Attack on Nagarjuna reduced from wild to mild. Madhyamaka Buddhist soteriology may have worked for me. As I said in my postscript to "Wild attack on Nagarjuna" a few days ago, after struggling nonstop for several hours trying to understand some of the key ideas of Madhyamaka thought, I all of a sudden had a deeper insight into what Nagarjuna and his followers may have been trying to say. In this posting, I'm trying to explain what this insight was. For some years now, I have accepted the idea of absence of self in the person (the original Nikaya Buddhism doctrine of anatta). I have examined this notion in meditation, and it does seem to be true to me. The Buddha deserves to be included in the pantheon of great thinkers for this idea alone. Before I did this investigation, my naive sense of self was that of something very close and seemingly concrete whereas all the other goings on (dharmas) in my consciousness seemed more distant, mere outcroppings or appendages to this seemingly solid and central self. Upon close inspection this sense of self evaporated more and more until a state arose in which it practically was absent. What was left was a quiet mind, with little moving in it, but a mind that seemed to be very spacious or filled with space. Or rather, the primary experience was one of clear, alert space within which the mind was an object. I like to call this clear space "pure awareness". The absense of self in such a quiet state was quite convincing. As to the residual events of consciousness arising (faint and fleeting images, distant inner voices, external noises, bodily feelings, propioreceptive input, etc.), these things seemed to be quite incidental and uninteresting, evanescent wisps passing through this clear space. Consequently, it seemed absurd to assign much solid reality to these residual dharmas and to posit the idea of svabhava (self-nature, own-being, independent existence, existing through its own power rather than that of another thing) possessed by these dharmas, as did the Buddhist abhidharma philosophers against whom Nagarjuna reacted. To reiterate, the issue of whether there is a personal self or not, seemed extremely interesting and important to me. However, more peripheral things such as residual conscious events (call them second class dharmas) occurring in a state of stable quiet meditation, and even more so, external things that existed entirely independently of me (such as a tree on the grounds outside of my window - things that are also called dharmas by the abhidharma people), seemed to be of an entirely different character than the cluster of dharmas making up a personal self. They seemed to be much more objective, thinglike, impersonal. Hence, I thought that it was absurd to put these things into the same class as our well-known, ever-cherished (but illusory) personal self. Combine this skeptical attitude toward the Buddhist levelling of what to me seemed to be clearcut differences between subject (personal self) and external objects, with my overall rejection of the theoretical stance of abhidharma Buddhists to carve up all reality (not just physical reality) into presumably more or less equivalent dharmas (to me, a rather nebulous category), and you will see how my critical attitude toward the Madhyamaka arose. Not only did I think that these basic premises were untenable but I further disagreed with their practice of making these tough-to-delineate entities (dharmas) objects of logic, i.e. setting up syllogism-like arguments and derive proofs of existence or non-existence from them. I explained that more extensively (although perhaps in a somewhat muddled way) in my long posting "Wild attack on Nagarjuna". I still feel that the pseudo-logical quality of the Madhyamaka way of reasoning is a very serious problem. Anyway, this was the starting point for my diatribe. I found the practice of logically or ontologically atomizing the entire universe (internal, i.e. consciously experienced, as well as external, i.e. physical and independent of persons) into qualitatively equivalent dharmas ludicrous. I still feel that way, from an objective point of view, and I bet everyone here would have the same feeling. After I had finished writing and editing my article, I relaxed my attitude of a total unacceptability of the concept of dharmas for a moment and thought "Well, what if for a moment I accept the notion of dharmas and assume that all the dharmas are alike and I pay some more attention to those previously uninteresting residual dharmas." When I did that, I realized that unwittingly I actually still attributed to these "second-class" dharmas a certain degree of substantiality and independence, i.e. a kind of concrete self-nature. This made me understand how the non-Madhyamaka abhidharma psychologists had been led to postulate svabhava in all dharmas. Further, when I then adopted Nagarjuna's viewpoint of refuting svabhava in the dharmas, and took a closer look at these dharmas, his viewpoint all of a sudden made sense. The naively imputed solidity in these residual dharmas evaporated just as it had, so many times before, for the sense of "personal self", and they became completely transparent, evanescent, insubstantial, almost non-existent. Yet the immediate experience of space-like pure awareness was still there, completely unchanged and unchangeable. There was nothing substantial and individual there anywhere, and yet there was one thing very clear and concrete there, i.e. pure awareness, the apparent ground of all consciousness. When I realized the emptiness of these residual dharmas, it felt as if the floor had suddenly dropped a foot. Simultaneously, an intuition arose of the enormous implications of such a viewpoint. Most of our experience, thoughts and notions would be completely empty, in the sense of having no true content or independent existence, only fleetingly coming into existence through interdependent causation. The only thing that really exists then is just this chain of antecedents and consequents. The individual packets in this chain (i.e. these would be the dharmas) cannot be thought of as having any true existence. They would be as insubstantial as the logic state of a computer as it goes through a step in executing a program. I basically accept Nagarjuna's notion of conventional and ultimate truths. Conventional truths are just that: the conventions, mores, established practices of language and social interaction in a given culture, the whole artifact of a given culturally defined version of samsara (e.g. our North American hell). These truths one has to accept but one doesn't have to be deluded by them (being deluded by them is the definition of living in samsara). The important thing is whether one can rise to the level of ultimate truth, i.e. the true reality. I realized that if one sees the truth of the emptiness of all dharmas, the mind all of a sudden becomes very clear and supple. It is pervaded only by space-like pure awareness and there is no more true division into subject and object. That duality simply disappears. There is then a lucidity, a clear seeing, an imperturbability, a spontaneous and natural functioning. Most importantly, there is then a capacity for simultaneously perceiving both ultimate truth and conventional truth. I.e. one can go through the world and vote, pay taxes, yell at one's kid, go through a romance, and all the rest of the conventional things, and yet see them all as empty even while one despises or enjoys them (all the while seeing the aversion or attraction also as empty). All of this came in one surprising intuition, with all the pieces in place, and I'm just teasing them apart now in a linear, sequential, discursive fashion. In other words, I suddenly found myself in substantial accord with Nagarjuna, or so it seems. Moreover, all of the ideas discussed above formed one consistent whole in which everything was logically interconnected. The scientist in me who would like to construct an objective theory of mental functioning, a theory that would give rise to testable predictions and suggest reproducable experiments, still is severely critical of the basic assumptions in Nagarjuna's system and of his technique of argumentation. But maybe his system should not be viewed as an objective scientific theory (that's the way I looked at it). Maybe it should be viewed as a vehicle for liberation. It may eventually turn out that _all_ theories of mind are more or less metaphorical. I increasingly get that impression from the ones that are being cooked up presently, e.g. looking at cognitive models, neural network models, artificial intelligence approaches, perceptual filter models, Wiener analysis approaches etc. etc. Maybe all these metaphors are more or less equivalent, including all the ancient ones (e.g. Nagarjuna). None of them may be any closer to the truth than any other. Maybe the entire notion of an objective truth about the mind that can be rigorously formulated in a self-consistent theory is mistaken. If by contrast Nagarjuna's system is viewed as a path to liberation, then it doesn't have to be "correct" or "true". The only thing that counts is whether it works. In my case, something worked for me. I suddenly had an experience of a totally different way of looking at the world. And when I try to verbalize it as I do now, it seems as if most of the cryptic and seemingly paradoxical descriptions of Nagarjuna's school are quite appropriate. E.g. the world can truly be experienced as empty but since it is being experienced within an intensely real inner space of pure awareness, i.e. since there is still something there, closer than one's skin, this is not the same as nihilism. Also, there is a single unity of experience, not a duality of subject and object. There is a very clear, natural, uncluttered mind, there is nothing there that needs to be grasped at or defended as belonging to a self. There is no self. Moreover, there is a simultaneous presence of ultimate and conventional reality. Maybe that is what Nagarjuna meant by the identity of samsara and nirvana. It further makes sense to equate samsara/nirvana with pratityasamutpada, as he did. Finally, the statement makes sense that in the realization of emptiness enlightenment is realized. I did indeed feel enlighted for a brief time. A light went on inside. I saw that these ideas have vast implications and could turn one's world upside down. My mind was very clear and peaceful and stood in awe of this experience. Also, because of this clarity and simplicity of mind and my temporary ejection from the ordinary self-centered chaos of my mind, I could see the world clearly and objectively. I felt as if I was outside of my ordinary skin, and I could relate to the world non-defensively and compassionately. Finally, I could see how in such a state the well-known and much discussed bodhisattva virtues would arise naturally. In other words, it seems plausible to me now that by realizing the truth of emptiness, liberation is attained which is exactly what Nagarjuna claimed. So I have revised my judgment on Nagarjuna and the Madhyamaka. This intellectual approach may indeed be a vehicle to enlightenment for intellectually inclined people. I believe now that I was missing the whole point of the Madhyamaka system. Needless to say, I need to verify my interpretation now. This may not be an easy matter. I wonder if this whole argument made any sense to anyone on the net, and if anybody has a similar view. There was another interesting thing that I learned. I would still be in my state of fussing and fuming over this "Madhyamaka BS", rejecting it on scientific grounds and getting nowhere if I hadn't decided, just for the hell of it, to accept and start to think through the implications of this set of ideas, on their own terms, flawed as those may be. This "flawed" vehicle then propelled me to a point of intuitive understanding that seems extraordinarily important to me now but that I probably would not have reached through my scientific critique. I used to cherish my intellectual independence, and for the past several years felt suspended in a limbo, in an intellectual crisis of a sort. I had realized the staggering amount of indoctrination and brainwashing that we are exposed to as we grow up and wander through life; this is the major cause of our pitiful state of living in samsara. Being highly sensitized to this, I tried to understand my mind without any crutches, without any support from any preexisting conceptual system. I thought, I will start from ground zero, and through meditation study my mind on its own terms, in its own unadulterated state, uninfluenced by anyone else's theories. I have become increasingly convinced that this is impossible; one can't escape brainwashing, be it gross or subtle. I certainly got nowhere, and this has been driving me crazy. Now I think that the solution may be to accept some degree of indoctrination (a flawed vehicle), go along with it, hopefully get to a point of a deeper understanding of one's mind, and then purify the mind from the inside out. To state this differently, if I hadn't said to Nagarjuna "OK, I will act like a sheep, and I will think the way you want me to think, just for now", I wouldn't have had the insight that I did indeed derive. Miraculously, Nagarjuna's ancient vehicle got me somewhere. I have read a lot of expositions on emptiness, and I used to sneer at the plodding, mechanical prescriptions of how one is supposed to meditate on emptiness, step by step ("Here, do this, and when you have arrived at the "correct" understanding of this stage, then do that, and after that stage, "correct" understanding provided, do that, etc. etc."). These prescriptions haven't changed a bit from the days of Tsongkhapa to the days of the 14th Dalai Lama; if you've seen one of these treatments, you've seen them all. I used to take this as evidence of lack of originality and of a mere regurgitation of arbitrary doctrines invented by ancient, unassailable authorities. I feel somewhat chastened now, thinking that these meditation schemes may not at all be like communist indoctrination manuals but rather may be effective upaya. Enough of all this. Jochen -------------------------------------------------------------------------- The following article was posted in soc.culture.thai by Samart Srijumnong. There was no copy right to the original article. About 670 lines of text. Please print out for a serious reading. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- BUDDHADASA BHIKKHU'S DHAMMIC SOCIALISM: LESSONS FOR THAI DEMOCRACY* By Tavivat Puntarigvivat This paper is dedicates to the courageous Thai people who died, were injured, and who risked their lives for the struggle for Thai domocracy during the 1973 Revolution, the 1976 coup d'etat, and the 1992 Revolution. Note: * This paper was prepared for the conference commemorating "60 Years of Suan Mokkh (Suan Mokkaplaram Buddhist Monastery) and The Quest for Thai Democracy" at Buddhadhamma Meditation Center in Chicago on May 29-30, 1992. The Purpose of this paper is to present the conception of Dhammic Socialism as the contemporary political thought of a Thai Buddhist thinker Buddhasa Bhikkhu and the lessons we could learn from it to further the struggle of the Thai people for democracy. There are two parts in this paper: the first part is the presentation of Buddhasa's Dhammic Socialism and the second part is its role in the history of struggle for Thai democracy. As a contemporary Thai Buddhist thinker, Buddhasa Bhikkhu (born in 1906) has interpreted Buddhism not only from the religion point of view but also from a socio-political perspective. After devoting most of his life to reforming Buddhism in Thailand, Buddhadasa found it necessary to address socio- political issues from a Buddhist perspective. He initially dicussed his socio-political thought in terms of what he called "Dhammocracy" (Dhamma- thipathai): the social and political order should follow the law of Dhamma-- the teaching of the Buddha. Later on in the atmosphere of the student led revolution in Thailand from 1973 to 1976, Buddhadasa presented his unique theory of Dhammic Socialism" (Dhammika Sangkhom-niyom). Buddhadasa bases his theory of Dhammic Socialism on nature. To him nature represents the state of balance for the survival and well-being of human beings, animals, plants, and the ecology of the world. In the state of nature, every being produces according to its capacity and consumes according to its needs: no being, whatever form it has, hoards "surplus" for its own sake. Buddhadasa calls this balanced state of nature socialistic. Problems arise, however, when human beings begin to hoard the "surplus" for the sake of their own profit; this leaves others in scarcity and proverty. According to Buddhadasa, human beings can and should produce a "surplus," but the "surplus" should be distributed for the well-being of everyone, and Buddhism provides the ethical tools for this fair distibution. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu: His Life and Works ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Buddhadasa Bhikkhu was born on May 27, 1906 at Phumriang in Suratthani, a southern province in Thailand. His original name was Nguam Phanit. He was ordained as a monk (bhikkhu) at the age of 20, and after he had studied in the Thai Buddhist monasteries for some time, he retreated into a forest in southern Thailand and devoted himself to studying and practicing Dhamma--the teaching of the Buddha--for six years. In 1932, just one month before the 1932 Revolution in Thailand, he founded a forest monastery called "Suan Mokkhabhalaram" (Garden of Liberation) at Phumriang, and later on he moved "Suan Mokkhabhalaram" to present site at Chaiya in the same province. At Suan Mokkh, Buddhadasa had been teaching Dhamma and working on his reform of Buddhism for the last sixty years. Suan Mokkhabhalaram has become one of the most important Buddhist centers in the contemporary Buddhist world. Buddhadasa is one of the most important reformers of comtemporary Theravada Buddhism. From a theoretical prespective, he has rationalized Theravada Buddhism and the Thai Buddhist tradition so that they appeal to intellectuals in the modern Thai society and the modern world. He has also reinterpreted Theravada Buddhism teachings so that they embrace the teachings of Mahayana Buddhism--especially Zen--and the teachings of other world religions, particularly Christianity with which he has made a creative contribution to the interreligious dialogue. From the practical perspective, he has initiated the way of life and the practice of Dhamma in the Buddhist community at Suan Mokkh somewhat similar to those referred to in the Tipitaka (the Pali Canon). Buddhadasa's thoughts are rooted in Buddhism. His publication of series of "Dhammaghosana (Propagation of the Dhamma), the extensive volumes of his lectures, is probably the larget publication ever produced by a single Theravada Buddhism thinker in the entire history of the tradition (Donald Swearer, THE VISION OF BHIKKHU BUDDHADSA, p.14). When the publication is completed, it will be even more extensive than the Tipitaka itself. A number of his lectrues have contributed to the socio-political issues from a Buddhist perspective--particularly his idea of Dhammic Socialism. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu has become well-known among scholars and intellectuals in Thailand and Buddhist world. In 1986 when he was 80 years old, the Thai people and the Thai government celebrated his birth and have recognized him as one of the greatest thinkers Thailand ever produced. Concerning his name, Buddhadasa wrote: "...I devote body and life to the Buddha. I am the dasa (servant, slave) of the Buddha, the Buddha is my boss. Hence, my name Buddhadasa" Buddhist Socialism and Dhammic Socialism ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In Southeast Asia, there have been several attempts to establish "Buddhist Socialism" in the struggle against Western colonialism, capitalism, and neo-colonialism respectively. The most prominent political leaders who tried to establish Buddhist Socialism were S.W.R.D.Bandaranaike, the prime minister of Sri Lanka in 1958; U Nu, the prime minister of Burma from 1948 to 1962; and Prince Sihanouh of Kampuchea during the 1950s and 1960s.(Donald K. Swearer, Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's Dhammic Socialism, p.20) From the Buddhist Social perspective, the state should guarantee sufficient material needs for everyone--the four Buddhist requisites of food, shelter, clothing and medicine; should minimize class and property distinctions as the results from the colonial period; and should encourage all citizens to strive for morality and to overcome their self-acquisitive interests. In short, the state was to meet the material needs of the people, and Buddhism their spiritual needs. (ibid, p.20-21) Buddhism Socialism has not been limited just to Theravada cultures, Buddhist leaders during the Vietnam war used this language, and the head of the Sokka Gakkai movement in Japan and founder of the Kometo political party has characterized his political philosophy as a Buddhist Socialism.(ibid) Buddhist Socialism as an ideology and political program came to fore in the Buddhist countries in Asia at the end of the colonial era and beginning of the modern Asian nation-state; roughly speaking, in the two decades of following the end of World War II. As Donald K. Swearer points out, as an ideology Buddhist Socialism was indebted to the Buddhist under- standing of the world and the meaning of human existence, and to many of the liberal democratic ideals of the West. As a political and economic program it reflected Western socialist egalitarian ideals of the production and distribution of wealth. It was, in short, a syncretic marriage of varying elements from Buddhism to Western influences. (ibid, p.19-20) "Dhammic Socialism" of Buddhadasa, on the other hand, derives its theory from Dhamma and the Thai Buddhist culture rather than from the mixture of Buddhism and Western political thoughts. As Buddhadasa understands it, Dhammic Socialism is the natural state, the interdependence and the relationship of all beings in the universe--including plants, animals as well as human beings. Everything is socialistic in its nature and is in balance. The unbalance, however, occurs only when a human being keeps the "surplus" and the keeping of the "surplus" in one's ownership leaves other human beings in scarcity and poverty. The conflicts among human beings arise out of this "surplus" problem. Dhammic Socialism is the attempt to solve this "surplus" problem from the Buddhist perspective. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's Dhammic Socialism ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The term "socialism" (sangkhom-niyom) in Thai language is interesting in itself as it reflects a Buddhist perspective of socialism. The term sang- khom comes from the Sanskrit root sangha (community), and niyom from the Sanskrit root niyama (restraint). So sangkhom-niyom literally means the restraint of each member of the society for the benefit of the community. The restraint of oneself is one of the most basic teachings of the Buddha: sila (normality, "precepts"). And the Buddhist Sangha (Buddhist community) is a living example of the socialist way of life and the socialist community is Buddhism. Buddhadasa bases his idea and "praxis" of Dhammic Socialism on his insight in nature, the teachings of the Buddha, and the practice of the Buddhist Sangha. 1. Dhammic Socialism and The State of Nature ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ According to Buddhadasa, the spirit of or essence of socialism is the Dhamma of nature (dhammajati). The state of nature in its pure sense is an example of pure socialism. Throughout the process of evolution, from single celled organisms right up to the appearance of the first primitive human being, the natural world remained inherently socialistic. Nature did not provide any of its various forms with the means of hoarding more resources than were necessary for survival and development. In this state of nature: Birds, insects, trees--all consume only as much as Nature has given them the means to take in, a level of consumption perfectly "dictatorial," aspect of nature that has allowed the plant and animal world to survive and multiply in such profusion and diversity. Even the earliest humans had no social problems as we do today, because they had not begun to hoard resources. They lived according to a natural socialism for hundreds of thousands of years. We are here today because Nature has maintained a harmonious socialistic balance through the entire evolutionary process. This natural balance was not threatened until a new "un-natural" humans began to produce and store for themselves more than they needed. This hoarding gave rise to competition instead of cooperation. Social problems began when human intelligence was applied to methods of accumulating wealth, power, and resources in order to take advantage of others. (Buddhadasa Bhikkhu. DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM, p.86-87) Many problems plague us today, for instance military dictatorship which appropriates large amounts of wealth for itself at the expense of the rest of the society. Various political and economic theories have been put forward to address this struggle for power and resources; unfortunately, these theories tend to lead us away from any real solution because they do not operate according to Dhamma or the way of nature. Buddhadasa argues that: The entire universe is a socialist system. Countless numbers of stars in the sky exist together in a socialist system. Because they follow a socialist system they can survive. Our small universe with its sun and planets including the earth is a socialist system.Consequently, they do not collide. (Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, A SOCIALISM CAPABLE OF BENEFITING THE WORLD, p.114) [Small universe should be interpreted as 'Solar System', IMO...Tawit] In nature we find the perfect essence of morality (sila-dhamma), which is one and the same with the basis of socialism: the condition of harmonious balance and normalcy... The socialist system we associated with, the condition of innocence created by God,is the natural state or the original state of nature (dhamma-jati). [ Commas are inserted by me for clarity...Tawit] People existed in this condition for ages until they lost such a natural socialism as a consequence of their ignorance and their lack of obedience to God. This was the beginning of sin (papa). This original socialist condition encompassed both the human and animal worlds as part of the state of nature. It was not the creation of human beings. Indeed, social problems arose when humans acts against the original intention (cetana) of Nature. More and more problems arose over time as a result of human effort and more and more distinctions were created among people until it became necessary for them to construct a socialist system themselves because they had so separated themselves from nature (Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, A DICTATORIAL DHAMMIC SOCIALISM, p.87-88) According to Buddhadasa, the problems began when someone hoarded grains and other food, causing shortages for others. Once supplies began to be hoarded, problems of unequal distribution and access arose. The problems multiplied over time. Leaders of various groups of people would be in charge of stockpiling supplies for the group, and fighting among the groups was inevitable. To maintain control over society and to limit human beings' greed (kilesa), laws and moral systems developed. Social justice, according to Buddhadasa, can be obtained when people "return" to the balanced state of natural socialism. To him, socialism is based on the principle in accord with the way of nature, that none of us should take more than we really need. We should share whatever extra we have with those who have less. This does not mean that we should not produce a surplus. People have a right to produce more than they need, and it is even appropriate to do so if the surplus is shared with others. For Buddhadasa, we all have a natural right to take as much as we need, but not more. If we each were to excercise this natural right to the extent allowed by nature, this world would be filled with a contentment such as we attribute to heaven, the realm of God, or the realm of Buddha Maitreya (the Buddha Utopia), where there is no suffering (dukkha) and dissatisfaction. This is the highest law of nature: to take for ourselves only what we need, and try to accumulate or produce something extra for the benefit of society as a whole. This is Dhammic Socialism--the socialism that is in accord with the law of nature. 2. Dhammic Socialism and Religion ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Buddhadasa argues that Buddhism, and all religions for that matter, are essentially socialist in nature. All members of Buddhist community--monks and lay people--are not only taught but are required to consume no more than their share of material goods. Excessive consumption is wrong and de-meritorious. Buddhism, therefore, is truly a socialist religion, both in its principles and its spirit. Once the Buddha said, "I was born into this world to help all beings." He was not born to benefit any one person or even himself. From Bud- dhadasa's interpretation, the founders of all regions have affirmed that they appeared for the benefit of all beings, and all have spoken out against excessive consumption. All religions are socialist in this sense. True Buddhists, we might say, have an unconscious ideal of Buddhism. It has existed in the Buddhist doctrine as well as the practice among the Buddhist community since the Buddha's time. If we consider the genuine Buddhist behavior toward all living beings, we can see the high form of socialism. Buddhadasa recalls: We must keep in mind that socialism is not something new and faddish. It we were to go back about 2,000 years we would meet the first socialist system which was part of the flesh and blood of the Buddhist community. Consequently, if we hold fast to Buddhism we shall have a socialist disposition in our very being. We shall see our fellow humans as friends in suffering--in birth, old age, sickness, and death--and, hence, we cannot abandon them. Everyone here should be able to understand this statement. The elderly, especially, may remember how our forefathers taught us to be altruistic, to consider others as friends in all aspects of life and death. This ideal of pure socialism must be acted out, not just talked about, and just for political purposes or for one's selfish, devious and false gain. Buddhists need to become familiar with forms of socialism which promote one's own evil deeds and forces them on others. (Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, A SOCIALISM CAPABLE OF BENEFITING THE WORLD, p.102-103) Social problems, in Buddhadasa's view, are fundamentally a result of selfish greed. In other words, greed or selfishness is a heart of scarcity and poverty. We have, unfortunately, entered an age of brutality and selfishness. Human beings have devastated nature (dhammajati) until some kinds of plants and animals have become extinct. Even some kinds of humans have become extinct because of the selfishness and oppression. As Buddadasa puts it: Selfishness has also led to great disparities among people with some becoming excessively rich and others excessively poor. Both the rich and the poor do not understand socialism correctly. This ignorance has been partially responsible for their respective conditions, the poverty of the poor and their exploitation by the rich. Wealth need not be condemned in and of itself. The rich may work to alleviate the conditions of the poor for the good society. If they behave as an exploiting capitalists, however, dire con- sequences will emerge. (ibid, p.108) Today people are so cruel that they have dropped a bomb knowing that it could kill thousands of human beings...Both so-called socialist as well as capitalist countries are prepared to drop such bombs... It we want peace we should choose the path of peace. Killing others will only lead to being killed. The only way of living harmoniously together is to act out of loving-kindness (metta-karuna)...We should overcome evil with good, for evil connot be overcome by evil. (Ibid, p.111) Buddhadasas's analysis of the human being's situation shares much in common with what we find in Agganna Suttanta of the Sutta Pitaka, the so-called Book of Genesis. This Suttanta justifies the selection of a rightous monarch (dhammaraja) chosen by the people who has the wisdom and power to bring order into a world fundamentally disrupted by human greed-- the situation of moral and social chaos which had devolved from an original natural state of harmony and unity. (Donald K.Swearer, Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's Dhammic Socialism, p.30) 3. Dhammic Socialism and Individualism ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For Buddhadasa, to carry out the task of social work, or the service to society, we must embrace the "social-ism" of the work; otherwise we are advocating "individual-ism," or service in the interests of specific individuals. Socialism focuses on the welfare of people in all sectors of a society as well as the examination and correction of social problems at all levels. Individualism, as the basic principle of most democratic societies, cannot provide a basis for the well-being of all people in the society because it promises individual benefits rather than social benefits. According to Buddhadasa, Dhammic Socialism can save the world from what appears to be self-destructive and destruction of natural resources and environment. Buddhadasa argues that the problems we have been discussing arose as societies formed. When people lives isolated from one another or in small groups, as in the Stone Age, these problesm did not exist. As the population increased and people began living together in larger and larger group, social problems began to appear. As societies grew and multiplied, people oppressed one another and the problem grew until they became crisis. "Because the context of all these problems is social not just indivi- dual, we must turn our attention to the source of the problem: society. Whatever system is laid out for the functioning of a social group, the principles of such a system must be for the good of the society as a whole, not just for individuals or for any one person. In a society that puts the interests of any individual above those of the community, social problems cannot be effectively addressed, because the context of the problems is the way society operates as a whole... (Buddhadasa, DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM, p.58-59) From Buddhadasa's perspective, "freedom" is an individual matter. An emphasis on personal freedom shifts the focus from social benefit to indivi- dual interest. Such a focus is at odds with the "politics." To him, politics concerns with the well-being of the whole society. "The word `freedom' as it is widely interpreted is actually incon- sistent with the fundamental meaning of politics. If we think of politics as something that concerns groups of people living together, then the emphasis of a politics system would be the well-being of the entire group... "Anyone infatuated with the word `freedom' or `free democracy' should remember that upholding the personal freedom of individuals who are ruled by kilesa (defilement) goes against the fundamental meaning of politics which is concerned with the good of the whole. A political system that does not focus on society as a whole is an immoral system.. (Buddhadasa, A DICTATORIAL DHAMMIC SOCIALISM, p.84) 4. Dhammic Socialism and Democracy ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Buddhadasa links the terms "socialism," "politics," and "religion" together. The word "politics" in its root meaning can be defined simply as "concerning many people or things." Politics is a moral system based on social cooperation to solve the problems that arise from the increasing number of people living together. It is a strategy for addressing the social problems. In this sense of politics, "socialism" is a more moral political system than any other since it concerns about social cooperation and the well-being of the whole society. Socialism, in moral terms, is a system which brings about balance (prakati) in society, rather than unbalance and confusion. "Religion" (sasana) means the most perfect state or morality, so religion and politics have an essential relationship. Since a political system should be essentially a system of morality, politics and religion share a common ground. Buddhadasa argues that: "The study of society, the `social sciences' (sangham-sastra), should be seen as basically a moral enterprise. The term sastra originally meant that which is sharp, used for cutting...When sastra is applied to society as sangham-sastra (social sciences), we can see that it means something sharp which will cut through the problems of society whether political, economic or social. Politics, as one of the social sciences, can be seen as a method of cutting through social problems. (Buddhadasa, A DICTATORIAL SOCIALISM, p. 78-79) "Let us return to my basic priciple, namely, that no part of society whether it be politics, economics or religion can be excluded from morality and that the "sciences of society" (sastra-sangham) is fundamentally ethical in nature for it proposes to "cut through" the problems of society in all its facets in order to bring about a natural harmony and balance among the parts. "We need to see politics as a form of practical morality, not morality in philosophical sense. (ibid, p. 80) According to Buddhadasa, "democracy," like socialism, is an expres- sion of a poltical term. From practical point of view, democracy increases the likelihood for economic prosperity, individual freedom and human rights. But from a spiritual perspective, most people are common men and women who have personal defilement (kilesa). So individual rights and freedom for common people are the rights and freedom to indulge themselves with material goods. In this sense, democracy comes with consumerism, and consumerism cannot really go together with Buddhism Buddhadasa classifies democracy into two categories: "Liberal Democracy" and "Socialist Democracy." Liberal Democracy is the type of democracy known in the West that provides the equality, rights, and freedom for each individual in the society. It promotes material wealth and consumerism which never satisfy common people's greed (tanha), and it also destroys natural resources and world ecology. Socialist Democracy--or better "Dhammic Socialist Democracy," on the other hand, promotes loving-kindness and compassion (metta-karuna) among people in the society so that all the material wealth produced in the economy are fairly distributed through the spirit of sharing and cooperation. The Buddhist spirit of giving (dana) enriches people's spiritual wealth and reduces material consumerism which is destructive to the world environment. Concerning "Liberal Democracy," Buddhadasa says: "Liberal democracy, above all, upholds the ideal of freedom (saeri). But the freedom it upholds is so ambiguous that it seems always to be controlled by the power of human defilements (kilesa). Though the ideal of freedom is beautifully portrayed in the philosophy of liberal democracy, it is difficult to put into practice. The liberal philosophy or ideology of freedom does not have the power to resist the strength of human defilements. The ambiguity of the meaning of liberal democracy promotes the idea that anything one wants to do is all right. (ibid, p.81) Concerning "Dhammic Socialist Democracy," he says: "A more controlled form of democracy which is better able to cope with human defilement is socialism (sangkham-niyama) which is opposed to ideal of the individual freedom of liberalism. Socialism focuses on social utility, and the examination and correction of social problems.. Worldly freedom which characterizes liberal democracy has a dangerous flaw, i.e., it fails to account adequately for kilesa or defilements. It contrasts with socialism in the most complete sense, `dhammic socialism' or socialism rooted in dhamma. (ibid, p. 81-82) 5. Dhammic Socialism and Capitalism ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Buddhadasa makes the distinction between a "capitalist" in the Western sense and a "sresthi" (wealthy person) in Buddhist sense. A Dhammic Socialist society is a community based on a fundamental sense of the equality of all beings. Such a view does not deny the existence of differences, but all, regardless of position and status, reconized their place within economy of the whole. Thus, the man of wealth should not be a "capitalist" who hoards for his own pleasure but a "sresthi"--one whose high position enables him to be a benefactor to laborers, workers and common people. "Let me give an example. A person of great material wealth (Sanskrit: sresthi) in the Buddhist tradition differs greatly from the capitalist (Thai:nai-thun) of today. Outside of Buddhism, sresthi has the same meaning as nai-thun--one who keeps accumulating material wealth far beyond what he actually needs. In the Buddhist tradition, however, the status of a sresthi was measured by the number of rong-than that person had. A rong-than was an almshouse, a communal place where those in need could find what they lack materially. The more rong-than one had, the wealthier one was considered to be. Because of the surplus produced by the sresthi and the large number of servants and laborers they employed, they were able to build rong-than as a kind of social service. Sresthi in the non-Buddhist sense, however, are strictly nai-thun. They accumulate endless wealth and reinvest all the profits for themselves, while oppressing their workers. A sresthi in the Buddhist sense, on the other hand, employs workers in a cooperative effort for the wealth of the entire community. (Buddhadasa, Democratic Socialism, p.57) The "capitalists" during the Buddhist era were respected by the proletariat rather that attacked by them. If being capitalist means simply accummulating power and wealth for oneself, that differs radically from the meaning of sresthi as one who uses his or her wealth to provide for the well-being of the society and the world. 6. Dhammic Socialism and the Role of Leadership ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For a country to be happy, it must have a just government. A just government, according to Buddhadasa's Dhammic Socialism, could be realized by having moral rulers who care for the welfare of people rather than them- selves. The Buddha's teachings of the "Ten Duties of the King" (dasa-raja- dhamma), as given in the Jataka text, are as follows: 1. Dana (liberality, generosity, charity). The ruler should not have craving and attachment to wealth and property, but should give it away for the welfare of the people. 2. Sila (a high moral character). He should never destroy life, cheat, steal, and exploit others, commit adultery, utter falsehood, and take intoxicating drinks. That is, he must at least observe the Five Precepts of the layman. 3. Pariccaga (sacrificing everything for the good of the people). He must be prepared to give up all personal comfort, name and fame, and even his life, in the interest of people. 4. Ajjava (honesty and integrity). He must be free from fear or favour in discharge of his duties, must be sincere in his intentions, and must not deceive the public. 5. Maddava (kindness and gentleness). He must possess a genial temperament. 6. Tapa (austerity in habits). He must lead a simple life, and should not indulge in a life of luxury. He must have self-control. 7. Akkadha (freedom from hatred, ill-will, enmity). He should bear no grudge against anybody. 8. Avihimsa (non-violence), which means not only that he should harm nobody, but also that he should try to promote peace by avoiding and preventing war, and everything which involves violence and destruction of life. 9. Khanti (patience, forbearance, tolerance, understanding). He must be able to bear hardships, difficulties and insults without losing his temper. 10. Avirodha (non-opposition, non-obstruction), that is to say that he should not oppose the will of the people, should not obstruct any measures that are conducive to the welfare of the people. In other words, he should rule in harmony with his people. (Walpola Rahula, WHAT THE BUDDHA TAUGHT, p. 84-85) From the Buddhist perspective, a just and righteous government is the government which is comprised of righteous persons who ethically and profes- sionally train themselves well, abstain from luxurious life, do not crave wealth and profit for themselves, and represent the interest of the people, builds a just and righteous political, economic and social structure so that nobody, including the government itself, can directly or indirectly oppress other members of the society. A just and righteous government has the duty to fairly distribute income among the people. Buddhadasa proposes that the ideal leader of a Dhammic Socialist country is raja or dhammaraja, the Buddhist leader with the Ten Royal Virtues. According to the Pali scriptures it became necessary to extend natural socialism to the political foundations of the community when oppression in the community became intolerable. People saw fit to invest a particularly capable, just leader with their trust and power. This leader or raja would govern in such a way that no one could oppress anyone else and the community would thus enjoy contentment (Thai: po-cai). Indeed, the word raja actually means contentment of the entire community... The ideal ruler fulfills all of the Ten Royal Precepts or Virtues as set down in the Pali scriptures. Western political theory does not mention anything like the Ten Royal Virtues... If a monarch rules with tyranny, of course such governments should be done away with. If, however, the monarch fulfills the Ten Royal Virtues, then his rule will embody the principles of socialism and bring about contentment in society. Under such rule there would be no capitalist oppressors or division of labor according to wealth and power; there would be no underclass of angry laborers rensentful at being oppressed and at not having power to accumulate wealth for themselves. A truly socialistic government would embody the charac- teristics of dhamma. (Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, A DICTATORIAL DHAMMIC SOCIALISM, p. 89-90) As Buddhadasa understands it, the term "dictatorship" has two meanings. As a political ideology such as military dictatorship, it is certainly un- desirable. But as a means leading to a desirable goal, it can be useful because it simply means to handle things expeditiously. Buddhadasa's notion of "dictatorial" means to obtain a desirable goal--especially peace and justice in the society--came at the time social turmoil during the 1973-1976 period of political unrest in Thailand. During that period of time, it seemed that democracy could not really solve the problems facing Thai people who were ideologically divided into extreme rightists and leftists. To be able to bring peace and justice to Thai society, Buddhadasa saw a "dictotorial" means used by one who had dhamma and wisdom (dhammaraja) to end the hatred and turmoil and to lead the society to the desirable goal of Dhammic Socialism. Buddhadasa explained his position of using "dictatorial" means to obtain peace and justice of Dhammic Socialism thus: Let us examine a very controversial notion "dictatorial democracy" (prajadhipatai-phadetjakara). We tend to shy away from the word, dictatorship," because we are so infatuated with liberalism (saesri-niyoma)... To sum up, there are various forms of democracy such as liberal democracy and socialist society. The ideal form is dhammic socialist democracy in which "dictatorial" means are used to expedite solutions to social problems. We must not be misled by the usual associations of the word, "dictatorial." Dictatorship in the sense of tyranny has no place in dhammic socialism. If dictatorial methods are consistent with dhamma, they will help expedite moral solutions to social problems, and should be used to the fullest extent. Our own country is currently in great turmoil, and we seem to have no clear vision of where we are heading. If we were more "dictatorial" in dhammic way, we would be able to solve our problems quickly. (ibid, p.82-83) Dhammic Socialism: Lessons for Thai Democracy ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [History of political and economic development in Thailand deleted ...Tawit] In the declining Thai rural social structure and culture, revitalized Buddhist tradition could be a solution. In the past, before Thailand modernized the country under capitalism, the Buddhist monastery was the center of a Thai village life. The Buddhist monks were the cultural leaders of the village. Buddhist Sangha (community) provided not only Buddhist teachings, culture and ceremony, but also education, medical care, occupational advise, and so on, to the villagers. In such a Buddhist community, the spirit of sharing and cooperation prevailed; and the villagers were independent culturally and economically. The Thai rural social structure, with the Buddhist Sangha as the center, however, has collapsed over time under the development projects from central government. Buddhadasa's Dhammic Socialism expresses the spirit of sharing and cooperation in such Buddhist community. As a social and political program in Thailand, Dhammic Socialism, with the leadership of well-educated and well-informed Buddhist monks, could bring back the Buddhist community in the rural life in Thai society and, within a new context, solve many of their problems. By being culturally independent, Thai rural society, with a strong Buddhist community, would respect its own tradition, culture and social value. The Buddhist teaching as well as rural society's self- respect and self-confidence would reduce the impact of consumerism which in recent years has been exacerbated by the contents of and advertisements in television, radio, and popular magazines. This, along proper guide from well-informed professionals, would eventually earn back the economic independence and physical well- being that Thai rural people need. Under more culturally and economically independent circumstances, the rural sector of Thai society can take a more active role in promoting Thai democracy. The task of rebuilding such a healthier rural society, however, belongs to all Thais; with a pivotal role undoubtedly being played by Thai Buddhist monks who are widely respected, who demographical- ly represent the rural people, and who resides all over Thailand. References ~~~~~~~~~~ Buddhadasa, Bhikkhu 1933 Nangsuphim Phutthasana (Buddhist Journal), 1st year, 1st issue, May, Chaiya: Khana Dhammadana. 1974 Prachathipatai Baep Sangkhom-niyom (Demoratic Socialism) Bangkok: Sublime Life Mission. 1975 Dhammika Sangkhom-niyom Baep Phadetkan (A Dictatorial Dhammic Socialism), Bangkok: Sublime Life Mission. 1976 Sangkhom-niyom Chanit Thia Chuai Lok Dai (A Socialism Capable of Benefiting the World), Bangkok: Sublime Life Mission. Donald K. Swearer 1986 Bhikkhu Buddhadasa's Dhammic Socialism. Bangkok: Komon Khimthong Foundation. 1989 Me and Mine. New York: State University of New York Press. Charles F. Keyes 1987 Thailand: Buddhist Kingdom as Modern Nation-State. Boulder and London: Westview Press. [Notes: Donald K. Swearer is a professor at Swarthmore College and Charles F. Keyes is a professor at U of Washington, Seattle... the poster] ----------------------------------------------------- Posted to SRE by Tawit Chitsomboon [fstawit@icomp01.lerc.nasa.gov] I write in response to questons asked by Wong Weng Fai July 16. >1. How does the philosophy you outline make the Japanized Chinese rendition >of "Namu Myoho Renge Kyo" the ultimate mantra? A logical conclusion from what >you said shold be that any mantra (including Nembutsu) will do if the mind is >concentrated the right way. I tried to write about the *experience* of Buddhism in a simple, plain- speaking manner. The "concentrated" mind of which you speak results from the chanting of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo and does not occur by chance or haphazardly nor, in my experience (prior to chanting I had tried Zen, Kudalini and Hatha yoga, Vedic and Tantric studies, macrobiotics, Quaker meditation, etc.), from other pursuits. Indeed, I had concluded prior to chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo that Buddhism did not work and did not relate to daily life or the world today. In the following discourse, four other questions asked by Weng Fai will also be answered: >2. Why is the mantra and the gohonzon even more important than the sutra >which inspired it? In particular, the Lotus never mentions this "fact". >4. Why is Nichiren the only who who understand [sic] true Buddhism? Why is >his way the ONLY way? >6. Why the intolerance? Why the aggression?...It is one thing to disagree >with another's philosophy, its [sic] quite another to say, 'Nembutsu leads >one to hell, Zen is evil, Shingon destroys the country and Ritsu are traitors'.>... >...Furthermore, how does the Renge mantra and the gohonzon come in? What has >the 7 characters written by a person who is dead and the chanting of the "One >True Mantra" got to do with one's enlightenment? Isn't these [sic] "external" >just like the learning of sutras? Nichiren wrote in a letter ("Banishment to Sado," MW 5, p. 123) [Since all my material quoting Nichiren comes from "The Major Writings of Nichiren Daishonin," Vols. 1 - 6, Nichiren Shoshu Int'l. Center, I'll abbreviate "MW 1- 6."] that "my original aim in studying was to master the Buddhist teachings, so that I might attain Buddhahood and thereby also save the people to whom I am indebted." The principal difference between Nichiren and other Buddhist innovators involved not only his ability to read and interpret the sutras ex- pounded by Shakyamuni Buddha but also his "innate capability" to form/establish a practice whereby Gautama's Dharma could be achieved. If a student of Buddhism reads and studies the sutras of Shakyamuni, inconsistencies seemingly appear. Nichiren taught us to read the sutras exceedingly carefully to deter- mine the truth. For example, ("The Essence of the Juryo Chapter," MW 3, p. 32- 33): "The Buddha also stated, 'However, men of devout faith, the time is limitless and boundless--a hundred, thousand, ten thousand, hundred thousand, nayuta aeons--since I in fact attained Buddhahood.' [Lotus Sutra, Ch. 16] With this single proclamation, he refuted as great falsehoods the words of the Kegon Sutra, which states that Shakyamuni attained Buddhahood for the first time in this world; the Agon sutras, which speak of his 'first attainment of the path'; the Vimalakirti Sutra, which reads, 'For the first time the Buddha sat beneath the tree'; the Daijuku Sutra, which states, 'It is sixteen years since the Buddha first attained enlightenment'; the Dainichi Sutra, which de- scribes the Buddha's enlightenment as having taken place 'some years ago when I sat in the place of meditation'; the Ninno Sutra, which refers to the Buddha's enlightenment as an event of 'twenty-nine years ago,'; the Muryogi Sutra, which states, 'Previously I went to the place of meditation'; and the Hoben Chapter of the Lotus Sutra, which says, 'When I first sat in the place of meditation.'" Not only Nichiren but also other great interpreters of the Buddha's sutras, T'ien-t'ai, Dengyo, and Maio-lo, for example, discerned a division of the sutras according to the capacity of the people to understand Buddhism. If we fail to understand the *process* by which Shakyamuni taught, we relegate ourselves to interpreting Buddhism in a nonsensical fashion with no real effect in this world. Nichiren said, ("Questions and Answers on Embracing the Lotus Sutra," MW 6, p. 20) "Therefore, the Great Teacher Chisho stated in his commen- tary, 'If one claims that there is no division of Mahayana and Hinayana among the sutras and no distinction of partial and perfect among relevations of the truth, and therefore accepts all the words of the various teachers, then the preachings of the Buddha will have been to no purpose.'" We preliminarily find in this quote also the reason Nichiren so vigorously stated his position, the supremacy of the Lotus Sutra over all others, and confrontationally challenged other sects who, in fact, denigrated the Lotus. Nichrien revered and listened clearly to Shakyamuni's words. At the age of 72, Shakyamuni, after 42 years of preaching, addressed the disciples assembled before him with some zingers: "Honestly discarding the provisional teachings, [I will expound the supreme Way]." (Lotus Sutra, Ch. 2) "The World-Honored One has long expounded his doctrines and now must reveal the truth." (LS, Ch. 2) "This Lotus Sutra is the secret storehouse of Buddhas. Among the sutras, it hold the highest place." (LS, Ch. 14) "The scriptures I preach number in the countless millions. Among all those I have preached, now preach, and will preach, this Lotus Sutra is the most difficult to believe and the most difficult to understand." (LS, Ch. 10) "Listen well and hear the Tathagata's secret and his Mystic power.... All gods, men and asuras of this world believe that after leaving the palace of the Shakyas, the Shakyamuni Buddha seated himself at the place of meditation not far from the city of Gaya and attained the supreme enlightenment. However, men of devout faith, the time is limitless and boundless--a hundred, thousand, ten thousand, hundred thousand, nayuta kalpas--since I in fact attained Buddhahood." (LS, Ch. 16) In referring to the quote concerning "most difficult to believe and the most difficult to understand," Nichiren wrote in "A Comparison of the Lotus Sutra and Other Sutras": "After the death of the Buddha, there were only three persons who realized the true meaning of this passage of the Lotus Sutra. In India, Bodhisattva Nagarjuna said in his "Daichido Ron": '[The Lotus Sutra] is like a great physician who changes poison into medicine.'...In China, the Great Teacher T'ien-t'ai Chih-che interpreted this phrase in light of its con- text: 'Among all those [sutras] I have preached, now preach and will preach, this Lotus Sutra is the most difficult to believe and the most difficult to understand.' And in Japan, the Great Teacher Dengyo elaborated on this phrase: 'All the sutras of the first four or the five periods preached in the past, the Muryogi Sutra now being preached, and the Nirvana Sutra to be preached in the future, are easy to believe and easy to understand. This is because the Buddha taught these sutras in accordance with the capacity of his listeners. The Lotus Sutra is the most difficult to believe and to understand because in it the Buddha directly revealed what he had attained.'" (MW 3, p. 303-4) The teachings of Shingon, Nembutsu, Zen, and Ritsu teach Dharma accord- ing to the people's capacity rather than the Dharma itself revealed only, by Shakyamuni's own words, in the Lotus Sutra. These sects do not base their teachings on the Lotus Sutra. The Lotus Sutra also states: "One who refuses to take faith in this sutra and instead slanders it immediately destroys the seeds for becoming a Buddha in this world....After they die, they will fall into the Avichi Hell." (LS, Ch. 3) I claim no credit for this argument which I borrowed from Nichiren ("Questions and Answers on Embracing the Lotus Sutra," MW 5, p. 18-9): "The Muryogi Sutra says: '[Because people differ in their natures and desires,] I expounded the Law in various ways. Expounding the Law in various ways, I made use of the power of expedient means. But in these more than forty years, I have not yet revealed the truth.' Hearing this pronounce- ment, Bodhisattva Daishogon and the other eighty thousand bodhisattvas replied in unison, voicing their understanding that '[If one cannot hear of this sutra...,] in the end he will never attain supreme enlightenment, even after the lapse of countless, limitless, inconceivable asogi kalpas.' The point of this passage is to make clear that, no matter how much one may aspire to the Buddha Way by calling upon the name of Amida Buddha or by embracing the teachings of the Zen sect--relying on the sutras of the Kegon, Agon, Hodo and Hannya periods preached by the Buddha during the previous forty years and more--he will never succeed in attaining supreme enlightenment, even though a countless, limitless, inconceivable number of asogi kalpas should pass.... [The Lotus Sutra] says...'There is the Dharma of only one vehicle. There are not two, nor are there three.'...It also says, 'One who refuses to take faith in this sutra and instead slanders it immediately destroys the seeds for be- coming a Buddha in this world.'" Nichiren clearly illuminated the basis for a provisional teaching or a sutra preached according to the people's capacity: "Although these earlier sutras may include such statements as 'this is the foremost sutra' or 'this is the king of sutras,' they are all nevertheless provisional teachings. One is not to rely on such pronouncements. The Buddha himself commented on this point when he said, 'Rely on the sutras that are complete and final and not on those that are not complete and final.' [Nirvana Sutra, Vol. 6] And the Great Teacher Miao-lo states in his commentary: 'Though other sutras may call them- selves the king among sutras, there is none that announces itself as foremost among all the sutra preached in the past, now being preached, or to be preached in the future. Thus one should understand them according to the principle of "combining, excluding, corresponding and including."' This passage of commen- tary is saying in essence that, even if there should be a sutra that calls itself the king of sutras, if it does not also declare itself superior to those sutras that have been preached before and those that shall be preached after, then one should know that it is a sutra belonging to the category of expedient teachings. It is the way of the sutras preached before the Lotus to say nothing concerning the sutras that were to be preached in the future. Only in the case of the Lotus Sutra, because it is the ultimate and highest statement of the Buddha's teachings, do we find a clear pronouncement that this sutra alone holds the place of absolute superiority among 'all the sutras I have preached, now preach, and will preach.'" (Ibid., p. 21) Orthodox Nichiren Shoshu recites two chapters from the Lotus Sutra morning and evening. The first is the Hoben Chapter or second chapter, and the second is the Juryo Chapter or sixteenth chapter. In the Hoben, Shakyamuni repudiated the two Hinayana vehicles of Learning and Realization and the pro- visional Mahayana vehicle of Bodhisattva and instead proclaims the true goal of every Buddha is to lead all beings, without discrimination, to the one Dharma (Buddhahood) through the One Buddha Vehicle. In the Juryo, he reveals that, actually, he attained enlightenment in the remotest, infinite past through his Bodhisattva practice and not, as he previously claimed, 40 years prior in his life as Shakyamuni. Two important points arise at this juncture. Through the Hoben and subsequent chapters in the sutra, we come to understand that all people can attain Buddhahood in their present form--just as they are. Secondly, we enlarge our perspective on the Buddha from the Hinayana view that only one Buddha in this one world exists, Shakyamuni, to that of the Mahayanist who perceives that Buddhahood does, in fact, mean each one of us is capable of becoming Buddha. Daisaku Ikeda in "Buddhism, the First Millennium" (Kodansha Int'l. Ltd., ISBN 0-87011-321-6, p. 130) describes the Hinayana/ Mahayana differences thusly: "But, as we have seen, by the time some one hundred years had passed after the death of Shakyamuni, the traditional Buddhist organization, with the monastic community as its center, had evolved into a rigid and generally exclusive group. Its members, instead of making an attempt to spread the teachings of Shakyamuni among the populace as a whole, devoted all their efforts to the examination of minute points of doctrine. As a result, those followers of Buddhism, laymen for the most part, who strove to put into practice the bodhisattva ideal found themselves increasingly cut off from the main organization by unbridgeable differences of method and ap- proach....As a result of these tendencies, enlightenment came to be regarded as something that exists only on an extremely lofty plane, and the attainment of Buddhahood accordingly seemed far beyond the grasp of the ordinary monk or laymen....The followers of the Mahayana, on the other hand, viewed the Buddha as a being very close in existence to themselves. Anyone who carried out the practices of the bodhisattva, exerting himself to bring profit and salvation to others, could most certainly become a Buddha. In the Mahayana scriptures, a great number of different Buddhas are described, presumably because the Maha- yana followers were capable of perceiving a variety of Buddhas within their own minds and hearts." Moreover, "The Hinayana concept of only one Buddha for each world is dramatically contradicted in the Lotus Sutra in chapter eleven, where a stupa or treasure tower appears floating in the air over the assembly, and within it are seated side by side Shakyamuni and a second being called the Taho or Many Treasures Buddha....The vision of the treasure tower springing up and hanging in the sky, then, is intended to express this principle of the ability of all beings to realize through their life force the Buddha worlds existing within each of them. At the same time it, and the explanations in the chapters that follow it, serves to refute the old concept of 'one Buddha to one world.'" The truly perplexing aspect of the Lotus Sutra for those unable to study with Shakyamuni himself remains our inability to access the Dharma through his teachings! Shakyamuni beautifully revealed the potential for and existence of Buddhahood through the "One Buddha Vehicle," but aside from asking that the bodhisattvas who sprang up from the open space below the saha world to protect, read, and expound the sutra (Ch. 15), this Buddha left no means to attain this extremely desirable state of Buddhahood. What exactly does one do in a down-to-earth manner in order to attain Buddhahood through the one vehicle? How does one live? What exactly does nurturing Buddhahood in ourselves and others mean in everyday life? On what or which basis do we live correctly producing bodhisattva behavior and results? Chapter 17 of the Lotus Sutra excludes practicing the six paramitas by saying that arousing belief and under- standing in the Lotus Sutra for one moment alone totally eclipses the paramitas practice for "eighty billion nayuta kalpas." Nichiren steeped himself in doctrinal and theoretical studies, and after many, many arduously long years of studying at the top-flight Buddhist centers in Japan during his day and strenously perusing Shakyamuni's sutras and the commentaries, he came to realize that the "One Buddha Vehicle" was con- tained in chanting "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo." In "The Daimoku of the Lotus Sutra," the question is posed: "What passages of proof can be cited to show that one should chant only the daimoku? Answer: The eighth volume of the Myoho-renge- kyo [Kumarajiva's translation] states, 'One who receives and embraces the name of the Lotus Sutra will enjoy good fortune beyond measure.' The Sho-hokke-kyo [Dharmaraksha's translation] says, 'If one hears this sutra and proclaims and embraces its title, he will enjoy blessings beyond measure.' And the Tembon- hoke-kyo [Jnanagupta Dharmagupta's translation] says, 'One who receives and embraces the name of the Lotus Sutra will enjoy good fortune beyond measure.' These passages indicate that the good fortune one receives from simply chanting the daimoku is beyond measure." (MW 3, p. 8-9) Again, Nichiren's wisdom allowed him to perceive that "the jewel of the character 'myo' contains all the benefits which Shakyamuni Buddha received by practicing the six paramitas in his past existences: the benefits he obtained through the practice of alms- giving by offering his body to a starving tigress and by giving his life in ex- change for that of a dove; the benefits he obtained when he was King Shudama, who, in order to observe the precepts, kept his word though it meant his death; the benefits he obtained as a hermit called Ninniku by enduring the tortures in- flicted upon him by King Kari; the benefits he obtained as Prince Nose and as the hermit Shojari, and all his other benefits. We...have not formed even a single good cause, but Shakyamuni, [by bestowing upon us the character 'myo'] has granted us as many benefits as if we ourselves had fulfilled all the prac- tices of the six paramitas." ("Letter to Nichimyo Shonin," MW 3, p. 47-8) Nichiren's revelation to chant "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo" can be better understood in an analogy with the ocean: one single drop of ocean water evinces the salty taste found everywhere in the ocean. The drop provokes the essence of the ocean. Nichiren designated "Nam-myoho-renge-kyo" because: "Ultimately, all phenomena are contained within one's life, down to the last particle of dust. The nine mountains and the eight seas are encompassed by one's body; the sun, moon, and myriad stars are contained in one's mind. How- ever, [common mortals do not perceive this,] just as the blind do not see images reflected in a mirror or as an infant fears neither flood nor fire." ("The Mongol Envoys," MW 5, p. 18) He continued in a letter entitled "'Thus I Heard'" that "our contemporaries think of the five characters of Myoho- renge-kyo only as a name, but this is not correct. It is the entity, that is, the heart of the Lotus Sutra....Myoho-renge-kyo is neither the scriptural text nor its meaning but the heart of the entire sutra." (MY 3, p. 248) Indeed, we are often told in SGI that our own life contains the universe; to come to know our life is to know the universe. Buddhist princi- ples live not theoretically but as manifested "truths" (revelations of life) in everyday activities and life for those who develop the "concentrated" mind or Buddha's eye. Nichiren taught for those in his own age and for all those to follow that the Buddha's life in no way is separate from that of the common mortal. Man inhabits a corporal body which always functions, however seemingly "spiritually pure," as an animal in this world. Do not eat and you will even- tually die. Eat and you will eventually excrete. The attainment of Buddha- hood does not lie in another life, another existence, or in another time but in the efforts you make this very minute as a human being. Your thoughts and desires are your most valuable possessions because they become the fuel which propels a person to chant and overcome difficulty or attain a goal, and that chanting arouses the sleeping Buddha inside to function each day at work, at home, at the opera, walking downtown, etc. Purely trying to "focus" or "con- centrate" the mind in certain ways or "behave" spiritually at certain times implies a divorce or separation from life itself. This reasoning explains why your uncle believes he can and should chant for any material object he wants. Many people have misunderstood this principle in western culture because spirituality is most often relegated to those areas of life involving abstrac- tions of human qualities or life rather than real life situations. Buddhism, instead, invests the mundane, everyday life of man with the capability to mani- fest Buddhahood. Nichiren clearly explained this principle and instructed his disciples through personal guidance and letters (which we 1992 believers read and try our best to implement today) how to live according to Buddhism. He crystalized the process to achieve Gautama's Dharma into a form accessible to any human being being born now and in the future by the chanting of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo and by enscribing the mandala, as you know, called the Gohonzon, a replica of which we each enshrine in our own home. We Nichiren believers, in the Mahayana tradition, regard him as a Buddha--the Buddha of the Latter Day of the Law--the Buddha who left the Lotus Sutra in a form so that Gautama's experience could be shared by all humanity. I apologize for the length of this article. I will try to answer your other questions regarding the ages or Days of Law at another time. By the way, I have asked many Japanese practicing in the USA who have also practiced in Japan if they have ever heard of priests praying to Shinto dieties like Hachi- man. Aside from the priests' cowardly submission to the Japanese government during WWII which Jon has already explained, none had ever heard of such a practice. Sorry. I don't know where to go with that point from here. Also, can you give the specific reference to Toda's equating the Gohonzon and daimoku with "the happiness manufacturing machine"? I can give you a general opinion or answer, but if I have the reference, I might be able to give you a very specific reply. With best regards, Sari Wilde Taken from "The complete works of Swami Vivekananda", volume II MAAYAA AND FREEDOM ------------------ (Delivered in London by Swami Vivekanandha, 22nd October 1896) "Trailing clouds of glory we come," says the poet. Not all of us come as trailing clouds of glory however; some of us come as trailing black fogs; there can be no question about that. But every one of us comes into this world to fight, as on a battlefield. We come here weeping to fight our way, as well as we can, and to make a path for ourselves through this infinite ocean of life; forward we go, having long ages behind us and an immense expanse beyond. So on we go, till death comes and takes us off the field - victorious or defeated, we do not know. And this is Maayaa. Hope is dominant in the heart of childhood. The whole world is a golden vision to the opening eyes of the child; he thinks his will is supreme. As he moves onward, at every step nature stands as an adamantine wall, barring his future progress. He may hurl himself against it again and again, striving to break through. The further he goes, the further recedes the ideal, till death comes, and there is release, perhaps. And this is Maayaa. A man of science rises, he is thirsting after knowledge. No sacrifice is too great, no struggle too hopeless for him. He moves onward discovering secret after secret of nature, searching out the secrets from her innermost heart, and what for? What is it all for? Why should we give him glory? Why should he acquire fame? Does not nature do infinitely more than any human being can do? - and nature is dull, insentient. Why should it be glory to imitate the dull, the insentient? Nature can hurl a thunderbolt of any magnitude to any distance. If a man can do one small part as much, we praise him and laud him to the skies. Why? Why should we praise him for imitating nature, imitating death, imitating dullness, imitating insentience? The force of gravitation can pull to pieces the biggest mass that ever existed; yet it is insentient. What glory is there in imitating the insentient? Yet we are all struggling that. And this is Maayaa. The senses drag the human soul out. Man is seeking for pleasure and for happiness where it can never be found. For countless ages we are all taught that this is futile and vain, there is no happiness here. But we can not learn; it is impossible for us to do so, except through our own experiences. We try them, and a blow comes. Do we learn then? Not even then. Like moths hurling themselves against the flame, we are hurling ourselves again and again into sense-pleasures, hoping to find satisfaction there. We return again and again with freshened energy; thus we go on, till crippled and cheated we die. And this is Maayaa. So with our intellect. In our desire to solve the mysteries of the universe, we cannot stop our questioning, we feel we must know and cannot believe that no knowledge is to be gained. A few steps, and there arises the wall of beginningless and endless time which we cannot surmount. A few steps, and there appears a wall of boundless space which cannot be surmounted, and the whole is irrevocably bound in by the walls of cause and effect. We cannot go beyond them. Yet we struggle, and still have to struggle. And this is Maayaa. With every breath, with every pulsation of the heart, with every one of our movements, we think we are free, and the very same moment we are shown that we are not. Bound slaves, nature's bond-slaves, in body, in mind, in all our thoughts, in all our feelings. And this is Maayaa. There was never a mother who did not think her child was a born genius, the most extraordinary child that was ever born; she dotes upon her child. Her whole soul is in the child. The child grows up, perhaps becomes a drunkard, a brute, ill-treats the mother, and the more he ill-treats her, the more her love increases. The world lauds it as the unselfish love of the mother, little dreaming that the mother is a born slave, she cannot help it. She would a thousand times rather throw off the burden, but she cannot. So she covers it with a mass of flowers, which she calls wonderful love. And this is Maayaa. We are all like this in the world. A legend tells how once Naaradha said to Krishna, "Lord, show me Maayaa." A few days passed away, and Krishna asked Naaradha to make a trip with him towards a desert, and after walking for several miles, Krishna said, "Naaradha, I am thirsty; can you fetch some water for me?" "I will go at once, sir, and get you water." So Naaradha went. At a little distance there was a village; he entered the village in search of water and knocked at a door, which was opened by a most beautiful young girl. At the sight of her he immediately forgot that his Master was waiting for water, perhaps dying for the want of it. He forgot everything and began to talk with the girl. All that day he did not return to his Master. The next day, he was again at the house, talking to the girl. That talk ripened into love; he asked the father for the daughter, and they were married and lived there and had children. Thus twelve years passed. His father-in-law died, he inherited his property. He lived, as he seemed to think, a very happy life with his wife and children, his fields and his cattle, and so forth. Then came a flood. One night the river rose until it overflowed its banks and flooded the whole village. Houses fell, men and animals were swept away and drowned, and everything was floating in the rush of the stream. Naaradha had to escape. With one hand he held his wife, and with the other two of his children; another child was on his shoulders, and he was trying to ford this tremendous flood. After a few steps he found the current was too strong, and the child on his shoulders fell and was borne away. A cry of despair came from Naaradha. In trying to save that child, he lost his grasp upon one of the others, and it also was lost. At last his wife, whom he clasped with all his might, was torn away by the current, and he was thrown on the bank, weeping and wailing in bitter lamentation. Behind him there came a gentle voice, "My child, where is the water? You went to fetch a pitcher of water, and I am waiting for you; you have been gone for quite half an hour." "Half an hour!" Naaradha exclaimed. Twelve whole years had passed through his mind, and all these scenes had happened in half an hour! And this is Maayaa. In one form or another, we are all in it. It is a most difficult and intricate state of things to understand. It has been preached in every country, taught everywhere, but only believed in by a few, because until we get the experiences ourselves we cannot believe in it. What does it show? Something very terrible. For it is all futile. Time, the avenger of everything, comes, and nothing is left. He swallows up the saint and the sinner, the king and the peasant, the beautiful and the ugly; he leaves nothing. Everything is rushing towards that one goal, destruction. Our knowledge, our arts, our sciences, everything is rushing towards it. None can stem the tide, none can hold it back for a minute. We may try to forget it, in the same way that persons in a plague-stricken city try to create oblivion by drinking, dancing, and other vain attempts, and so becoming paralysed. So we are trying to forget, trying to create oblivion by all sorts of sense-pleasures. And this is Maayaa. Two ways have been proposed. One method, which everyone knows, is very common, and that is: "It may be very true, but do not think of it. 'Make hay while the sun shines,' as the proverb says. It is all true, it is a fact, but do not mind it. Seize the few pleasures you can, do what little you can, do not look at the dark side of the picture, but always towards the hopeful, the positive side." There is some truth in this, but there is also a danger. The truth is that it is a good motive power. Hope and a positive ideal are very good motive powers for our lives, but there is a certain danger in them. The danger lies in our giving up the struggle in despair. Such is the case with those who preach, "Take the world as it is; sit down as calmly and comfortably as you can and be contented with all these miseries. When you receive blows, say they are not blows but flowers; and when you are driven about like slaves, say that you are free. Day and night tell lies to others and to your own souls, because that is the only way to live happily." This is what is called practical wisdom, and never was it more prevalent in the world than in this nineteenth century; because never were harder blows hit than at the present time, never was competition keener, never were men so cruel to their fellow-men as now; and, therefore, must this consolation be offered. It is put forward in the strongest way at the present time; but it fails, as it always must fail. We cannot hide a carrion with roses; it is impossible. It would not avail long; for soon the roses would fade, and the carrion would be worse than ever before. So with our lives. We may try to cover our old and festering sores with cloth of gold, but there comes a day when the cloth of gold is removed, and the sore in all its ugliness is revealed. Is there no hope then? True it is that we are all slaves of Maayaa, born in Maayaa, and live in Maayaa. Is there then no way out, no hope? That we are all miserable, that this world is really a prison, that even our so-called trailing beauty is but a prison-house, and that even our intellects and minds are prison-houses, have been known for ages upon ages. There has never been a man, there has never been a human soul, who has not felt this sometime or other, however he may talk. And the old people feel it most, because in them is the accumulated experience of a whole life, because they cannot be easily cheated by the lies of nature. Is there no way out? We find that with all this, with this terrible fact before us, in the midst of sorrow and suffering, even in this world where life and death are synonymous, even here, there is still a small voice that is ringing through all ages, through every country, and in every heart: "This My Maayaa is divine, made up of qualities, and very difficult to cross. Yet those that come unto Me, cross the river of life." "Come unto Me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." This is the voice that is leading us forward. Man has heard it, and is hearing it all through ages. This voice comes to men when everything seems to be lost and hope has fled, when man's dependence on his own strength has been crushed down, and everything seems to melt away between his fingers, and life is a hopeless ruin. Then he hears it. This is called Religion. On the one side, therefore, is the bold assertion that this is all nonsense, that this is Maayaa, but along with it, there is the most hopeful assertion that beyond Maayaa, there is a way out. On the other hand, practical men tell us, "Don't bother your heads about such nonsense as religion and metaphysics. Live here; this is a very world indeed, but make the best of it." Which put in plain language means, live a hypocritical, lying life, a life of continuous fraud, covering all sores in the best way you can. Go on putting patch after patch, until everything is lost, and you are a mass of patchwork. This is what is called practical life. Those that are satisfied with this patchwork will never come to religion. Religion begins with a tremendous dissatisfaction with the present state of things, with our lives, and a hatred, an intense hatred, for this patching up of life, an unbounded disgust for fraud and lies. He alone can be religious who dares say, as the mighty Buddha once said under Bo-tree, when this idea of practicality appeared before him and he saw that it was nonsense, and yet could not find a way out. When the temptation came to him to give up his search after truth, to go back to the world and live the old life of fraud, calling things by wrong names, telling lies to oneself and to everybody, he, the giant, conquered it and said, "Death is better than a vegetating ignorant life; it is better to die on the battlefield than to live a life of defeat." This is the basis of religion. When a man takes this stand, he is on the way to find the truth, he is on the way to God. That determination must be the first impulse towards becoming religious. I will hew out a way for myself. I will know the truth or give up my life in the attempt. For on this side it is nothing, it is gone, it is vanishing every day. The beautiful, hopeful, young person of today is the veteran of tomorrow. Hopes and joys and pleasures will die like blossoms with tomorrow's frost. That is one side; on the other, there are the great charms of conquest, victories over all the ills of life, victory over life itself, the conquest of the universe. On that side men can stand. Those who dare, therefore, to struggle for victory, for truth, for religion, are in the right way; and that is what the Vedhas preach: Be not in despair; the way is very difficult, like walking on the edge of a razor; yet despair not, arise, awake, and find the ideal, the goal. Now all these various manifestations of religion, in whatever shape and form they have come to mankind, have this one common central basis. It is the preaching of freedom, the way out of this world. They never came to reconcile the world and religion, but to cut the Gordian knot, to establish religion in its own ideal, and not to compromise with the world. That is what every religion preaches, and the duty of the Vedhantha is to harmonise all these aspirations, to make manifest the common ground between all the religions of the world, the highest as well as the lowest. What we call the most arrant superstition and the highest philosophy really have a common aim in that they both try to show the way out of the same difficulty, and in most cases this way is through the help of someone who is not himself bound by the laws of nature, in one word, someone who is free. In spite of all the difficulties and differences of opinion about the nature of the one free agent, whether he is a Personal God, or a sentient being like man, whether masculine, feminine, or neuter - and the discussions have been endless - the fundamental idea is the same. In spite of the almost hopeless contradictions of the different systems, we find the golden thread of unity running through them all, and in this philosophy, this golden thread has been traced, revealed little by little to our view, and the first step to this revelation is the common ground that all are advancing towards freedom. Our curious fact present in the midst of all our joys and sorrows, difficulties and struggles, is that we are surely journeying towards freedom. The question was practically this: "What is this universe? From what does it arise? Into what does it go?" And the answer was: "In freedom it rises, in freedom it rests, and into freedom it melts away." This idea of freedom you cannot relinquish. Your actions, your very lives will be lost without it. Every moment nature is proving us to be slaves and not free. Yet, simultaneously rises the other idea, that still we are free. At every step we are knocked down, as it were, by Maayaa, and shown that we are bound; and yet at the same moment, together with this blow, together with this feeling that we are bound, comes the other feeling that we are free. Some inner voice tells us that we are free. But if we attempt to realise that freedom, to make it manifest, we find the difficulties almost insuperable. Yet, in spite of that it insists on asserting itself inwardly, "I am free, I am free." And if you study all the various religions of the world you will find this idea expressed. Not only religion - you must not take this word in its narrow sense - but the whole life of society is the assertion of that one principle of freedom. All movements are the assertion of that one freedom. That voice has been heard by everyone, whether he knows it or not, that voice which declares, "Come unto Me all ye that labour and are heavy laden." It may not be in the same language or the same form of speech, but in some form or other, that voice calling for freedom has been with us. Yes, we are born here on account of that voice; every one of our movements is for that. We are all rushing towards freedom, we are all following that voice, whether we know it or not; as the children of village were attracted by the music of the flute- player, so we are all following the music of the voice without knowing it. We are ethical when we follow that voice. Not only the human soul, but all creatures from the lowest to the highest have heard the voice and are rushing towards it; and in the struggle are either combining with each other or pushing each other out of the way. Thus come competition, joys, struggles, life, pleasure, and death, and the whole universe is nothing but the result of this mad struggle to reach the voice. This is the manifestation of nature. What happens then? The scene begins to shift. As soon as you know the voice and understand what it is, the whole scene changes. The same world which was the ghastly battlefield of Maayaa is now changed into something good and beautiful. We no longer curse nature, nor say that the world is horrible and that it is all vain; we need no longer weep and wail. As soon as we understand the voice, we see the reason why this struggle should be here, this fight, this competition, this difficulty, this cruelty, these little pleasures and joys; we see that they are in the nature of things, because without them there would be no going towards the voice, to attain which we are destined, whether we know it or not. All human life, all nature, therefore, is struggling to attain to freedom. The sun is moving towards the goal, so is the earth in circling round the sun, so is the moon in circling round the earth. To that goal the planet is moving, and the air is blowing. Everything is struggling towards that. The saint is going towards that voice - he cannot help it, it is no glory to him. So is the sinner. The charitable man is going straight towards that voice, and cannot be hindered; the miser is also going towards the same destination; the greatest worker of good hears the same voice within, and he cannot resist it, he must go towards the voice; so with the most arrant idler. One stumbles more than another, and him who stumbles more we call bad, him who stumbles less we call good. Good and bad are never two different things, they are one and the same; the difference is not one of kind, but of degree. Now, if the manifestation of this power of freedom is really governing the whole universe - applying that to religion, our special study - we find this idea has been the one assertion throughout. Take the lowest form of religion where there is the worship of departed ancestors or certain powerful and cruel gods; what is the prominent idea about the gods or departed ancestors? That they are superior to nature, not bound by its restrictions. The worshipper has, no doubt, very limited ideas of nature. He himself cannot pass through a wall, nor fly up into the skies, but the gods whom he worships can do these things. What is meant by that, philosophically? That the assertion of freedom is there, that the gods whom he worships are superior to nature as he knows it. So with those who worship still higher beings. As the idea of nature expands, the idea of the soul which is superior to nature also expands, until we come to what we call monotheism, which holds that there is Maayaa (nature), and that there is some Being who is the Ruler of this Maayaa. Here Vedhantha begins, where these monotheistic ideas first appear. But the Vedhantha philosophy wants further explanation. This explanation - that there is a Being beyond all these manifestations of Maayaa, who is superior to and independent of Maayaa, and who is attraction us towards Himself, and that we are all going towards Him - is very good, says the Vedhantha, but yet the perception is not clear, the vision is dim and hazy, although it does not directly contradict reason. Just as in your hymn it is said, "Nearer my God to Thee," the same hymn would be very good to the Vedhanthin, only he would change a word, and make it, "Nearer my God to me." The idea that the goal is far off, far beyond nature, attracting us all towards it, has to be brought nearer and nearer, without degrading and degenerating it. The God of heaven becomes the God in nature, and the God in nature becomes the God who is nature, and the God who is nature becomes the God within this temple of the body, and the God dwelling in the temple of the body at last becomes the temple itself, becomes the soul and man - and there it reaches the last words it can teach. He whom the sages have been seeking in all these places is in our own hearts; the voice that you heard was right, says the Vedhantha, but the direction you gave to the voice was wrong. That ideal of freedom that you perceived was correct, but you projected it outside yourself, and that was your mistake. Bring it nearer and nearer, until you find that it was all the time within you, it was the Self of your own self. That freedom was your own nature, and this Maayaa never bound you. Nature never has power over you. Like a frightened child you were dreaming that it was throttling you, and the release from this fear is the goal; not only to see it intellectually, but to perceive it, actualise it, much more definitely than we perceive this world. Then we shall know that we are free. Then, and then alone, will all difficulties vanish, then will all the perplexities of heart be smoothed away, all crookedness made straight, then will vanish the delusion of manifoldness and nature; and Maayaa, instead of being a horrible, hopeless dream, as it is now, will become beautiful, and this earth, instead of being a prison-house, will become our playground; and even dangers and difficulties, even all sufferings, will become deified and show us their real nature, will show us that behind everything, as the substance of everything, He is standing, and that He is the one real Self. -- raj@utkvx4.utk.edu (S. KANAKA RAJ) There are two forms of worshipping Brahman or the Supreme Lord according to the Hindu Scriptures. This is based on how the devotee visualizes Brahman. Brahman can be visualised as Saguna Brahman( an anthrophomorphic view), wherein the Lord is given a form of an idol in the image of man, endowed with humanistic qualities of goodness, truth, the destroyer of evil etc. etc. Acording to the Sutras, the knower of Saguna Brahman attains liberation or Moksha by "Devayana" or the path of the Gods. Though the Sutras define liberation as an _all or none_ state, the path taken by the soul of the knower of Saguna Brahman to the final stage is an indirect one. Nirguna Brahman(Brahman without any qualities) is one in which Brahman is formless and one infinite mass of intelligence and knowledge and who is existance himself and who is beyond all virtues and evils, beyond all human values. Adi-Sankara's school lay emphasis on the worship of Nirguna Brahman. For the knower of Niguna Brahman, the Sutras say that the final liberation is immediate. Idol worship in Hinduism is just the worship of Saguna Brahman. According to the Vedantas, as one visualises Brahman, so does he appear. Each diety in Hinduism is a granter of certain benefeciary effects on its worshipper. For example, on worshipping Brahman as diety A, the benefeciary effects are X. On worshipping Brahman as diety B, the benefeciary effects are Y and so on. Always, similar benefits should be combined in Upasana or Worhip. Combination of opposite effects results in nullifying of the Upasana. More on this later. sivaram tat tvam asi The subject of Mantras and chanting has come up; here are some thoughts: Mantras in the deep sense are a very esoteric matter. I'm skeptical of any publicly available formulas. Partly because response to sound and rhythm is highly individual, and partly because I don't think powerful tools aren't causually distributed. Certain formulas are said to acquire power because of long term use by enlightend souls--this builds a kind of psychic resource and associated the formula and aids in communion with the resource. But I'm always cautious when I hear about this or that mantra being given, and I think " This is glamorous and not genuine." There is a higher correspondence to the giving of special sounds and formulas, but I think more often than not, we get hold of a small toy and make too much of it. A sensitive being can compose (or recognize) their own mantra. This is a different type of "mantra." But many good mantras exist in the literature and poetry of the world. There are many of these "unconsicously" precipitated mantras that are more real and effective than the formulas common to the explicitly religious teachers and movements. Mantra spills over into right use of the voice in daily life, and into song (voiced and unvoiced). Mantra effects depend not only on the tool but its user; a certain psychological voltage is required. Consciousness must infuse the sound. Words are given power by consciousness. Externally considered, words/sounds rhythms are symbols, and often the the symbol engrosses our attention, and that which it represent we fail to comprehended. Mantra is what wakes from us when we are reminded by the sound. "When he has ceased to hear the many, he may discern the One--the inner sound which kills the outer." (H. P. Blavatsky) "Speech was divided into four parts that the inspired priests know. Three parts, hidden in deep secret, humans do not stir into action; the fourth part of Speech is what men speak." (Rig Veda) -- INTERNET: jdavis@netlink.cts.com (James Davis)|Original portions Copyright 1992 UUCP: ...!ryptyde!netlink!jdavis |by J. Davis (applies only to paper; NetLink Online Communications |on-line republication freely granted) Public Access in San Diego, CA (619)453-1115 From: sp2@cec1.wustl.edu (Sundara Pandian) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern,soc.culture.tamil,soc.culture.indian Subject: Submission of an article for posting [please be certain your followups are going only to the appropriate group -a] A commentary on a Tamil verse on death ------------------------------------------ In this article, I present a commentary of a tamil verse on death from the Jainistic Tamil work `Thirukkural' [ 1st century, A.D. ]. The verse is kural # 339, which I present below using K.Srinivasan's ADAMI Tamil transliteration scheme : \(TAMIL) `uRanguvadhu pOlum saakkaadu uRangi vizhippadhu pOlum piRappu' [ kuRaL, 339] Translation : ------------ uRanguvadhu pOlum = Like sleeping saakkadu = is death uRangi vizhippadhu pOlum = Like waking out of sleep piRappu = is birth. Kasthuri Srinivasan has translated the above Tamil verse in the form of an English verse as ` Death is sinking into slumbers deep Birth again is waking out of sleep ' Commentary : ------------ In general, people are afraid of death. They are very sad to reflect on the fact that they all have to die one day. Also the death of their dear friends and relatives upset them a lot. They are not worried when they have not heard of their beloved friends for a long time. Yet a news that they are no more upset them and they can't help mourning over their deaths. It is often asked `Is mourning the index of true love ?' The answer is `No'. Mourning is not a measuring tape by which one's true love is measured. It betrays love of the object and it focusses only the shape. When the Buddha announced his death, his disciple Ananda was very sad due to his deep love for his master and he couldn't help weeping over his master's announcement. Later, Buddha called him and addressed, " Enough, Ananda! Let not your self be troubled; do not weep! Have I not already, on former occasions, told you that it is in the very nature of all things most near and dear onto us that we must seperate from them and leave them ? Why should I preserve this body of flesh, when the body of the excellent law will endure ? I am resolved ; having accomplished my purpose and attended to the work set me, I look for rest !" Tamil poet Valluvar, the author of Thirukkural says in the first line of the verse, ` Death is sinking into slumbers deep '. It is like sleeping, a means of rest. When a man is in deep sleep, he has no awareness of his friends,relatives, properties etc., He doesn't mourn over things lost, failures or death. He is happy in that state. When Valluvar says that death is like sleeping, he, not only implies that death is inevitable, but also that one is at peace in that state even though he breaks away from the material world, detached from his beloved friends, relatives,pets and objects he attached to. The case- studies that I have read on people in death-bed who escaped from death miraculously commenting on death like `It was like a dream..' etc., In the next line, Valluvar writes on the rebirth concept as `Birth again is waking out of sleep'.Here `rebirth' is implied. Valluvar believed in the concept of `karma' and the view that one's new birth is determined by his actions in his past birth (jenma). He substantiates this view in this verse under discussion. When a man wakes up from his sleep, he returns back from his peaceful and detached state of deep sleep to the world again and he finds himself attached to worldly thoughts but his body is the same. Valluvar implies that when one is reborn, his new birth is determined by his karma in his past birth. It is clear from the line `Birth again is waking out of sleep'. This Tamil verse is from the chapter `nilaiyaamai' [ Impermanence ]. What one understands from this verse is that, there is neither birth nor death; waking is birth, and sleep is death. - S.Pandian sp2@cec1.WUSTL.edu From: kish@titania.rutgers.edu (Kish) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: Soul Questions Kish/Jim + BK: is a soul subject to impermanence ? + + JD: Perhaps "subject" in a sense--subject by choice, by an act of will, + though not ultimately bound. + + "Permanence": + + That which remains, that which endures? Yes. + Continuing in the same state without essential change? No + Fixed (static, rigid)? No. + Fixed (purpose, strength)? Yes. + Can you really have it both ways ? If there is essential-change going on, then is that-which-endures anything else but the result of conditions and causes ? If that-which-endures chooses to believe that it "exists" for anything but the most infinitesimal interval of time, then the universes which wake and sleep will become like dreams which can't be remembered, instead of being things-as-they-are. + BK: How about cause and effect ? + + JD: The greater the spirit the more we are cause, and the less we are bound + by surface effects (karma/form/limits). + I get the feeling from this and your comment below about evolution that you feel that the soul's purpose is to evolve into a god, to achieve godhood (and beyond ?). At least from the standpoint of Buddhist teachings (the few that I know a little about), existence in the god realm or attaining godhood is ultimately subject to impermanence; no act of volition can change this. To prefer cause over effect is just a way of saying that it is your desire to become a god. And at least from a Buddhist perspective, it is a denial of death and impermanence. + BK: Does a soul exist inherently, from its own side ? + + JD: As I take your meaning, yes. But not completely "independent," as + things are not separate but an interdependent-unity. I think personality + is a partial-manifest extension or facet of soul and soul unfolds through + extension of itself as personality (body, emotion, intellect). If, as you say here, that personality and soul exist as an "interdependent- unity", then I can't resist extending this beyond soul/personality. It seems to me that *everything* exists as an interdependent-unity with *everything* else. If this is so, then vortices and turbulence just come and go, and in the process, provide *part* of the environment for the formation of more vortices and turbulence. To privilege any of these vortices as self-existing seems to me to be a mistake. + BK: Is the statement "A soul is a dependent arising," divergent from your + own point of view ? + + JD: Perhaps not. Soul needs/uses forms for evolution, but it is also a + creator of forms and not dependent on any particular form in time and space. Evolution towards what ? And for who ? I can sense that you have thought a lot about this, and I doubt whether the view I presented here is new to you. If you are deeply convinced that souls are self-existent, then I think all we can do is agree to disagree. + JD: Two related thoughts: + + "The perfection of outward loveliness is the soul shining through + its crystalline covering." (Jane Porter) Sorry, but for me, quotes like this tend to cause tooth decay. I have found zazen a very effective way to floss. + JD: + + "And within me, deep and deep, Universes wake and sleep." + + (Kenneth Morris) I like this one better, to which I would only add: "not one, not two". -Bill -- PHONE: (908) 932-5026 UUCP : {ames,att,harvard}!uunet!rutgers!jove.rutgers.edu!kish INTERNET: kish@jove.rutgers.edu From: pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: Buddha's "No Soul" theory. In article <1992Sep1.220656.19000@qiclab.scn.rain.com> eradm@wbst845e.xerox.com (Erik Radmall) writes: >I am wondering a lot about the "No Soul" theory in Buddhism. I can accept >almost all other Buddhist tenets except that one. Maybe I just don't on a related note, Buddhism claims "No God". In actuality, i think it can only be claimed that Buddha claimed no "Sky God", ie a Brahma or Jehova type Creator God. Also Buddhists, as you say, claim "No Soul", but also (some?) posit a Mind of "clear light" and a Subtle Body. go figure. Let's just say that nature of the universe, the mind/body of infinite bliss/wisdom are not easy things to realize. you gotta work at it. but the Buddha dharma is incredibly wise, as all the modifications to the God/Soul theories of the Absolutist Religions attest to. hope this helps, but dont get discouraged because you think you need to accept some difficult piece of doctrine. that's never stopped Buddhists in the past :-) -- Pat Monardo pjm@cshl.org From: jdavis@netlink.cts.com (James Davis) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Buddha's Mystery--response to Erik Erik Radmall writes: >I am wondering a lot about the "No Soul" theory in Buddhism. I can accept >almost all other Buddhist tenets except that one. Maybe I just don't >understand it clearly enough. If existence is composed of the "5 aggregates" >and is a "dependent arising", then why the need to experience Nirvana? If >Nirvana is the cessation of all sensation - even though Buddha said it is >not a nihilistic thing, I just don't see how it could be other than that. >It would seem to be senseless to annihilate your own consciousness for >some undefined end. Personally, I don't see what I stand to gain by >"entering the Stream". If anyone has opinions on this, please share them, >this is a real bone in my throat. I think the "No Soul" idea in Buddhism is a misunderstanding of the concept of unity or non-duality. When the average personality starts thinking about "my soul," "your soul," "your salvation," "my salvation," etc., then unity disappears. Some Teachers, realizing this, sought to offset the problem by rejection of any concepts and words that might feed the little ego or sense of separateness. So we have some traditions that seem to affirm unity to the exclusion of any concept of individuality. The intent was to lead people away from selfishness toward unity. "No soul," "entering the stream," etc. are attempts to direct toward unity. Unity is the underlying mystic reality, the fundamental truth of one Life, of the soul, of the heart. The sense of separateness, of duality, multiplicity, division, is characteristic of phenomenal life, of personality, and of the intellect and separative emotions. Through spiritual eyes there is only one and this is the great truth; through phenomenal eyes there are many and this is the relative truth. Words like "No Soul," "entering the Stream," should not actually be taken as a denial of the soul or individuality. The negation idea is "a real bone" in your throat and the throats of many because of an intuition or spiritual sense about identity and the knowledge that negation cannot express reality. Read between the lines of all traditions with your own intuition. Accept only what rings true for you. It is a mistake to lean to much on ancient teachings for fundamentals. At best they are springboards for intuition, at worst they are intellectual dead-ends. We do not stop to think much about the problems inherent in religious teachings as a communication process. To do so is to realize that there is no rational basis for accepting whole and as-is any teaching-- especially an ancient one passed through the filtering, distorting, selecting, abstracting, and translating process inherent in all human communication. Buddhism is not what Buddha thought; Christianity is not what Christ thought. This is self-evident and common sense. When we talk about Buddhism or any other religion we should not be so naive as to believe that we have actually taken hold of what was taught by the real Buddha and his immediate followers. Buddha and Christ did not write scripture. What we have are texts by people with their own thoughts and agendas. We have oral traditions and reports of reports written hundreds of years after the death of the great teachers. A teaching may be initiated by the enlightened, but the words we work with now are human creations that should not be swallowed whole. If a tenant of any teaching is contrary to your sense of truth, cast it out. If an idea chokes you, cough it up and spit it out. That's my best thought. Jim -- INTERNET: jdavis@netlink.cts.com (James Davis) UUCP: ...!ryptyde!netlink!jdavis NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115 From: radams@cerritos.edu Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: Buddha's Mystery--response to Erik In article <1992Sep3.084143.22793@qiclab.scn.rain.com>, jdavis@netlink.cts.com (James Davis) writes: > I think the "No Soul" idea in Buddhism is a misunderstanding of the concept > of unity or non-duality. When the average personality starts thinking about > "my soul," "your soul," "your salvation," "my salvation," etc., then unity > disappears. Some Teachers, realizing this, sought to offset the problem by > rejection of any concepts and words that might feed the little ego or sense > of separateness. So we have some traditions that seem to affirm unity to the > exclusion of any concept of individuality. The intent was to lead people > away from selfishness toward unity. "No soul," "entering the stream," etc. > are attempts to direct toward unity. I think this is probably true. In Christianity, the doctrine of reincarnation was widely accepted from the time of Christ until around 540 a.d. when it was thrown out by a council of fools. They threw it out because they felt that if people believed in future lives, they would not obey church authority so as to attain salvation (or rather empower the church leaders and their political influence) because they could always be saved in some future incarnation. The church wanted to scare people into obedience by telling them that there are no future lives and that this life is it, so you better act the way we tell you and come to church (not to mention giving us your property). So this is another example of twisting and modifying doctrine to try to get the desired response from the masses although far worse then the seemingly good intentions of leading people away from egoism as James states in his post as a possible reason for the rejection of the concept of a soul. Whenever you monkey around with the truth (or relative truth) however, you can create more problems and misunderstandings. > Words like "No Soul," "entering the Stream," should not actually be taken as > a denial of the soul or individuality. The negation idea is "a real bone" in > your throat and the throats of many because of an intuition or spiritual > sense about identity and the knowledge that negation cannot express reality. > Read between the lines of all traditions with your own intuition. Accept > only what rings true for you. Excellent advice. I have followed this advice all my life. The real guide is intuition or the inner guru in reading between the lines. Take what is good and true to you and throw the rest out. Later you may find that much of what you previously rejected was simply misunderstood from lack of facility to read between the lines. > Buddhism is not what Buddha thought; Christianity is not what Christ thought. > > This is self-evident and common sense. When we talk about Buddhism or any > other religion we should not be so naive as to believe that we have actually > taken hold of what was taught by the real Buddha and his immediate followers. > Fundamentalists will be irritated with these remarks but I believe you are right. Scriptures might be divinely inspired but that does not mean they are divinely accurate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Adams radams@cerritos.edu To those in whom love dwells, Cerritos College the whole world is one family. 11110 Alondra Blvd A Hindu Proverb Norwalk, California 90650 USA 292 Dwapara :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bguest9@bsg9.Corp.Sun.COM (Kristian Skrinak) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: Buddha's "No Soul" theory. In article 19000@qiclab.scn.rain.com, eradm@wbst845e.xerox.com (Erik Radmall) writes: >I am wondering a lot about the "No Soul" theory in Buddhism. My understanding of the "No Soul" theory is that there is no permanent aspect of the self. To have a soul is to possess a soul. Who or what would "possess" it? There is no inherent existence. All existence is dependant on other factors, so, if you exist then you are dependant on those causal factors. Your conception of a soul is dependant on them, and your thought that you could own this conception is as well. It is important to consider the time frame. For example, ordinary people often talk of the day or week as having significant irreversable events. As spiritual seekers, we must expand our time frame not only to include the past weeks or months, but beyond this incarnation, beyond recorded history, to approach infinity. With this time frame it is easier to see that you can not have an inherent existance. There is no you. Therefore _you_ can own nothing, including a soul. >I can accept almost all other Buddhist tenets except that one. Maybe I >just don't understand it clearly enough. If existence is composed of >the "5 aggregates" and is a "dependent arising", then why the need to >experience Nirvana? There is no need to experience Nirvana. There is a longing that grows stronger with each incarnation in this world. When this longing gets strong enough, you'll want to move on, then you'll seek Nirvana. >If Nirvana is the cessation of all sensation - even though Buddha said >it is not a nihilistic thing, I just don't see how it could be other >than that. It would seem to be senseless to annihialate your own >consciousness for some undefined end. I think the concept generally expressed is that Nirvana is not expressable in words. Just as a fish can jump above the surface to see what we on land are doing, we can rise above our limited perceptions to a greater consciousness. But we can not describe it. The higher planes of consciousness are not in the sensoral realm, in the sense that we do not use sight, smell etc, there is a cessation of all sensation. >Personally, I don't see what I stand to gain by "entering the Stream". >If anyone has opinions on this, please share them, this is a real bone >in my throat. The Stream? Your soaking in it! You are already in it. That's one of the big discoveries. We are all eternal. It's more of an eternal adventure. You may just be dicovering that you are on it. -- bguest9@bsg9.Corp.Sun.COM (Kristian Skrinak) From: jdavis@netlink.cts.com (James Davis) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Soul Questions Jim/Kish (part 2) >Can you really have it both ways? If there is essential-change >going on, then is that-which-endures anything else but the >result of conditions and causes? The atoms of the body I had as a child have danced to elsewhere, but I persist. I picture it this way: The atoms of the bodies I had in other lives have danced to elsewhere, but I persist. I am an individual and a universal. I am a vastness and an infinite that in no way conflicts with the individual. And when body is no longer required, I persist. "Is that-which-endures anything other than..." Yes. Concepts of conditions and causes are evolved from intellect and external experience of the world. When intellect draws its sustenance from worldly experience, it gets hints and pointers but not definitive answers. "Merging into the waves of the Infinite, we may be compared to flowers torn away by a storm. How shall we find ourselves transfigured in the ocean of the Infinite? It would be unwise to send out a boat without a rudder. But the Pilot is predestined and the creation of the heart will not be precipitated into the abyss." (Agni Yoga) >...then the universes which wake and sleep will become like >dreams which can't be remembered, instead of being >things-as-they-are. The memories of childhood return, and the souls of those memories; they return with a force as vivid as this moment. And the memories of lives thousands of years gone, and the souls of those memories, are not less vivid than the life of yesterday. >...to achieve godhood (and beyond ?). If the word "godhood" is to be taken in any way as a limited or prejudicial concept then add "beyond." >...it is a denial of death and impermanence. Yes it is. I do deny death and impermanence, not as a defense mechanism but as an affirmation of a truth that flashes out like a diamond. I celebrate death and impermanence as the ordained characteristic of external life, but not as the foundation of Life, of reality. And knowing a little of how communication works, I can not imagine that Buddha or Christ place much value on what remains of their teaching. I do not think that the Eastern concept of impermanence is correctly understood, just as I do not believe that Christian concept of salvation is correctly understood. Religions are full of the rubbish of human conceptions. Death and impermanence are close to harried human imagination as is the desire for rest and escape to unrealistic heavens. Let me conclude with a passage that I thinks comes much closer to expressing the truth and is related to your question "Can you have it both ways?," and also to your question of "Evolution towards what ? And for who ?" ------------------ "The consciousness of the initiate is of so lofty a nature that it can only be described in terms of release, of negation, and through the emphasis of that which is not. It is a state of No-thing and Non-ego...It is a state of non-individuality, yet with the subconscious knowledge and gains of the individual experience.... "Nevertheless, though the consciousness is other than all that has hitherto been known, and though it can only be expressed in terms of negation, the truth must be borne constantly in mind that the greater awareness must always include the lesser awareness. Consequently all possible actions and reactions and all focussings, awareness and contacts...approaches and withdrawals, and all possible expressions of the divine activity and qualities, phenomenal and non-phenomenal, are included in the state of Being which is now the natural state of the liberated and enlightened spiritual Existence. All are possible of recovery through the will or in response to a need, but the spiritual Being is no longer held by them or identified with them...But at the same time, nothing is lost of capacity, or quality or of sentient awareness...." [At this point the text quotes another text as follows:] "The quality of life fades out. It flickers and is gone. Yet the Blessed Ones reveal at will that quality. The color pure remains...They are, and then are not. All is and all is not. But the Blessed Ones at any time can sweep forth into manifested light. They carry then the potencies of the spirit to meet the need expressed. Light holds them not; Their purpose is not imprisoned; Their will is not subdued. They appear and disappear at will... Therefore be full of joy, O pilgrim on the Way towards enlightened Being, for gain and loss are one; darkness and light reveal the True; love and desire eternally invoke the Life. Naught disappears but pain. Nothing remains but bliss--the bliss of knowledge true, of contact real, of light divine, the Way to God." >From Esoteric Psychology, Vol. 2, by Alice Bailey (Djwhal Khul) ----------------------- And my old friend Walt Whitman summarizes for us: "Nothing is ever really lost, or can be lost. No birth, identity, form--no object of the world. Nor life, nor force, nor any visible thing; Appearance must not foil, nor shifted sphere confuse thy brain. Ample are time and space--ample the fields of nature." -- INTERNET: jdavis@netlink.cts.com (James Davis) UUCP: ...!ryptyde!netlink!jdavis NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115 From: ntmtv!scoter@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Patrick Thompson) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Sahaja Yoga SAHAJA YOGA - A UNIQUE DISCOVERY by Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi Man in his search of joy and happiness is running away from his Self, which is the real source of joy. He finds himself very ugly and boring because he doesn't know his Self. A human being seeks joy in money or possessions, in power or human- limited love, and ultimately in religion that is also outside. The problem is how to turn one's attention inward. The inner being, which is our awareness, is an energy. I call it the energy of Divine Love. All evolution and the manifestation of material energy is guided by the supreme energy of Divine Love. We do not know how powerful and thoughtful this unknown energy is. The silent working of awareness is so automatic, minute, dynamic, and precious that we take it for granted. After Self-realization, this energy appears to us as silent throbbing vibrations flowing through our being. But we have been unable to achieve Self-realization because we cannot fix our attention on something that lacks form (abstract Being). Instead, our attention wanders outside on forms. Now there is a method to tap the Divine power-Sahaja Yoga. At the very outset, I have to say that the working of Sahaja Yoga is very simple, although the operation within is quite com- plex. For example, if you want to watch television, it is very easy. But to explain the engineering technique of a television set is very difficult and the explanation is complicated. To learn about a television you also need a qualified engineer who understands it and who can explain its working. I will try to explain Sahaja Yoga in the simplest way, but please note that it is really complicated if you want to know it in detail. The best way to enjoy television is first to switch it on and watch. Then later you can try to understand its engineering. As a mother I would say that I have done the cooking for you. Why should you worry about how it is done? If you are hungry you should start eating. If you are not actually hungry, but only inquisitive, what can I do? I can neither force you to eat nor make you hungry with discussions or lecturing. I leave it to your wisdom and to your freedom to feel that longing. SOME BACKGROUND ON SAHAJA YOGA The word "Sahaja" (Saha + ja) means born with you or inborn. Whatever is inborn manifests without any effort. Hence Sahaja Yoga is the name given to my system, which is effortless, easy, and spontaneous. It is a part of Nature, you may call it life's source-the vitality of the Divine. To understand life, consider the case of something that is living: a germinating seed. The seed grows by itself into a tree, blooms into flowers, and then the flowers become fruit. Any human effort cannot change the process of growth from a seed into a tree. The gardener can only look after the growth of the tree. In the same way, the process of the growth of our consciousness, to further evolution, takes place effortlessly. When a fetus is between two and three months old, in the mother's womb, a column of rays of consciousness, emitted through the all-pervading Divine Love, pass through the de- veloping brain to enlighten it. The shape of the human brain is prism-like. So, the column of rays falling on it gets refracted into four diverse channels corresponding to the four aspects of the nervous system. These are: 1. Parasympathetic nervous system 2. Sympathetic nervous system (right) 3. Sympathetic nervous system (left) 4. Central nervous System (This need not be discussed as it is the link with objectivity). The set of rays that fall on the fontanelle bone (apex of the head known as Taloo) pierce in the center and pass straight into the medulla oblongata through a channel (Sushumna). This energy, after leaving a very thread-like, thin line in the medulla oblongata, settles down in three and a half coils in the triangular bone at the base of the spinal cord (Mooladhar). This coiled energy is known as Kundalini. The subtle energy enters through the center of the brain (Sa- hasrar Brahmarandhra) and precipitates six more centers on its way down. The gross manifestation of this subtle energy, in the Sushumna channel of the spinal cord, is termed the Parasympa- thetic nervous system. The centers of chakras are expressed as plexuses outside the spinal cord. Surprisingly, we have the same number of plexuses and subplexuses outside, as the number of chakras and their petals inside, the spinal cord. Medical science knows very little about this system. Science calls it the autonomous nervous system, meaning the system that works spontaneously-on its own. For example, if we want to increase the rate of our heartbeat, we can do so by exerting ourselves (activity of the sympathetic nervous system). But we cannot directly reduce the heart (activity of the parasympa- thetic nervous system). The parasympathetic nervous system is a system that is like a petrol pump through which the petrol of Divine Love fills us. But when a human child is born and the umbilical cord breaks, a gap is created in the Sushumna (the subtle channel in the spinal cord). And on the gross level, one can see there is a gap between the solar plexus and the vagus nerve of the parasympathetic nervous system. This gap is known as the void in the Zen system of religion and Maya (or Bhav Sagar) in Indian thought. Later when ego and superego bloat up like balloons and cover our brain at the apex of the left and right sympathetic nervous systems, the fontanelle bone calci- fies, and the all-pervading vital force of Divine Love gets cut off completely. Then the human being identifies himself as a separate entity and the consciousness of "I" (Aham) presides. This is why Man does not know His universal unconscious. His ego severs this subtle connection. VITAL ENERGY The sympathetic nervous system uses the vital energy. There are two systems-left and right. The two channels, which carry this energy, in subtle form (in the medulla oblongata), are known as Ida and Pingala respectively. The right-side system (in the right-handed person) caters to the emergencies of the active consciousness (extra efforts and emergencies). The left-side system (in medicine they say it remains dormant) caters to the subconscious mind of the psyche (libido). Both these sympathetic-nerve systems are called the Sun and Moon channels (i.e., Surya nadi and Chandra nadi). Hatha Yoga comes from the words Ha and Tha, meaning the Sun and Moon. By this yoga you can control the activity of the sympathetic; you can use more stored energy or else completely stop the activity of the sympathetic for a short time. Just by using the stored energy you cannot achieve the eternal flow of the divine. With control over the sympathetic you can slow the heart rate or even stop the heart for a short time. You may achieve all the physical gross symptoms of the parasympa- thetic. But you cannot activate the parasympathetic which is the channel for your real yoga (meeting of the divine). With Hatha yoga you may even control your mind. But the mind thus governed is heavily conditioned for the spiritual flight into the divine. One may keep good health and good mind to be a good citizen in a society, but that is not the only aim of life. THE CHANNELS OF ATTENTION Both sympathetic and parasympathetic act on the plexuses, but in opposition to each other. The parasympathetic relaxes the plexuses while the sympathetic squeezes the energy by constrict- ing them. One fills in the vitality and the other consumes it. There is a gap in the parasympathetic nervous system (Sushumna) but no gap in the sympathetic nervous system (at the navel). This is the hurdle that has rendered all our searching-and entry into the parasympathetic-fruitless so far. It is like three ladders, two of them touching the ground while the central one is hanging in the air. So whenever we try to rise in our consciousness, we move on to the sympathetic system. If we pass toward the right side we enter onto the activity that goes on bloating in the balloon of ego. Thus we feel responsible and active. When this activity increases beyond limits, like a growing tree whose roots are not equally grown, the being falls to the ground. Over activity of the sympathetic nervous system causes tension, sleeplessness, and ultimately all deadly diseases like cancer. These diseases are caused by the constricted plexuses that have been drained of their energy. If you can make the parasympa- thetic dominate the right side, then we can antidote the effects of over activity. Then all the diseases and the effects caused by this right side get cured automatically. The left side sympathetic nervous system (libido) has the power to store all that is dead in us. It connects you with store houses of the subconscious mind and with the collective subcon- scious (Bhootlok or Paralok). At the backside of the brain, at the apex of this channel, the super ego exists like a balloon. It becomes heavy by storing, the conditioning of the mind through libido. So if the tension is heavy it breaks the superego into many fragments. If you still overexert by conditioning, a partial vacuum forms and this sucks another dead personality from the collective subconscious (Paralok) into your superego. So in your pursuit of truth, if you take to further efforts and indulge in concentration, training of the mind, forced abstinence, forced meditation, or complete slavery to the emotional attachment of the mind, the libido with the aid of the affected superego may connect you to the collective subconscious (Paralok) where all dead souls-bad, good, or saintly-exist. These souls start manifesting through you and you get siddhis or extra sensory perceptions. Actually these are the different subtle (dead) personalities dominating us through super ego. DANGEROUS TECHNIQUES There is another method that may be effortlessly employed by many so called teachers. This method, by which they turn the chakra in the direction of the libido, can put you into your subconscious. This method either makes the aspirant go into a trance or accept the complete domination of the dead spirits introduced by the teacher through the plexuses. In the first case, the Sadhaka feels relaxed, his mind is switched off. But after a few years of practice, he realizes his weakness. He cannot face reality and takes to heavy use of drugs. In the second case, the aspirant becomes a complete slave of the teacher and starts giving away all material possessions to the teacher without understanding the logic behind it. These teachers never explain the technique they have employed, nor do they give their powers to anybody else. In short, all ef- forts in the name of religion, or the mishandling of Kundalini by so called realized people, can only activate the sympathetic nervous system (Ida and Pingla). These activities cannot make any progress toward bringing about the play of parasympathetic (Sushumna). All mesmeric powers such as materialization power (enslaving masses for money or fame), visionary powers (Drishti Siddha), speech powers (Vani Siddha), curing powers, transcendental feelings (powers of switching off the mind), separation of body, and many other powers, are very ordinarily found among those who practice the control of spirits (Pretsiddhi or Smashan Vidya). All such powers can be proved to be the powers of the dead in any one of our experimental Centers. These are not Divine powers because the Divine has no interest in these gross subjects. It is interested only in the miracle of the inner being and its further manifestation to bring about human evolution. Thus those who indulge and use their attention (Chitta) on such "siddhis" and those who run after such gross miracles find it difficult to follow Sahaja Yoga. We have noted that when such people confront Sahaja Yoga, they start trembling and shaking like lunatics. If with very great difficulty such a person reaches the state of Self-realization, he completely loses all interest in such powers and in their exhibition. He is freed of all extra dead personalities who dominated him. There is no need to pass through the subconscious strata to jump the unconscious. The subconscious is an end by itself and one gets lost after entering its realms. These strata are placed vertically. The only direct way is through the parasympathetic (through Sushumna)-the central path that takes you to the Divine (the universal unconscious)-through Sahaja Yoga. It is very dangerous to use the powers of the subconscious which may become uncontrollable and torture the practitioner and Sadhaka. Those who are temporarily benefited may suffer irreparable loss to body, mind, or grace. THE PROMISED GOAL All religions have promised inner silence when you reach the state of Self-realization-the inner miracle of the subtle aware- ness and not gross jugglery. The Bhagavad Gita says that you become the witness (Sakshi Swarup) of the play of the Divine. Many modern thinkers are also talking about the new awareness. This has been described as "thoughtless awareness" which results in collective consciousness. We hear of many prophesies made by ancient and modern writers about the evolution of a new race of super-human beings of unique awareness. These are no longer empty words. Through the discovery of Sahaja Yoga it is possible to achieve the transformation of the human consciousness to the higher planes promised by various seers. The subject of Kundalini is no longer a matter of book knowl- edge. Now you can see, with the naked eye, the breathing of the Kundalini at the Mooladhar. You can feel the different chakras in the spinal cord with your fingers. Formerly, bridging the gap in the Sushumna was the insurmountable problem. But it is being discovered that this gap can be filled with the vibrating power of Divine Love. The Kundalini rises like a majestic mother and breaks the apex of the brain (Brahmarandhra) without giving the slightest trouble to the child (Sadhaka). It happens in a split second, in the short spell between two successive thoughts. Of course, if the aspirant (Sadhaka) is diseased or his chakras are constricted by over activity of the sympathetic nervous system, the Kundalini, being the Mother of every individual and the em- bodiment of love, knowledge, and beauty, knows how to reveal Her love beautifully and to give rebirth to Her child without causing any hurt. There are many descriptions about Kundalini warning us against the dangers and perils of the taming of Kundalini. Also many books describe various gross or frightful experiences of the Kundalini awakening. Actually this is caused because Kundalini cannot rise without Sahaja Yoga, i.e., if someone, who is not Self-realized, tries to awaken Her, the Kundalini does not leave Her seat and, without the proper invitation, the Kun- dalini becomes adamant and angry. Thus the sympathetic gets into activity. When She is accused of sex, She sends heat waves over the sympathetic nervous system which causes the constriction or blockage of the plexuses and the path of the Kundalini is completely broken down. Sometimes one gets into funny gesticula- tions or loses complete awareness of the outside. Moreover with mishandling of Chakras and Kundalini due to the ignorance or greed of the teacher, the chance of realization for the aspirant can become very poor and sometimes impossible. The mind that is very much conditioned, or the mind that is the slave of self-indulgence or of egoistic actions and thoughts, is also a very slow conveyance for Sahaja Yoga. Even if you read too much about the deconditioning of the mind, you may get only further conditioned. If you try to decondition by efforts, you can become conditioned much worse than what you were. Deconditioning is only possible through Divine Love. The main "condition" of Sahaja Yoga is that your will and freedom are always respected. In Sahaja Yoga the person is fully aware and alert and receives inner silence and experience without doing any unnatural move- ments. He sits in a completely easy pose throughout or he also may lie down (Sahajasana or Shavasana). The breathing is normal or less than normal. RELIGION Religions are also the expressions and experiments of realized souls-the seers. They also talk about the inner being, second birth, and about Self-realization. In the beginning, in India, they tried to take the attention inside by introducing symbols that they saw of this unconscious, universal being within. This gave rise to pantheism and the aspirant's attention got stuck to symbols (Sakar) and to rituals which killed the main objective. So the other type of experiments of talking only about the abstract (Nirakar) gave rise to many other religions which ended up as dogmas or "isms." The reason is obvious. Talking about the flower or the honey cannot take you to the honey but can only create dogmatic "isms" in the mind. You have to be a bee to reach there, i.e., you have to be reborn. This has to happen within to take you inside. It is too great an achievement and unbelievable, but I feel the search of ages has brought great results. THE END OF THE PATH The mind, with a child-like innocence achieves very quick re- sults. Whatever may be the loads of the mind, if the longing is honest and earnest, sooner or later, the aspirant can get Self-realization. After reaching this state the vibrations start emitting from the extremities. These are described by Adi Sankaracharya in his work "Ananda Lahari." These vibrations are the waves of Divine Love that can fill also other persons' inner being and give them the same experience of Self-realization. This is how the chain reaction starts. One light enlightens another. The physical manifestations are as follows: The pupils of the eyes become dilated (Parasympathetic action). The face becomes radiant, the body becomes light, all tension is completely removed. The rising of the Kundalini can be seen by others and felt by the aspirant. First the throbbing is clearly felt at Sahasrar (apex of the brain) and when it stops, complete silence is felt within and in all awareness. The flow of grace is felt coming down, cooling the whole being. As the atten- tion moves to the subtle, gross attachments drop out. A person gradually loses identification with falsehood and artificial- ity. In matter, he sees beauty and not its possession value. In knowledge, he identifies himself with the Truth and is not afraid to profess, nor does he indulge in the double standards of life. His flow of love becomes spontaneous, generous, without any tinge of attachment, possession or any return. The person becomes ageless-a hollow personality. Now let us see what happens inside. The attention of the consciousness moves to the inner being (Kundalini). As the thread (Sutra) of a necklace is passing through every bead of the necklace, the inner consciousness (Kundalini) is also passing through every human being. As soon as our attention moves to our inner consciousness we can move on to everybody's Kundalini. One starts feeling the Kundalini, its nature, its position in other persons. Collective consciousness is thus established. Now you become a universal being. After some days you cannot say who is the other person. The power of love is so great and dynamic that with the movement of your fingers you can move the Kundalini of thousands. It becomes child's play. This is how the en masse evolution of human beings will take place. These are the signs of the advent of the Golden age of Truth (Satya Yuga). Let us forget whatever hardships we have suffered in our search in the past. It does not matter if some could not find it before this. You have to open your mind and understand that though the discovery is unprecedented, it does not make any seeker or predecessor small. If some experiments are made, it does not matter if, ultimately, we have found out the way. It is a collective achievement. Perhaps in the chaos of Kali Yuga it was to happen and many of us, who have been earnestly searching in many lives, are reborn to have their promises fulfilled by the Divine. Maybe we were our own predecessors. On the tree of life there might have been very few flowers but now the blossom time has come. Their fragrance of longing has collectively materialized the manifestation of Sahaja Yoga. Many are going to jump into the realm of thoughtless awareness where you get introduced to yourself and start identifying with your universal nature. Those who deserve will get the throne of their inner being which rules the skies of peace, and the oceans of divine love and supreme knowledge within, which is limitless (Anant). ------------------------------ Patrick Thompson ntmtv!scoter@ames.arc.nasa.gov From: RADAMS@cerritos.edu (Roger Adams) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: No Soul In article <1992Sep8.183804.3336@cco.caltech.edu>, wong@rkna50.riken.go.jp (Wong Weng Fai) writes: > I would like to take my shot at the topic of "soul". > We should begin with what we mean by a "soul". Intuitively, I > would define a "soul" (no authority here but ...) as an entity that : ^^^^^^ I would like to stop you right here because what follows in your definition are attributes of the said "entity". Now what I would like to ask you at this point is: does conservative Buddhism reject the idea that an "entity" of any sort, regardless of what the attributes are, exists? If the conservative Buddhist view is "no, there is no such thing as an entity of any sort, nothing at all exists" then there is no point arguing about the following attributes (1 thru 6) that you came up with since you don't think that any "entity" exists - regardless if its in a body or not or if its separate from the senses or not or if its permanent or not etc. - anyhow. > > 1. Inhabit the body most of the time; > 2. Is separate from the physical body; > 3. Is separate from the senses; > 4. Controls the body most of the time; > 5. Is permanent or at least remains immutable after death; > 6. Is responsible for the behavior of the individual most of the > time; Hindu scriptures say that the soul (Self) is Sat-Chit-Ananda (Yogananda translated this as "ever-existing, ever-conscious, ever-new joy) which is what God (Self) is also defined as in scriptures. It appears that any existence, therefore, inside some body is relative truth and not ultimate truth and that false identification with the body, or ego-consciousness is therefore responsible for behavior in individuals who are not free or enlightened (in the fullest sense) as the soul is ever perfect. Christian scriptures likewise describe the soul as being made in the image of God. If God is perfect then so is the soul (although Christians do not use the word 'soul' in this context - the scriptures say 'man' is made in the image of God but I feel I am being consistent with the spirit of the scriptures in comparing them in this way, according to my understanding of Yogananda's interpretation of same). > The motivation for the theory of a soul seems to be The concept of the soul is based on its actual existence. > I think someone has countered the "permanence" feature (5) quite well. > In fact, it goes counter to the motivation of reward/punishment - if its > features are already permanent, what can anyone (including god) do about it > and what's the point ? I think you might be confusing the concepts of soul and of ego. Our ego or sense of separate, limited, self is transitory. Soul (atman) is perfect and therefore beyond reward/punishment. Our problem is with ego and *lack* of realization of our true Self (soul, atman). > Features (1), (2) and (3) - separateness is self-contradictory. To > begin with, it is not clear what is it apart from the physically functioning > body that one can point to as a "soul". Suppose you can distinguish a set of > characteristics which forms the soul. Take a particular characteristic, X say, > and ask "what makes it part of the soul and not the body ?", "without this X, > is the soul still a soul ?" The point of the argument is that while all the > functionalities of the body can be viewed as separate (eg. sight is different > from sound), no one characteristic can stand on its own (its nonsense to talk > about "pure" sight "on its own"). They are all part of this vaguely defined > microcosm called "me". "Vaguely" because you can do away with certain features > and yet still consider "me" a being (eg. any of the five senses) but you can't > do away with "too much" of it (eg. all five senses). Therefore the notion of > an empty shell inhibited by a permanent soul is a naive one which crumbles > under such strict scrutiny. > Find out what happens when the body is completely done away with and whether or not a sens of 'I' or 'me' remains, before you characterize your analysis as being a strict form of scrutiny. :-) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Adams radams@cerritos.edu To those in whom love dwells, Cerritos College the whole world is one family. 11110 Alondra Blvd A Hindu Proverb Norwalk, California 90650 USA 292 Dwapara :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: KLEINSCHMIDT@mcclb0.med.nyu.edu Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: Abhidharma and prajnaparamita Richard Kenneway asked whether the abhidharma is worth studying. His question may be academic: those of us who have to spend most of their time earning a living won't have the opportunity to make even a slight dent into this vast and abstruse subject. The abhidharma (= study of the dharma), as I understand it, is the body of thought concerned with Buddhist psychology and theory of mind. As Richard alluded to in his superb satire of an ancient Chinese system of classification of animals, the abhidharma theories can be extremely abstruse, bone-dry and ludicrous. There are countless enumerations in it of scores of mental factors, types of dharmas, aggregates, fields and faculties, mental states, stages of meditation etc. etc. A volume on corporate law would make thrilling reading by comparison. However, if there is one compendium full of abhidharma theory that may be interesting to browse through, it is Buddhaghosa's visuddhimagga (Path of Purity). This is a tome of nearly 900 pages that focusses on meditation and purification of mind. It is available in a well-received English translation made by Bhikkhu Nanamoli (Buddhaghosa "The Path of Purification", Buddhist Publication Society, Kandy, Sri Lanka, 4th ed., 1979, $40.00). Another well known book on the subject, also from the Theravada perspective, is "A Manual of Abhidhamma" by Narada Mahathera, also published by the BPS (4th ed., 1980, $10.95). A wonderful cure for insomnia; read two pages and you're guaranteed to doze off. The definitive treatise on the abhidharma from a Sarvastivadin perspective is Vasubandhu's abhidharmakosha, available in French translation by Louis de la Vallee Poussin (and from there into English by L.M. Pruden, 1989, $300). This work comprises a mere 1600 pages in 4 volumes; since Richard is willing to read in French, he surely can breeze through Poussin's translation in the span of a Sunday afternoon. All of these books are available from Wisdom Publications, Boston, MA, at the prices indicated in U.S. dollars. I have no connection with this publisher, aside from having sunk many hundreds of dollars into their coffers. Wisdom Publ. is also based in England, and Richard might get these books there as well. I have never heard the idea expressed that in order to understand the prajnaparamita (perfection of wisdom) literature (a collection of about 40 sutras of varying length), one has to be versed in abhidharma theory. By contrast, I perceive the two bodies of thought as mutually exclusive and antagonistic. The abhidhamma pitaka was a product of the late flowering of nikaya buddhism (what is derogatorily called hinayana by the mahayanists) three to nine centuries after the time of the Buddha whereas the first PP scriptures were the earliest expressions of Mahayana Buddhism which was trying to set itself apart from all the other established schools of Buddhist thought. The PP sutras are as difficult to absorb as are the abhidharma writings, the former because of their abstrusity, the latter because of their pedantry and scholasticism. Just think of the Diamond Sutra which is one of the late PP sutras: for the most part it reads like sheer nonsense. Unfortunately, little easily accessible commentarial literature is available on the PP sutras, at least on the big ones. Edward Conze, the foremost Western authority on the PP sutras, supposedly has done a good job at translating many of them from the Sanskrit; I only wished he had written equally as much in running commentary and explication. The little in the way of comprehensible exegesis he has written about the PP sutras can be found in his "Buddhist Thought in India" and in several essays in "Thirty Years of Buddhist Studies". Both of these books, I believe, are out of press. Conze always is worthwhile reading even though this opinionated teuton may occasionally annoy you. I believe the most expedient way of cracking the tough nut of grasping what the PP sutras are all about, is to read commentaries on the heart sutra (prajnaparamita hridaya sutra). This sutra is one of the shortest PP sutras (aside from the PP sutra in one sentence, in one word, or in one letter = A). It has been vastly popular and influential in all Mahayana Buddhist settings, being considered the distilled essence of the PP teaching, esp. that of emptiness, and as such this sutra has stimulated the minds of many commentators. My tack in approaching the PP teachings has been twofold: 1. to browse through the PP sutra in 8000 lines which according to Conze constitutes the original PP teaching (he believed that the first 41 verses = 2 chapters of its verse version are the original core from which the whole literature developed), and 2. to collect and read a couple of good commentaries on the Heart Sutra. Among the latter, I would recommend the following: 1. Donald S. Lopez, Jr. "The Heart Sutra Explained", SUNY Press, 1988, $16.95. Lopez is well versed in madhyamika philosophy (he has written a big book on svatantrika madhyamika). In this book, he explicates the main points of the PP literature by going through the heart sutra word by word, with several Indian and Tibetan commentaries at hand. Quite an illuminating book. 2. Geshe Rabten "Echoes of Voidness", Wisdom Publications, 1983, $8.95. Read part one of this book. 3. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso "Heart of Wisdom", Tharpa Publ., 1989. There is also a famous exposition on the prajna paramita in the ninth chapter of Shantideva's bodhisattvacharyavatara, translated by Stephen Batchelor. One of the best of the many commentaries on this is by the present (14th) Dalai Lama in his book "Transcendent Wisdom" (Snow Lion Press). In closing, I think that even though the PP sutras look forbidding and unapproachable, it may be worthwhile to dig into them: they have been extremely influential and they got Mahayana Buddhism under way. If, on the other hand, you get sick of trying to understand emptiness by filling your head to the brim with what may seem like verbiage, then I recommend reading just one or two more books and then put all of them away for a while or forever. These two books are: John M. Reynolds "Self-liberation through seeing with naked awareness", and Namkhai Norbu "The cycle of day and night". They deal with the dzogchen practice of rigpa, which is intrinsic, pure awareness, resting the mind in its own natural and self-perfected state, beyond all words and concepts. Jochen Kleinschmidt From: fstawit@icomp01.lerc.nasa.gov (Tawit Chitsomboon) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Abhidhamma/Visudhimagga Subject: Abhidhamma/Visudhimagga Since I have read a couple of posts about these 2 books, I would like to give my 0.4 nickle worth opinion on these 2 most important books of buddhism. I had read Vi (in Thai) but only read commentaries about Abhi (mostly from Buddhadasa) Buddhadasa was of the opinion that most of the Abhidhamma were of later additions and should be largely classified as buddhist philosophy rather than buddhist religion. The difference between the two is that the former cannot extiguish the flame of suffering whereas the latter can. Most of the content in the Abhi are well beyond conventional intelligence to grapse anyway (all those 90 somethings forms of the mind). The Abhi could be a good toy for 'enlightened ones' to play with, though. Buddhadasa also speculated that these philosophy were added in to make buddhism attractive to the intelligent ones, in order to compete with the Hindu philosophy. He also said that the later addition of stupid stuffs (into the Pali Canon) was to make Buddhism more attractive to stupid ones. Different people need different candies! I quite agree with Buddhadasa. Core teaching of the Buddha alone is very bland. Without the spiritual MSG, Buddhism would probably bite the dust long time ago. I like what Bill Mayne posted long time back that Buddhism is meant for tough-minded realists. Flavoring it with any artificial stuff to please certain groups of people will hurt in the long run. I'm not saying that Abhi is all bad. I just want to convey the message of Buddhadasa that the main objective of all buddhists is to become buddha and not to be addicted to philosophy which is more or less the fruit of speculation from more or less untrained minds. About Visudhimagga, This is the most revered commentary for most Theravadins. Did you know the author based his writing largely on Vimuttimagga (The path of Liberation) and ordered it burned after he had completed his?! Had it not for a previous translation into Chinese, Vimuttimagga would have been forever lost. Buddhadasa was of the opinion that the Buddha became enlightened when he fully understood the theory of Dependent Origination. The Buddha later systematized the theory for laypersons in terms of the four noble truths and the eightfold path. Now, the inter- pretation of the Dependent Origination in Visud seems to be ways of marks, in Budhadasa's eyes. Visud posits that one would get the fruit of one's deed in future lives. Buddhadasa said, no. One gets the fruit here and now. He interpreted further that one is born and is dead many times in one day. When the Dependent Origination completes itself one round, one is born and is dead one round. This is acknowledged by buddhist scholars in Thailand as the first time the Dependent Origination theory is interpreted this way. Of course, the concept of here and now has been with Buddhists of all sects all along. But it has never been looked from the point of view of dependent origination, IMO. I posted sometime ago also that this new interpretation of Dependent Origination could be reformulated into Micro-Samsara which conditioned the Macro-samsara. When the micro-samsara is broken the macro-samsara would also be broken since it get nourishment from the micro one. Other than this, and some other supernatural stuffs, I kind of like Visudhimagga too. Few books would offer you more ways and more details on how to conduct meditations. -Tawit (fstawit@icomp01.lerc.nasa.gov) Please CC a response to me as well, since I'll be gone for 2 weeks. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Search hard enough and you'll find absurdity in any valid system. Search hard enough and you'll find reasons in any invalid system. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: tt@wag.caltech.edu (Toshi Takeuchi) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Exercise 3, Learning from Precepts of Buddhism Hi all, Here's the third exercise in the series that I have been periodically posting on the net. To refresh your memory, The first exercise I gave: Refraining from false speech: speech from the heart: Undertake for one week not to gossip (positively or negatively) or speak about anyone you know who is not present with you (any third party). The second exercise I gave: Refraining from sexual misconduct: conscious sexuality. Undertake for one week to observe meticulously how often sexual feelings ant thoughts arise in your consciousness. Each time, note what particular mind states you find associated with them, such as love, tension, compulsion, caring, loneliness, desire for communication, greed, pleasure, aggression, and so forth.. --These exercises are taken from Seeking the Heart of Wisdom by Joseph Goldstein and Jack Kornfield, Shambhala press. I like doing these exercises --NOT to whip and torture myself into a better person, BUT TO become AWARE of some things that occur spontaneously without thinking... You can choose what to do with that awareness... --If any of you tried the gossiping exercise, then you might have noticed how often you "speak falsely" of other people without thinking! --If any of you try the conscious sexuality exercise, then you might have noticed how often sexual connotations and feelings arise in TV and other media, daily interaction etc... The third exercise is as follows: From p.8 of the book mentioned above: The second precept (of Buddhism) asks us to refrain from stealing, meaning not to take what is not ours. Not to steal is called basic nonharming. We need to let go of being greedy and not take too much. More positively, it means to use things with sensitivity and care, to develop our sense of sharing this life, this planet...We're all interwoven. If we can learn to love the earth, we can be happy whatever we do, with a happiness born of contentment. Exercise: Refraining from stealing: care with material goods. Undertake for one week to act on every single thought of generosity that arises spontaneously in your heart. ---- My comments: I noticed that there are many things that pop into my head that are actually nice, but I don't act upon them because "it's too much trouble". The problem is that I am lazy. It's like when I was younger, I would complain and complain about doing the dishes with my parents (my allowance for the week came from doing some chores). Well, the fact of the matter was, I learned that I spent as much time complaining about doing the dishes than it actually took to do the dishes! After all, we had a dishwasher! I think there are many actions of goodwill that can be done in the blink of an eye. However, we are often caught up in our selfishness and laziness, that we don't act upon our good intentions. The easiest thing that came from this exercise: Pick up trash that's lying around: On the street, there's a trashcan on every other corner. It takes little effort to have respect for the place around you. I also pick up trash when I go hiking in the mountains... --If any of you try the exercise, and think of some other things that occur in your mind, then please write and tell me about it. Thanks, Toshi tt@wag.caltech.edu From: KLEINSCHMIDT@mcclb0.med.nyu.edu Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Abhidharma 101 More comments on Richard Kennaway's search for books on abhidharma: It just occurred to me that there is in fact a short, interesting and fairly readable book on the subject matter of the abhidharma. This is "The Central Conception of Buddhism and the Meaning of the Word Dharma" by Theodor Stcherbatsky, originally published in 1922, and reprinted since by Motilal Banarsidass Publ., Dehli, the last time in 1988. This book is available from Wisdom Publ. for around $10. Stcherbatsky was one of the giants among 20th century Buddhologists and anyone who wants to consider him/herself literate in Buddhism should have dipped into his works at least once. In this book, he explains many of the technical terms of abhidharma philosophy, with a special emphasis on clarifying the most difficult concept, i.e. what are the dharmas. For this, he draws mostly on Vasubandhu's abhidharmakosha. The book is only 91 small pages long, and although reading through it is by no means easy going, it does provide something of a Sarvastivadin abhidharma 101, relatively painlessly. Stcherbatsky and other members of the Russian school of Buddhology were the first scholars in the West to solidly nail down the meaning of many Buddhist technical terms in Sanskrit. Occasionally, his discourse will strike you as somewhat archaic and severe but these deficiencies pale before his relentless drive for clarity of understanding. On p. 3 of the book, T.S. provides the most breathtakingly simple definition of Buddhism I have ever come across: "The formula of the Buddhist credo (ye dhamma, etc.) - which professedly contains the shortest statement of the essence and spirit of Buddhism - declares that Buddha discovered the elements (dhamma) of existence, their causal connection, and a method to suppress their efficiency forever (nirodho). Vasubandhu makes a similar statement about the essence of the doctrine: it is a method of converting the elements of existence into a condition of rest, out of which they will never emerge again." There you have it. BTW, in my post yesterday on abhidharma and prajnaparamita, I complained that although Edward Conze had published countless pages of translations of the PP sutras, he had written a great deal less on the exegesis of these scriptures. I found out since that in 1960 he published a monograph entitled "The Prajnaparamita Literature". I have never seen that book but perhaps it contains what I wanted from the man. Jochen Kleinschmidt From: wong@rkna50.riken.go.jp (Wong Weng Fai) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: No Soul Hi, vvs3564@tamsun.tamu.edu (vishwas) writes (sorry for the rudeness but I don't want to guess the sex wrong again and get bashed for it ;-) ... > The important point in the Soul theory is " You can't know the Soul ". Then how can you conclude that the soul exist ? You must have KNOWN that, right ? >And the reason is knower can't be known. The logic behind it is if for >knowledge of any thing two basic requirements are 1) A knower and ... Indeed, in fact many (Western) philosophers have concluded that there is no such thing as a "knower". Yogacara philosophy may be interpreted as saying, "there is no such thing as a knower, just knowledge (mind)". > Other important points are > >1) Cycle of birth-rebirth can't be explained logically if we propose No Soul >theory. I think the Buddhist theory offers a soul-less explanation. Furthermore, a) birth-rebirth is still an unproven thing, b) even if it is true, why should there be a "logical" explanation and c) even if there is one, I still don't see how the soul theory is the only one. >2) If everything is changing in this world (which is certainly the buddhist >viewpoint) then this change should be with respect to something which is >constant. There are lot of examples given to explain this point in the >scripture This is INCORRECT ! Change is a relative thing, yes. But it need not be relative to a fixed constant ! In Math, this is equivalent (I think) to the idea of partial derivative - change with respect to another change. The Earth is moving (changing) about the Sun which is also moving (changing) about the center of the Milky Way which is also moving ... And there is no physical reason to stop. To detect change, you need RELATIVE constants but ABSOLUTE constants are not necessary. > Another important point is Soul can not be known by mind only. One has >to go beyond the mind to say for sure whether there is a Soul or not. This is where you and I differ. Your statement implies that besides the mind, there is something else that "knows". This is not acceptable to me. But I guess its a matter of axioms ;-) > [analogy of dreaming deleted.] The analogy does not hold water because the brain remains active even in sleep and therefore there is no need to postulate another mechanism other than the functioning brain (although admittedly, we still know very little about it). As for rebirth experiences, they are many who will dispute the so-called "evidences". > Soul is changeless, immortal entity which is the knower of all the >conditions and situations through which one is going. The mind and the body >are the mere instruments of this entity. According to Samkhya philosophy >which is dualistic in nature, Soul never takes part in any action that is >performed by the body-mind combination. Gotcha !!! It is NOT possible to know WITHOUT change ! I presume that you mean that the soul knows things as it happens and that you are not talking about predestination (if everything is predestined, why do anything ?). If so, then the soul in knowing X (say) would have gone from a state when X is not known to a state where X is known, i.e. it CHANGED ! The Samkhya philosophy is inconsistent because knowing about anything is a PARTICIPATION (albeit passively) in an interaction with the body-mind. If there is completely no link between the two then there is completely no way (by definition) that the soul detects the actions of the other. The latter must have register something with the soul so that it can distinguish the action. This means that the soul must have gone from "not registered" to "registered". Looking forward to your reply. Regards, W.F. Wong.