. Pain, misery, crime, poverty confront the advocate of eternal goodness and challenge with unanswerable potency his declaration of Deity as all-good, all-wise, and all-powerful." In the words of Schopenhauer: "Whoever regards himself as having become out of nothing must also think that he will again become nothing; for an eternity has passed before he was, and then a second eternity had begun, through which he will never cease to be, is a monstrous thought. "If birth is the absolute beginning, then death must be his absolute end; and the assumption that men is made out of nothing leads necessarily to the assumption that death is his absolute end." Commenting on human sufferings and God, Prof. J.B.S. Haldane writes: "Either suffering is needed to perfect human character, or God is not Almighty. The former theory is disproved by the fact that some people who have suffered very little but have been fortunate in their ancestry and education have very fine characters. The objection to the second is that it is only in connection with the universe as a whole that there is any intellectual gap to be filled by the postulation of a deity. And a creator could presumably create whatever he or it wanted." Lord Russell states: "The world, we are told, was created by a God who is both good and omnipotent. Before He created the world He foresaw all the pain and misery that it would contain. He is therefore responsible for all of it. It is useless to argue that the pain in the world is due to sin. If God knew in advance the sins of which man would be guilty, He was clearly responsible for all the consequences of those sins when He decided to create man." In "Despair", a poem of his old age, Lord Tennyson thus boldly attacks God, who, as recorded in Isaiah, says, "I make peace and create evil." (Isaiah, xiv. 7) "What! I should call on that infinite love that has served us so well? Infinite cruelty, rather, that made everlasting hell, Made us, foreknew us, foredoomed us, and does what he will with his own. Better our dead brute mother who never has heard us groan." Surely "the doctrine that all men are sinners and have the essential sin of Adam is a challenge to justice, mercy, love and omnipotent fairness." Some writers of old authoritatively declared that God created man in his own image. Some modern thinkers state, on the contrary, that man created God in his own image. With the growth of civilization man's concept of God also became more and mire refined. It is, however, impossible to conceive of such a being either in or outside the universe. Could this variation be due to heredity and environment? One must admit that all such chemico-physical phenomena revealed by scientists, are partly instrumental, but they cannot be solely responsible for the subtle distinctions and vast differences that exist amongst individuals. Yet why should identical twins who are physically alike, inheriting like genes, enjoying the same privilege of upbringing, be very often temperamentally, morally and intellectually totally different? Heredity alone cannot account for these vast differences. Strictly speaking, it accounts more plausibly for their similarities than for most of the differences. The infinite-simally minute chemico-physical germ, which is about 30 millionth part of an inch across, inherited from parents, explains only a portion od man, his physical foundation. With regard to the more complex and subtle mental, intellectual and moral differences we need more enlightenment. The theory of heredity cannot give a satisfactory explanation for the birth of a criminal in a long line of honorable ancestors, the birth of a saint or a noble man in a family of evil repute, for the arising of infant prodigies, man of genius and great religious teachers. According to Buddhism this variation is due not only to heredity, environment, "nature and nurture", but also to our own karma, or in other words, to the result of our own inherited past actions and our present deeds. We ourselves are responsible for our own deeds, happiness and misery. We built our own hells. We created our own heavens. We are the architects of our own fate. In short, we ourselves are our own karma. On one occasion a certain young man named Subha approached the Buddha, and questioned why and wherefore it was that among human beings there are the low and high states. "For", said he, "we find amongst mankind those of brief life and those of long life, the hale and the ailing, the good-looking and the ill-looking, the powerful and the powerless, the poor and the rich, the low-born and the high-born, the ignorant and the intelligent." The Buddha briefly replied: "Every living being has karma as its own, its inheritance, its cause, its kinsman, its refuge. Karma is that which differentiates all living beings into low and high states." He then explained the cause of such differences in accordance with the law of moral causation. Thus from a Buddhist standpoint, our present mental, intellectual, moral and temperamental differences are mainly due to our own actions and tendencies, both past and present. Karma, literally, means action; but, in its ultimate sense, it means the meritorious and demeritorious volition (Kusala Akusala Cetana). Karma constitutes both good and evil. Good begets good. Evil begets evil. Like attracts like. This is the law of Karma. As some Westerners prefer to say Karma is "action-influence." We reap what we have sown. What we sow we reap somewhere or some when. In one sense we are the result of what we were; we will be the result of what we are. In another sense, we are not totally the result of what we were; we will not be absolutely be the result of what we are. For instance, a criminal today may be a saint tomorrow. Buddhism attributes this variation to Karma, but it does not assert that everything is due to Karma. If everything were due to Karma, a man must ever be bad, for it is his Karma to be bad. One needs not consult a physician to be cured of a disease, for if one's Karma is such one would be cured. According to Buddhism, there are five orders or processes (Niyamas) which operate in the physical and mental realms: i. Karma Niyama, order of act and result, e.g., desirable and undesirable acts produce corresponding good and bad results. ii. Utu Niyama, physical (inorganic) order, e.g., seasonal phenomena of winds and rains. iii. Bija Niyama, order of germs or seeds (physical organic order); e.g., rice produced from rice-seed, sugary taste from sugar cane or honey, etc. The scientific theory of cells and genes and the physical similarity of twins may be ascribed to this order. iv. Citta Niyama, order of mind or psychic law, e.g., processes of consciousness (Citta Vithi), power of mind, etc. v. Dharma Niyama, order of the norm, e.g., the natural phenomena occurring at the advent of a Bodhisatta in his last birth, gravitation, etc. Every mental or physical phenomenon could be explained by these all- embracing five orders or processes which are laws in themselves. Karma is, therefore, only one of the five orders that prevail in the universe. It is a law in itself, but it does not thereby follow that there should be a law-giver. Ordinary laws of nature, like gravitation, need no law-giver. It operates in its own field without the intervention of an external independent ruling agency. Nobody, for instance, has decreed that fire should burn. Nobody has commanded that water should seek its own level. No scientist has ordered that water should consist of H2O, and that coldness should be one of its properties. These are their intrinsic characteristic. Karma is neither fate nor predestination imposed upon us by some mysterious unknown power to which we must helplessly submit ourselves. It is one's own doing reacting on oneself, and so one has the possibility to divert the course of Karma to some extent. How far one diverts it depends on oneself. It must also be said that such pharseology as rewards and punishments should not be allowed to enter into discussions concerning the problem of Karma. For Buddhism does not recognize an Almighty Being who rules His subjects and rewards and punishes them accordingly. Buddhists, on the contrary, believe that sorrow and happiness one experiences are the natural outcome of one's own good and bad actions. It should be stated that Karma has both the continuative and the retributive principle. Inherent in Karma is the potentiality of producing its due effect. This cause produces the effect; the effect explains the cause. Seed produces the fruit; the fruit explains the seed as both are inter-related. Even so Karma and its effect are inter-related, "the effect already blooms in the cause." A Buddhist who is fully convinced of the doctrine of Karma does not pray to another to be saved but confidently relies on himself for his purification because it teaches individual responsibility. It is this doctrine of Karma that gives him consolation, hope, self- reliance and moral courage. It is this belief in Karma "that validates his efforts, kindles his enthusiasm," makes him ever kind, tolerant and considerate.It is also this firm belief in Karma that prompts him to refrain from evil, do good and be good without being frightened of any punishment or tempted by any reward. It is this doctrine of Karma that can explain the problem of suffering, the misery of so-called fate or predestination of other religions, and above all the inequality of mankind. Karma and Rebirth are accepted as axiomatic. Warning: This post has the approach that there is Truth and the various great religions have emphasized some portion of this Truth , and none of the great religions such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism have a monopoly on this Truth and none are without some portion of Truth. So what doctrine, dogma, and magnaminously pompous religiosity must I be following in order to have this viewpoint? Is it Undoism? Swami Satchidananda says that he is often asked "What religion are you? You talk about the Bible, Koran, Torah. Are you a Hindu?" and he replies "I am not a Catholic, a Buddhist, or a Hindu, but an Undo. My religion is Undoism. We have done enough damage. We have to stop doing any more and simply undo the damage we have already done" :-). Actually this view is from the point of view of Vedanta, a kind of universal religion in that all the various religions are taken to be various sects and not fully self-contained (ie. no monopoly on Truth). Speaking of the very ancient Vedanta philosophy which came from India, Swami Vivekananda said: "This Vedanta philosophy has certain peculiarities. In the first place, it is perfectly impersonal. It does not owe its origin to any person or prophet. It does not build itself around one man as a center. Yet it has nothing to say against philosophies which do build them- selves around certain persons. In later days in India, other philosophies and systems arose, built around certain persons - such as Buddhism, or many of our present sects. They each have a certain leader to whom they owe allegiance, just as the Christians and Mohammedans have. But the Vedanta philosophy stands at the background of all these various sects, and there is no fight and no antagonism between Vedanta and any other system in the world." Swami Vivekananda used terms "Advaita" and "Vedanta" interchangeably. He refers to Advaita as "nonduality, oneness, the idea of an Impersonal God". On the subject of the history of Vedanta in India and touching on Buddha and Buddhism, he said: "Advaita was never allowed to come to the people. At first some monks got hold of it and took it to the forests, and so it came to be called the 'forest philosophy.' By the mercy of the Lord, Buddha came and preached it to the masses, and the whole nation became Buddhists. Long after that, when atheists and agnostics had destroyed the nation again, it was found that Advaita was the only way to save India from materialism. Then Shankaracharya arose and once more revivified the Vedanta philosophy. He made it a rationalistic philosophy. In the Upanishads the arguments are often very obscure. Buddha laid stress upon the moral side of the philosophy, and Shankaracharya, upon the intellectual." [I quote this from _Vedanta Voice of Freedom_ Swami Vivekananda]. This last may cause some disagreement as Buddhists these days would not see atheism or agnosticism as an misconstruction of the teachings of Buddha but rather fully consistent with it. Whatever your opinion, Vedanta has no problem with it but I do feel that although Truth is beyond words, it is not beyond realizing and this Truth is God and nothing is apart from That. According to Swami Vivekananda who came to U.S. in late 1800's and early 1900's to preach Vedanta, the Buddhist concept of Nirvana is exactly the same as the Vedantist concept of Brahmin [from same source previously cited]. He was bold enough to make this claim from his own realization and not theory or just high philosophy as I might be correctly accused of if I made this claim. Take it any way you like but I prefer to see Buddha in the context NOT of "Hinduism" which seems to be rather confusing with all its sects but in the context of the pure Advaita Vedanta that Swami Vivekananda introduced to America at a time that one might consider to have not been a very receptive time :-). One can be a Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or whatever and still adhere to Vedanta philosophy but this might make you unorthodox especially in religions like Christianity but in no way any less a Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu etc. 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 :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Article: <1992Mar25.025959.26202@iitmax.iit.edu> dogen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (John Chq) writes: >In the name of "undoism" some (one) has suggested that Vedanta represented >the "core" of all religions. I would not use the word "core". Vedanta is not Truth, but points to it. >From my point of view all the religions are sects of the universal religion which states that there is suffering and there is a way of ending suffering and attaining Bliss which is sat-chit-ananda (ever existing, ever conscious, ever new joy) and that we are that already but need to rid ourselves of delusion in order to realize this Bliss. Also this universal religion says that all the paths and religions are leading to this Bliss in either a direct way or very roundabout way with lots of detours. So in one way, there is no argument with all the various paths and religions since they all have their validity and purpose at various levels of understanding. If you accept as I do the idea that Truth is not external, then its conceivable that since you are already Truth, you will realize this Truth eventually whether you follow a path or not, thus all roads do lead to Rome since you _are_ Rome :-). So I come to this conclusion after accepting the Vedantic principle of oneness and then making logical deductions from that. If you have this philosophy, then you can not just be tolerant of others (tolerance implies that you think others are wrong but you, in your great liberal and merciful attitude *allow* them to co-exist with you) but accept them and their views as another level of understanding and that all will eventually reach enlightenment. Yes, this is a philosophy that I believe and I am not an enlightened sage (as if I needed this disclaimer ;-). >If one is a "true follower" (oxymoron?!) of undoism, what use is there for >concepts of "Brahman", "Atman", "Vedanta", "Buddhism", etc. ? We don't need to stop using these terms but only undo all the concern over differences in interpreting them. Swami Satchidananda's concept of undoism (although said in humor) was to undo the damage done, not to throw the baby out with the bath water. If people accepted that there is truth in all religions, there never would be religious wars and no one would be the worse for it. Saints and sages of all religions throughout the centuries have said this based on their own realization of truth. If Truth is not outside of anyone, how can any perish or fail to reach enlightenment? I'm not making this stuff up as I go along, Vedanta existed long before I was given login privileges ;-). 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 :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Chq writes: >> In the name of "undoism" some (one) has suggested that Vedanta represented the "core" of all religions. The thread on the difference between that confusing term "Hinduism" and Buddhism for the most part was (should be) based on textual, historical, etc., evidence. At least my theories (which are just that, and not "Truth") were based on whatever evidence I had. Never was there a pretence of having recourse to "Ultimate Reality".<< It is nice that you point out that "undoism," Vedanta, "Hinduism," and "Buddhism" - to the extent we discuss them - are "theories" and not "Truth." But even discussing them - based on textual, historical, etc., evidence - is difficult. Here are the reasons why: - There is no one accepted definition, philosophy, point of view, written evidence, etc. of "Hinduism." (in fact I have not seen this word in any scriptures) - To a lesser extent - perhaps - the same can be said of "Buddhism." (I have not seen this word used in any scriptures also. If incorrect, please some one point that out. Thanks.) - It is clear that "in-the-earlier-days" nothing was written. Even Buddha's first sermon at Sarnath was [reported to be] written a few (1 or 2?) centuries after the fact. Then there are so many interpretations, traditions, etc., that with any authority nothing can be said. The controversy about whether Buddha said that "there is no God" is the best example of it. Similarily there are some fundamenal differences in the doctrines of "Vajrayana," "Mahayana," and "Hinayana," not to mention "Tibetian Tantric Traditions, "Zen," "Pure Land," etc. [By the way - who can negate the fact that all is impermanent, that sansara is suffering, that all forms decay.] In case of "Hinduism," the difficulties are enormous: Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas, Gita, Sanatan Dharma, Vishnuites, Shavites, Shakti (Tantra), Purusha and Prakirti versus Shiva and Shakti, Dualism of Bhakti versus Brahman of Vedanta (or Advaita), Impersonal versus Personal God(s), etc. Needless to say that the varieties are almost infinite. [By the way - who can negate the fact that all is impermanent (maya), that all want happiness, that all that is born die, that all that die is reborn.] This is not to say that we can't or shouldn't discuss these things; even if we feel that way, discussions will not stop. [Feel like] mentioning one other point: one doesn't eat by other's mouth one doesn't hear by other's ears one doesn't smell by other's nose one doesn't have thoughts in other's mind ... ... why then, so much insistance on "thinking" other's thoughts? why then, so much dependencies on external authority? [however ancient] why not say what one "thinks?" or "feels?" or "sees the truth as?" It is FRESH that way - rather than STALE. why not eat the fruit and enjoy the taste NOW rather than "fight" about what other's have said about the "taste of the fruit"? one's own "hallunications" are better than other's REALITY! [one may have indeed taken other's hallunications as REALITY.] >> If one is a "true follower" of undoism, what use is there for concepts of "Brahman", "Atman", "Vedanta", "Buddhism", etc. ? The fact that one adheres to any doctrine implies a dualism of 'one' who follows a 'way'. Of course there is a denial of this, but is all this proselytising functioning on the level of conceptualization or is it a "fact" for one's self? Would it not be more instructive to discuss those elements/phenomena that contribute to 'illusion' (to the extent possible) instead of talking about emptiness, onness, brahman, etc.? << Concepts are not useful. Example: a concept of "roti (Indian bread) will NOT SATISFY hunger. If one accepts (as a "raft" to "cross over" - rather than fighting that my "raft" is better than "others") "vedanta," than there is no "illusion" or "ignorance." (example: this so called "ignorance" is like a king's children playing cops and robbers; they all in reality are princesses.) Even if one accepts "illusion," since it is "illusion," why spend time in discussing the modus operandi of some thing that is not. Wouln't it be better to "keep holding on" to the reality? Ramana Maharshi said (about investigating maya): A barber cutting the hair and, then, rather than sweeping the hairs away, fondling the strands of hairs [that are on the ground - to be thrown away]. Buddha [reportedly] said: Make a light unto your self and follow that light! Christ said: The kingdom of heaven is within... BE STILL and KNOW that I AM GOD (people who don't like the "idea" of god, please read GOD as THAT I AM) "Hinduism" says: Look within! THE IDEA IS ON DOING RATHER THAN TALKING ABOUT DOING! (note that talking is not under attack here.) >> I do not object to "following" a path (I myself being zen oriented), though to try and prove one's path as true is nothing but sectarianism. The attempt to give an overarching "metaphysics" that is inclusive of all views-which is probably not possible-is in the end a product of conceptual construction, and therefore is not conducive to "clarity of mind." What can be more clear than "all is one." Ramana Maharshi said: can there be any greater thruth than "all is one?" Of course, he also said that to "see it," one's mind should be made "clear," by removing the "idea" that the "truth is not NOW known." Truth always is as is; it can't go away, lost, found, or gained. >>Paradox: If you already know what the truth is, why search for it? The truth is beyond "knowing" and "not knowing." One takes "what is false" as the "truth." Therefore, the need for search. >>If you don't know the truth, how will you recognize it when found? Some wise person answered this as follows: the same way you know that you got to go and "pee" when asleep. >>Or: If we are already "One" why the need to realize what is already a fact? Because we take "dependent (unreal)" as "independent (real)." To get rid of this silly (yet harmless idea) idea - that's why? >>If illusion is a fact then how can we assert the "Onness" of all things since the positing of illusion implies some truth different from illusion? There can't be any illusion from the point of view of the truth. That's why advaita says: there is no illusion (Ego) [sounds like a Buddhist talking: THERE IS NO SELF.] >>And what about thevery notion of 'search'? See above [somewhere]. >> Maybe we should stop this metaphysical discourse and tend to the issue of our everyday existence? Just a suggestion. Nice suggestion! It was just followed! So, keep following the suggestion and post more articles. More you talk from your heart (rather than any book), more i enjoy it (a personal quirk of mine, i guess, but who knows? who cares anyhow about what i enjoy? and why should any one?) So enjoy in your own Self! ---raj John Chq wrote: > Would it not be more instructive to discuss those elements/phenomena > that contribute to 'illusion' (to the extent possible) instead of talking > about emptiness, onness, brahman, etc.? What is illusion? > I do not object to "following" a path (I myself being zen oriented), though > to try and prove one's path as true is nothing but sectarianism. The > attempt to give an overarching "metaphysics" that is inclusive of all > views-which is probably not possible-is in the end a product of conceptual > construction, and therefore is not conducive to "clarity of mind." This is a screen. This is not a screen. "Reality" does not describe Reality. ("Reality does not describe Reality) does not describe Reality. (... all assertions, negations, concepts, ... ) does not describe Reality > Maybe we should stop this metaphysical discourse and tend to the issue of > our everyday existence? Just a suggestion. Do you have a duality between discussion and everyday existence? :-)) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Wachowitz 75742@novell1.rz.fht-mannheim.de * wonder everyday * nothing in particular * all is special * Mr. Adams writes about Undoism ... >Warning: This post has the approach that there is Truth and the various >great religions have emphasized some portion of this Truth , and none >of the great religions such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism >have a monopoly on this Truth and none are without some portion of Truth. Absolutely agreed ! >So what doctrine, dogma, and magnaminously pompous religiosity must I be [... deleted a nice description of Undoim of Swami Satchidananda] It does not appear to me as anything new. Its another "mine is superior" assertion except that instead of the usual "because yours is wrong", its "because mine encompasses yours and thus supersedes it". He may be right - I just don't know. But surely it can't "undo" anything because 1. It is clearly blasphemy from the point of views of the other religions. Try telling a Muslim that Allah == Krishna. 2. Even if everyone converts and take to the Vendanta, it still does not mean that all our troubles will be over (as is naively implied.) The fact that all Christians (Muslims) believe in the same God (Allah) and Bible (Koran) had never stopped them from killing each other. Wars starts, among other things, with the assertion that "I am superior" or "you are mine". As a justification, religion is sometimes used. But >>peace<< only comes when the differences are sincerely recognized. With Metta, Weng Fai. B U D D H I S M I N A N U T S H E L L ============================================== Chapter Seven RE-BIRTH As long as this Karmmic force exists there is re-birth, for things are merely this visible manifestation of this invisible Karmmic force. Death is nothing but the temporary end of this temporary phenomenon. It is not the complete annihilation of this so-called being. The organic life has ceased, but the Karmmic force which hitherto actuated it has not been destroyed. As the Karmmic force remains entirely undisturbed by the disintergration of the fleeting body, the passing away of the present dying thought-moment only conditions a fresh consciousness in another birth. It is Karma, rooted in ignorance and craving, that conditions rebirth. Past Karma conditions the present birth; and present Karma, in combination with past Karma, conditions the future. The present is the offspring of the past, and becomes, in turn, the parent of the future. If we postulate a past, present, and a future life, then we are at once faced with the alleged mysterious problem -- "What is the ultimate origin of life?" Either there must be a beginning or there cannot be a beginning of life. One school, in attempting to solve the problem, postulates a first cause, God, viewed as a force or as an Almighty Being. Another school denies a first cause for, in common experience, the cause ever becomes the effect and the effect becomes the cause. In a circle of cause and effect a first cause is inconceivable. According to the former, life has had a beginning; according to the latter, it is beginningless. From the scientific standpoint, we are the direct products of the sperm and ovum cells provided by our parents. As such life precedes life. With regard to the origin of the first protoplasm of life, or colloid, scientists plead ignorance. According to Buddhism we are born from the matrix of action (Karmayoni). Parents merely provide an infinitesimally small cell. As such being precedes being. At the moment of conception it is past Karma that conditions the initial consciousness that vitalizes the fetus. It is this invisible Karmmic energy, generated from the past birth that produces mental phenomena and the phenomenon of life in an already extent physical phenomenon, to complete the trio that constitutes man. For a being to be born here a being must die somewhere. The birth of a being, which strictly means the arising of the five aggregates or psycho- physical phenomena in this present life, corresponds to the death of a being in a past life; just as, in conventional terms, the rising of the sun in one place means the setting of the sun in another place. This enigmatic statement may be better understood by imagining life as a wave and not a straight line. Birth and death are only two phases of the same process. Birth precedes death, and death, on the other hand, precedes birth. The constant succession of birth and death in connection with each individual life flux constitutes what is technically known as Samsara -- recurrent wandering. What is the ultimate origin of life? The Buddha declares: "Without cognizable end is this Samsara. A first beginning of beings, who, obstructed by ignorance and fettered by craving, wander and fare on, is not to be perceived." This life-stream flows "ad infinitum", as long as it is fed by the muddy water of ignorance and craving. When these two are completely cut off, then only if one so wishes, does the stream cease to flow, rebirth ends as in the case of the Buddhas and Arahats. An ultimate beginning of this life-stream cannot be determined, as a stage cannot be perceived when this life-force was not fraught with ignorance and craving. The Buddha has here referred merely to the beginning of the life-stream of living beings. It is left to scientists to speculate on the origin and the evolution of the universe. The Buddha does not attempt to solve all the ethical and philosophical problems that perplex mankind. Nor does He deal with theories and speculations that tend neither to edification nor to enlightenment. Nor does He demand blind faith from His adherents anent a First Cause. He is chiefly concerned with the problem of suffering and its destruction. With but this one practical and specific purpose in view, all irrelevant side issues are completely ignored. But how are we to believe that there is a past existence? The most valuable evidence Buddhists cite in favor of rebirth is the Buddha, for He developed a knowledge which enabled Him to read past and future lives. Following His instructions, His disciples also developed this knowledge and were able to read their past lives to a great extent. Even some Indian Rishis, before the advent of the Buddha, were distinguished for such psychic powers as clairaudience, clairvoyance, thought- reading, remembering past births, etc. There are also some person, who probably in accordance with the laws of association, spontaneously develop the memory of their past birth, and remember fragments of their previous lives. Such cases are very rare, but those few well_attested, respectable cases tend to throw some light on the idea of a past birth. So are the experiences of some modern dependable psychists and strange cases of alternating and multiple personalities. In hypnotic states some relate experiences of their past lives, while a few others read the past lives of others and even heal diseases. Sometimes we get strange experiences which cannot be explained but by rebirth. How often do we meet persons whom we have never met, and yet instinctively feel that they are quite familiar to us? How often do we visit places, and yet feel impressed that we are perfectly acquainted with those surroundings? The Buddha tells us: "Through previous associations or present advantage, that old love springs up again like the lotus in the water." Experiences of some reliable modern psychists, ghostly phenomena, spirit communications, strange alternating and multiple personalities and so on shed some light upon this problem of rebirth. Into this world come Perfect Ones like the Buddhas and highly developed personalities. Do they evolve suddenly? Can they be the products of a single existence? How are we to account for great characters like Buddha-ghosa, Panini, Kalidasa, Homer and Plato, men of genius like Shakespeare, infant prodigies like Pascal, Mozart, Beethoven, Raphael, Ramanujan, etc.? Heredity alone cannot account for them. "Else their ancestry would disclose it, their posterity, even greater than themselves, demonstrate it." Could they rise to such lofty heights if they had not lived noble lives and gained similar experiences in the past? Is it by mere chance that they are been born of those particular parents and places under those favorable circumstances? The few years that we are privileged to spend here or, for the most five score years, must certainly be an inadequate preparation for eternity. If one believes in the present and in the future, it is quite logical to believe in the past. The present is the offspring of the past, and acts in turn as the parent of the future. If there are reasons to believe that we have existed in the past, then surely there are no reasons to disbelieve that we shall continue to exist after our present life has apparently ceased. It is indeed a strong argument in favor of past and future lives that "in this world virtuous persons are very often unfortunate and vicious persons prosperous." A Western writer says : "Whether we believe in a past experience or not, it forms the only reasonable hypothesis which bridges certain gaps in human knowledge concerning certain facts of every day life. Our reason tells us that the idea of past birth and Karma alone can explain the degrees of differences that exist between twins, how men like Shakespeare with a very limited experience are able to portray with marvelous, exactitude the most diverse types of human character, scenes and so forth of which they could have no actual knowledge, why the work of the genius invariably transcends his experience, the existence of infant precocity, the vast diversity in mind and morals, in brain and physique, in conditions, circumstances and environment observable throughout the world, and so forth." It should be stated that this doctrine of rebirth can neither be proved nor disproved experimentally, but it is accepted as an evidentially verifiable fact. The cause of this Karma, continues the Buddha, is "avijja" or ignorance of the Four Noble Truths. Ignorance is, therefore, the cause of birth and death; and its transmutation into knowingness or "vijja" is consequently their cessation. The result of this analytical method is summed up in the "Paticca Samuppada". In article <1992Mar25.202133.10406@iitmax.iit.edu> 75742@novell1.rz.fht-mannheim.de (Marc Wachowitz) writes: >John Chq wrote: >> Would it not be more instructive to discuss those elements/phenomena >> that contribute to 'illusion' (to the extent possible) instead of talking >> about emptiness, onness, brahman, etc.? >What is illusion? Illusion, the human condition, suffering, whatever. It may be non-existent, but it is a fact, wouldn't you agree? >> I do not object to "following" a path (I myself being zen oriented), though >> to try and prove one's path as true is nothing but sectarianism. The >> attempt to give an overarching "metaphysics" that is inclusive of all >> views-which is probably not possible-is in the end a product of conceptual >> construction, and therefore is not conducive to "clarity of mind." >This is a screen. >This is not a screen. Both a screen and not a screan Neither a screan nor not a screen. So what? >"Reality" does not describe Reality. >("Reality does not describe Reality) does not describe Reality. >(... all assertions, negations, concepts, ... ) does not describe Reality The word is not the thing. All duality such as perceiver/perceived, signifier/signified, etc, do not issue forth in reality. Again, so what? >> Maybe we should stop this metaphysical discourse and tend to the issue of >> our everyday existence? Just a suggestion. >Do you have a duality between discussion and everyday existence? :-)) Are you saying words are reality? Does not "Reality" describe Reality, because "Reality" is, in reality, Reality? Do you imply a separation between everyday existence and Reality? Or is the Reality not separate, therefore not Reality, but "Reality"? Cute game, but it doesn't wash. >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ******************************************************************************* -- John Cha "The present is always more interesting than the future or the past" ******************************************************************************* In article <1992Mar25.202057.18882@iitmax.iit.edu> radams@cerritos.edu writes: >In Article: <1992Mar25.025959.26202@iitmax.iit.edu> >dogen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (John Chq) writes: > >>In the name of "undoism" some (one) has suggested that Vedanta represented >>the "core" of all religions. > >I would not use the word "core". Vedanta is not Truth, but points to it. >>From my point of view all the religions are sects of the universal religion >which states that there is suffering and there is a way of ending suffering >and attaining Bliss which is sat-chit-ananda (ever existing, ever conscious, >ever new joy) and that we are that already but need to rid ourselves of >delusion in order to realize this Bliss. Also this universal religion says >that all the paths and religions are leading to this Bliss in either a >direct way or very roundabout way with lots of detours. So in one way, there >is no argument with all the various paths and religions since they all >have their validity and purpose at various levels of understanding. If >you accept as I do the idea that Truth is not external, then its conceivable >that since you are already Truth, you will realize this Truth eventually >whether you follow a path or not, thus all roads do lead to Rome since >you _are_ Rome :-). So I come to this conclusion after accepting the Vedantic >principle of oneness and then making logical deductions from that. Some religions deny that "you are Rome", i.e., the religions of the Book. With the few exeptions of Mystics (e.g., Meister Eckhart), G-d (w/ respect to my Jewish bretheren) is Wholly and Holy other. I've spoken with many (liberal, the Bible thumpers are intolerable) protestant and catholic theologins (or students of theology), and a few rabbis, and the notion of Onness is quite alien. I don't necessarilly agree with them (and in opinion I agree with you in many ways) but I do respect their claims. BTW, even though Judaism sems the most "different" from Eastern religions, I've hardly ever gotten into an arguement with those of that persuasion, even after discussing my "views". I think the "contentious air" in religious debate is a Western (I know, too broad) and Xtian phenomena (growing up here, I am certainly a part of this), regardless of our religious persuasion. >If you >have this philosophy, then you can not just be tolerant of others (tolerance >implies that you think others are wrong but you, in your great liberal and >merciful attitude *allow* them to co-exist with you) but accept them and >their views as another level of understanding and that all will eventually >reach enlightenment. Another level? If I believe in an External All-pwerful Diety that is separate from me, then is this level lower or higher than the Vedantic view? There is enough "tolerance" to go around. >Yes, this is a philosophy that I believe and I am >not an enlightened sage (as if I needed this disclaimer ;-). > >>If one is a "true follower" (oxymoron?!) of undoism, what use is there for >>concepts of "Brahman", "Atman", "Vedanta", "Buddhism", etc. ? > >We don't need to stop using these terms but only undo all the concern over >differences in interpreting them. Swami Satchidananda's concept of undoism >(although said in humor) was to undo the damage done, not to throw the >baby out with the bath water. Maybe the baby is the problem. Why not throw out all religious traditions? >If people accepted that there is truth in all religions, there never would >be religious wars and no one would be the worse for it. Saints and sages >of all religions throughout the centuries have said this based on their own >realization of truth. If Truth is not outside of anyone, how can any perish >or fail to reach enlightenment? I'm not making this stuff up as I go along, >Vedanta existed long before I was given login privileges ;-). Religious wars are usually a result of a complex combination of power politics, cultural clashes, economic factors, etc. To reduce it to mere belief is naive. > -- ******************************************************************************* -- John Cha "The present is always more interesting than the future or the past" ******************************************************************************* Rajendra P Sharma wrote: > [By the way - who can negate the fact that all is impermanent, > that sansara is suffering, In case this here is what is called "sansara", I can assure you that in during the time I was reading your post I didn't feel any form of suffering:) Let's not overemphasize some aspects of life as the whole; no need to become pessimistic and depressed. There can be both pleasure and suffering, and much of it depends on how one deals with it (in other words: is directly self-made; I'm not speaking of some kind of consequences, but how you deal with actual experience). > [By the way - who can negate the fact that all is impermanent (maya), Is this the usual meaning of maya? I've read it translated as "division of reality" in the sense of taking concepts as reality (ever seen coordinate systems in the air?). (Just being curious, not clinging to concepts :-) > [Feel like] mentioning one other point: > > one doesn't eat by other's mouth > one doesn't hear by other's ears > one doesn't smell by other's nose > one doesn't have thoughts in other's mind > ... > ... > why then, so much insistance on > "thinking" other's thoughts? A few possible reasons (not justifications - I doubt there's [the need for] somthing like that, anyway): - hunting for (probably imaginary) security - wanting to be accepted by others, whom's acceptance for others depends on them sharing their opinions - having opinions to make up mental pictures of oneself/others, such making artifical divisions (groups where some are "inside" and some are "outside") > why not eat the fruit and enjoy the taste NOW > rather than "fight" about > what other's have said about the "taste of the fruit"? > > one's own "hallunications" are better than other's REALITY! > > [one may have indeed taken other's hallunications as REALITY.] Then this is one's "hallucination", isn't it? What defines if something is an "own" hallucination? And how does one know what isn't a hallucinaton? Hypnosis can be very effective even on the ordinary "physical" level. > Concepts are not useful. Example: a concept of "roti (Indian > bread) will NOT SATISFY hunger. Sure, but it's useful for communication, e.g. when you want to buy some. And again, to some degree you can use it for hypnotising yourself or others. > (example: this so called "ignorance" is like a king's children > playing cops and robbers; they all in reality are > princesses.) Another viewpoint would be that this so-called "knowledge" is an illusionary kingdom when in fact all are poor (ignorant); though I'm often thinking that at least some kinds of ignorance are really a kingdom :-) > Wouln't it be better to "keep holding on" to the reality? How do you know what is and what isn't? > THE IDEA IS ON DOING RATHER THAN TALKING ABOUT DOING! [just wanted to repeat this one] > More you talk from your heart (rather than any book), > more i enjoy it (a personal quirk of mine, i guess, > but who knows? who cares anyhow about > what i enjoy? and why should any one?) I guess you care about what you enjoy, and I don't see ane need for "why" :-) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Wachowitz 75742@novell1.rz.fht-mannheim.de * wonder everyday * nothing in particular * all is special * Marc writes: (>.....in response to raj >>....) > > [By the way - who can negate the fact that all is impermanent, > > that sansara is suffering, > In case this here is what is called "sansara", I can assure you that in > during the time I was reading your post I didn't feel any form of suffering:) > Let's not overemphasize some aspects of life as the whole; no need to > become pessimistic and depressed. > There can be both pleasure and suffering, and much of it depends on how one > deals with it (in other words: is directly self-made; I'm not speaking of > some kind of consequences, but how you deal with actual experience). Thanks for pointing it out. > > [By the way - who can negate the fact that all is impermanent (maya), > Is this the usual meaning of maya? > I've read it translated as "division of reality" in the sense of taking > concepts as reality (ever seen coordinate systems in the air?). > (Just being curious, not clinging to concepts :-) I understand (clinging....epts). Maya means: that which is really not Illusion means: that which is really not [Ego ~~~ Maya ~~~ Mind ~~~ self ~~~ illusion] > > one doesn't eat by other's mouth > > one doesn't hear by other's ears > > one doesn't smell by other's nose > > one doesn't have thoughts in other's mind > > ... > > ... > > why then, so much insistance on > > "thinking" other's thoughts? > - hunting for (probably imaginary) security Can relate to that. > > why not eat the fruit and enjoy the taste NOW > > rather than "fight" about > > what other's have said about the "taste of the fruit"? > > > > one's own "hallunications" are better than other's REALITY! > > > > [one may have indeed taken other's hallunications as REALITY.] > Then this is one's "hallucination", isn't it? > What defines if something is an "own" hallucination? > And how does one know what isn't a hallucinaton? Hypnosis can be very > effective even on the ordinary "physical" level. Only the Knower knows or perhaps the gods or may be they also know not. > > Concepts are not useful. Example: a concept of "roti (Indian > > bread) will NOT SATISFY hunger. > Sure, but it's useful for communication, e.g. when you want to buy some. > And again, to some degree you can use it for hypnotising yourself or others. yes, communication after eating the roti; and hypnosis afetr eating a lot of rotis. > > (example: this so called "ignorance" is like a king's children > > playing cops and robbers; they all in reality are > > princesses.) > Another viewpoint would be that this so-called "knowledge" is an illusionary > kingdom when in fact all are poor (ignorant); though I'm often thinking that > at least some kinds of ignorance are really a kingdom :-) Yes, an "illusory" example in a "illusory world" with "illusory" knowledge and "illusory" ignorance. > How do you know what is and what isn't? What is [seemingly] doesn't care for what I know or know not. > > THE EMPHASIS IS ON DOING RATHER THAN TALKING ABOUT DOING! > [just wanted to repeat this one - ok by me - so it goes again] > > More you talk from your heart (rather than any book), > > more i enjoy it (a personal quirk of mine, i guess, > > but who knows? who cares anyhow about > > what i enjoy? and why should any one?) > I guess you care about what you enjoy, and I don't see ane need for "why" :-) [Pseudo-politeness perhaps; wouldn't you say? Sorry] Thanks Marc for pointing it out. ---raj In Article: <1992Mar26.235751.9276@iitmax.iit.edu> dogen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (John Chq) writes: >Some religions deny that "you are Rome", i.e., the religions of the Book. >With the few exeptions of Mystics (e.g., Meister Eckhart), G-d (w/ respect >to my Jewish bretheren) is Wholly and Holy other. I've spoken with many >(liberal, the Bible thumpers are intolerable) protestant and catholic >theologins (or students of theology), and a few rabbis, and the notion of >Onness is quite alien. I know a priest who was a classical guitar student of mine who actually teaches classes in southern California on eastern religions, Kaballah, esotericism, christian and jewish mysticism ,Yoga, Vedanta, Meister Eckhart, Yogananda, Vivekananda, etc. and so it not only is not alien to him but he teaches its principles. I am not so sure that he is extremely exceptional because he keeps a very low profile concerning these classes which are not sanctioned by the Catholic Church, in fact he has been in trouble quite a few times and has to relocate to another parish every now and then. But the point is, priests like him do not speak out with a high profile in the church for fear of loosing their ordination. He knows others like himself and they all keep a low profile. But if you say he should just quit, he would not agree in that he always wanted to be a catholic priest since childhood and he wants to remain a priest. Its not valid to say that since a minister or priest does not agree with the mainstream, that they don't belong - maybe they are needed to keep the church from dying out in its narrowness or at least provide some balance. These people are out there. >>If you >>have this philosophy, then you can not just be tolerant of others (tolerance >>implies that you think others are wrong but you, in your great liberal and >>merciful attitude *allow* them to co-exist with you) but accept them and >>their views as another level of understanding and that all will eventually >>reach enlightenment. >Another level? If I believe in an External All-pwerful Diety that is >separate from me, then is this level lower or higher than the Vedantic >view? There is enough "tolerance" to go around. Vedanta would say that if you maintain there is only one religion or one way to salvation, then that is a lower level of understanding. We can accept others views although we may differ on what is higher or lower but tolerance depends on the generosity of the person being tolerant, being generous to allow others to hold their "entirely wrong" views and this generosity is not always present; but truth always _is_ and to see it in all religions means to _accept_, not merely wincingly tolerate, others views and this acceptance is based on your life philosophy and not on what kind of mood you happen to be in. >Why not throw out all religious traditions? "Throwing the baby out with the bath water" is a mistake in my view. We don't have to throw out all common sense on the spiritual path. Just throw out what you think is not true or applicable and benefit from the wisdom of saints and sages throughout time that inspire us to know who we really are (ie. enlightenment or Self-realization). >Religious wars are usually a result of a complex combination of power >politics, cultural clashes, economic factors, etc. To reduce it to mere >belief is naive. True, wars have complex causes that go deep into cultural, political, re- ligious, economic, class, racial, ethnic issues. I was being a bit naive about ending religious wars with understanding. But perhaps a war would be just called a war and not a "religious war" if nobody had any problem with religions other than their own and could see the truth in all religions. Still naive :-(. 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 :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'd like to comment a bit on some points mentioned in this post; please don't take this as personal criticism, but as trying to show other possible view- points. Remember that not everything that appears plausible need to be true, and not everything that is true needs to appear plausible - just think of how results of modern science (e.g. relativity theory, quantum mechanics) relate to the more "common sense" (read: uninformed prejudices :-) like models of the past centuries. Besides all criticism, thanks for the series - I enjoyed it. Yi L Chiang wrote: > It is Karma, rooted in ignorance and craving, that conditions rebirth. > Past Karma conditions the present birth; and present Karma, in combination with > past Karma, conditions the future. The present is the offspring of the past, > and becomes, in turn, the parent of the future. Though the model of cause --> effect is useful in the macro-level domain, at the micro-level it may be inappropriate, and perhaps better be replaced by correlation [i.e. not a bunch of ping-pong-balls influencing eachother, but relationship(s)]. > Either there must be a beginning or there cannot be a beginning of life. Another alternative is that "life" is a too fuzzy term. > Another school denies a first cause for, in common experience, the cause > ever becomes the effect and the effect becomes the cause. In common experiences speeds do add, whereas when measured they don't. Take care with such generalizations. > It is left to scientists to speculate on the origin and the evolution of > the universe. I've just seen an article on another list about scientists having found indications that the universe (in the sense of "all what is") didn't really have a beginning. > In hypnotic states some relate experiences of their past lives, while > a few others read the past lives of others and even heal diseases. Couldn't this as well indicate some kind of accessible "memory-pool", and rather than an identity chain going from one being to another? [I'm not saying whether I believed anything about that - just showing possible interpretations] The meaning of identity is questionable (and questioned), anyway :-) > Sometimes we get strange experiences which cannot be explained but by > rebirth. Rephrase as "which we currently cannot explain but by the concept of rebirth". Non-knowledge of alternatives doens't mean there were none. > How often do we meet persons whom we have never met, and yet > instinctively feel that they are quite familiar to us? How often do we visit > places, and yet feel impressed that we are perfectly acquainted with those > surroundings? As long as you don't have secret knowledge that you could not possibly have seen when you are there, it could be an effect that has been found to be caused by a delay between incoming perception and processing in the brain. > Could they rise to such lofty heights if they had not lived noble lives > and gained similar experiences in the past? Is it by mere chance that they > are been born of those particular parents and places under those favorable > circumstances? Complex structures might well lead to that, much like ordinary physical laws are sufficient to explain weather effects, yet not providing enough data for single-case prediction. Did you ever see those beautyful fractal images? There's also the calculation that the moving wing of a butterfly could be sufficient to influence whether there will be an orcan or not (keeping all other conditions fixed, which is of course only possible in the model :-). > The few years that we are privileged to spend here or, for the most five > score years, must certainly be an inadequate preparation for eternity. Wishful thinking does not create a proof. > If one believes in the present and in the future, it is quite logical to > believe in the past. The present is the offspring of the past, and acts in turn > as the parent of the future. If one looks closer, one does only find change, not something stable. Everything seems to pass away. > It is indeed a strong argument in favor of past and future lives that > "in this world virtuous persons are very often unfortunate and vicious persons > prosperous." Again nothing but wishes. I prefer keeping Occam's razor handy. > "... Our reason tells us that the idea of past birth > and Karma alone can explain the degrees of differences that exist between > twins, Environment influence and variations which do occur at the micro-level might be completely sufficient. Just one electron atom hitting a molecule at the "right" place can produce cancer. > how men like Shakespeare with a very limited experience are able to > portray with marvelous, exactitude the most diverse types of human character, > scenes Humans have similar (I refrain from saying equal) potential, that doesn't require identity over past lives. Simple evolution theory is again sufficient. > It should be stated that this doctrine of rebirth can neither be proved > nor disproved experimentally, but it is accepted as an evidentially verifiable > fact. If your definition of "verify" is "I'd like to believe it and it hasn't been proven wrong", yes. Otherwise I'd say at most suspectable. > The result of this analytical method is summed up in the "Paticca > Samuppada". More-or-less formal analysis does always have the problem that you need some kind of reasoning, which may be wrong from the start. And of course, from incorrect axioms you shoulnd't expect sure results. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Wachowitz 75742@novell1.rz.fht-mannheim.de * wonder everyday * nothing in particular * all is special * ...... The Perfect One then preached to the five monks on the absence of the True Self in anything that the senses or the mind can grasp. ...... "O monks, the thing variously called thought and mind and discriminative consciousness is the very same thing to which the ignorant common people cling, thinking, "this is my self." It would be better, monks, if they were to approach the body, rather than the mind, as the self. The body is seen enduring for many years, but this thing variously called thought and mind and discriminative consciousness, this by night and day dissolves as one thing and reappears as another." "As a monkey faring through jungle and forest catches hold of a bough, and having let go takes hold of another, even so does this thing variously called thought and mind and discriminative consciousness, this by night and day dissolves as one thing and reappears as another." The body, monks, is not the self. For if it were, it would not be subject to disease, and it would be exactly as we might wish it to be. So also with feelings, perceptions, predisposing mental formations, and discriminative consciousness. For if, monks, the consciousness were the self, it would not be subject to anguish, and it would be exactly as we might wish it to be." "Monks, what do you think? Is the body permanent or perishable?" "Perishable, Lord," answered the monks. "And that which is perishable, does it cause pain or lasting happiness?" "It causes pain, Lord." "But is it correct to regard what is perishable and painful as 'this is my ego, this is my soul, this is my true self?'" "Certainly not, Lord." "As with body, monks, so also with feelings, perceptions, predisposing mental formations, and discriminative consciousness. Would it be correct to regard any of these aggregates, perishable and painful, as 'this is my ego, this is my soul, this is my true self?'" "That is impossible, Lord." "Well, monks, that being the case, he who is able to see all things as they really are will regard all bodies, feelings, perceptions, predispositions, and discriminative consciousness, be they past, present, or future, be they internal or external, gross or subtle, far or near, as 'none of these is my ego, none of these is my soul, none of these is my true self.'" "Considering this, O monks, the wise Aryan disciple turns away from body, feelings, perceptions, predispositions, and discriminative consciousness. Turning away from them, he becomes free from craving; through being free from craving, he becomes emancipated; and in him who is emancipated the knowledge arises: 'I am free; rebirth is exhausted; lived is the life religious; nothing more remains to be done; there is no more of life under finite conditions.'" Thus spoke Sakyamuni Buddha; and well pleased were the monks with his words.............................................. ............................................................ ............................................................ [From Robert Allen Mitchell's "The Buddha: His Life Retold," Paragon House, New York, NY, 1989 (pages 58-59)] --- A "Beautiful Book to read." ----------------------- ---raj