Subject: Ch'an, Rinzai, Soto, Obaku, Nembutsu, etc.
From: [email-masked] (Bill Kish)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern

The relationship between various strains of Zen with Nembutsu (Pure
Land), Tendai, Shingon, and others we don't even have records of is
something which needs time and effort in order to appreciate.  An
excellent work (perhaps even the only work translated into English)
which does justice to the complexity of the issues involved is the two
volume set by Heinrich Dumoulin, "The History of Zen in India and
China (v1)" and "The History of Zen in Japan (v2)".  Another good work
available in English is "The History of Buddhism in China" by Kenneth
Ch'en.  If you combine this with "Zen in Transition" ed. by Kenneth
Kraft, then you have a reasonably accurate thumbnail sketch of the
long and intricate paths by which the innovations and spiritual genius
traditionally attributed to Bodhidharma has made its way into the 20th
century.   I say "thumbnail sketch" here since the real work which is
and has been  done on these issues is in Japanese, Chinese, etc.
	With respect to the original question concerning the
differences between Rinzai and Soto Zen, I think Yamplonsky's (sp ?)
contribution to "Zen in Transition" is as good a description of how
they differ in modern day Japan as you will get in 10 - 15 pages.  The
main difference involves the use of koans and, to a lesser extent,
what might be referred to as the "crazy wisdom" or "shock tactics"
usually associated with Rinzai masters.  There are additional
differences involving how these two Buddhist schools interfaced with
Japanese culture and politics, but these have more to do with the life
and history of the Japanese people than with Buddhism per se.
	The statement made by someone in a previous post about Rinzai
being for the "desperate" is rubbish. This is no more true than saying
that Soto is only for those who enjoy wallowing in pathetic and
shallow self absorption.  I think if anyone bothers to look closely,
they will see the differences between Rinzai and Soto as more the
product of the idiosyncratic nature of teachers, students, and the
reality of waking up rather than as some sort of deep and fundamental
rift.  Dogen and Hakuin have seen each other "face to face" along with
all the other patriarchs.  Read the section on Dogen in Dumoulin v2.
He trained with koans under Lin Chi masters as well as in Tendai
practices before connecting with a Tsao Tung (Soto) master who turned
out to be what for all intents and purposes was his "root guru".
Likewise Hakuin began with a Nichiren and Tendai background before
becoming perhaps the quintessential Rinzai Zen master.  I don't think
in either case that the preparatory practices each master underwent
before striking gold was somehow in vain.
	The awakening which Dogen experienced by "just sitting" is
what any Zen teacher, Rinzai or otherwise, hopes to precipitate in
students with his or her own particular methods and teaching style.
The Buddha has infinite skillful means at his disposal.  The Rinzai
and Soto methods are just two samples.

Yours in Dharma,
-Bill

From: [email-masked] (Hun Lye)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: The joy of "letting go" according to Buddhism.

	Most, if not all of us want happiness.  It is natural to want to  
be happy.  All sentient beings are constantly doing everything to make  
sure that they obtain a taste of happiness.  Very often when we are happy  
we do not know it.  It is only when we look back when we know how to say  
"ah!  I was so happy then".  Therefore, we constantly look back and  
compare our present situation with past experiences.  "I was so happy the  
other nite", "Last year, at this time I was so happy" and it goes on and  
on.  Why can't we be happy now?  Many ask this question.  Of those who do  
not ask, they must either be truly happy or they are so caught up in their  
own unhappiness or disatisfaction that they seem to have even forgoten  
what happiness is all about!      
	Based on his on observation and enlightenment, the Buddha saw that  
if there is one thing we can say about existence, it is that existence is  
marked by "duhkha" - often (but not entirely accurately) translated as  
"suffering".  Duhkha carries the meanings of unhappiness, disatisfaction,  
unease and suffering.  Far from being pessimistic, the Buddha was just  
stating the obvious - although often not very obvious to us.  If we look  
around the world we see that duhkha is prevalent.  In our own microcosm,  
we see that we constantly experience duhkha.  For example, the process of  
birth is duhkha.  Illness is duhkha.  Our body cannot even tolerate a  
thorn in it or a spark of flame.  Mentally we cannot find rest.  We need  
to constantly reassure ourselves,  to go all out so that we do not  
encounter duhkha.  And of course aging and death is duhkha.  The Buddha  
did not say that since duhkha is the mark of existence, accept duhkha or  
glorify it.  He did not say "end existence so that you end duhkha".  But  
instead, he teaches that there is an end to duhkha.  We are not hopelessly  
stuck with duhkha.  We can end duhkha.  So, how do we do this?

To be continued....

Any comments welcome.  Please feel free to contact me or anything....  

--
[email-masked] (Hun Lye)

From: [email-masked] (Kish)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Ch'an, Rinzai, Soto, Obaku, Nembutsu, etc.

I misquoted the title of Kenneth Kraft's book - it is " Zen -
Tradition and Transition".  Also, Obaku is actually Rinzai Zen with
some borrowing from Nembutsu.  For anyone who might be asking "what is
Nebutsu ?", Nembustu is Pure Land Buddhism, and in Japan the main
practice is centered around chanting "Namo Amida Butsu".
	With respect to the Rinzai/Soto thread, I just purchased
Thomas Cleary's partial translation of Dogen's Shobogenzo.  His
introduction is one of the best essays I've read which underscores the
subtle interbeing between koan practice and zazen.

Yours in Dharma,
-Bill
PHONE: (908) 932-5026
UUCP : {ames,att,harvard}!uunet!rutgers!jove.rutgers.edu!kish
INTERNET: [email-masked]

From: [email-masked] (William Mayne)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Question on Buddhism and Vegetarianism

NOTICE: This is still specifically related to vegetarianism, but
strictly from a Buddhist point of view. Anyone offended by religious
or philosophical discussion in rec.food.veg or elsewhere is advised
to hit 'n'. I am trying to be informative and not preachy. How well
I have succeeded is an open question. It might be good to move this
to soc.religion.eastern. I am reluctantly cross posting there even
though it is moderated. Followups from there should not be sent
back to rec.food.veg.

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Richard Darsie) writes:
>      [Bill Mayne's excellent response deleted]

Thanks.

>I would just add that two Buddhist principles or ideals are involved here:
>one, obviously, is "non-harm", the principle of not taking life or causing
>harm. This is an *ideal*, as almost *anything* you eat involves the
>taking of life, even plant life which is considered in Buddhist cosmology
>to be endowed with the same Buddha-nature as animal and human life.

Possibly true (about plants - I'm not really sure about that), but the
precept is to abstain from killing animals. Of course the precepts are
just the minimum standards, not the whole of Buddhist ethics. However the
point of Buddhist ethics is to do the best you can not to make problems for
yourself, not to get caught up in seeking some unrealizable ideal. Ethics
(the actual word is "sila") is just a foundation for other things, not the
main practice.
 
>Fruits and nuts and the like are examples of food which would seem
>to not involve the taking of life.  To my knowledge there is no
>*commandment* anywhere in Buddhist scriptures that eating meat is
>*forbidden*.  But obviously some sects or traditions do refrain from
>meat as a matter of course.

Strictly speaking there are no commandments anywhere in Buddhism.
There are rules which must be followed in order to be a monk or nun,
but nobody has to do that and any monk or nun who doesn't want to
follow monastic rules is free to leave the Order. The precepts for
lay people are just principles to be followed for one's own good,
like changing the oil in your car every 3000 miles. The more you
manage to follow them the better for you.

But in the loose sense, as I mentioned briefly in my earlier response 
which you so kindly complimented, without quoting any of it, the Lanka
Vatara Sutra has the Buddha explicitly forbidding eating meat, a
"commandment", if will. However not all sects accept that Sutra and even
some which do do not require or routinely practice vegetarianism.
There may be other examples but this is one that I know of.

>The other principle is non-attachment. What this would mean in this
>context is that being *attached* to a particular diet, i.e., a vegetarian
>diet, is just as spiritually harmful as eating meat. So there might
>be a tendency to use one's vegetarianism as a "prop" to "prove" to
>yourself how "spiritual" you are, without actually confronting the
>basic issues or seeing yourself as you really are.

Although there is some danger of turning anything positive into a
problem like that this does not compare to the harm which comes from
willfully violating the precepts and most Buddhist sects aren't
afraid to call for strict observance, at least by monks and nuns.

Another important consideration is that killing necessarily involves
some negative mental qualities or emotions. It is not like there is
some deity who is going to punish you for breaking a rule. The more
direct the involvement and the more voluntary the act the worse it
is for the doer. Hence there is some rationality behind placing more
emphasis on what one personally does rather than indirect consequences,
even when the consequences can be foreseen. This is why, according to
Theravadins, the Buddha forbid monks from eating meat if and only
if they knew, heard, or suspected that the animal had been killed
especially for them.

The positive side of this emphasis on the quality of mind which
goes with actions, and one of the primary reasons I am a vegetarian,
is that every time I go out of my way to avoid meat, and when I
deliberately chose vegetarian food, I think about avoiding causing
unnecessary harm to living animals. I order to eat meat I'd have to
suppress some of the little compassion that I have which motivates
me to abstain. Positive mental qualities are to be preserved and
increased, not suppressed. I believe this applies whether one is
a Buddhist or not.

Bill Mayne

From: [email-masked] (Wong Weng Fai)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Obaku Zen

	Someone brought up Obaku, another said it wasn't Zen because there
is Pure Land in it and then Bill said that it is. Actually, Bill is right.
Obaku IS Zen. "Obaku" is the Japanese rendition of Huang-po who was actually
Lin Zhi's master. Since Lin Zhi is the founder of Rinzai Zen, I would say
that that makes Obaku very much Zen ;-) There are said to be Five Families of
Chan in Sung China but historians say that actually this count leaves out
Obaku. It is also likely that Rinzai is consider Obaku.

	As for this character called Huang-po, Dogen (who introduced Soto Zen
into Japan) was VERY impressed by him. In fact, he wrote that Lin Zhi was an
unworthy successor of Huang-po who he considers the true master after Hui-neng.
It is said that Dogen gave up Rinzai Zen because of this conclusion - that
Rinzai is a poor continuation of Huang-po and that probably he considered
the Obaku school to be even worst.

	As for Pure Land elements in Zen ... please bear in mind that Pure Land
was NOT an independent school in Chinese Buddhism. The Pure Land schools are
purely (pun ;-) Japanese innovations. In the good old days, any Buddhists can
and many do practice Nembutsu ("Namo Amida Butsu" or "Nan mo Amito Fo" in
Chinese). For example, it was one fo the standard meditation in Tiantai (Tendai)
school. In China then, monks in the same temple can adhere to any school that
appeals to them although of course there is almost always one dominating one
in a particular temple and that the rules, activities etc. of that temple would 
then be based on this dominating sect.

	The increase in Pure Land elements came in the later Sung days 
especially around Hangzhou. The Chan schools there began forming "Dharma
Societies" whose purpose was to ensure the proper support of the temples and
monks and the public teachings of Buddhism - sort of a church-like thing.
But unlike a church, and typically Chinese, within these societies, members
held different positions with different duties. Roughly speaking, monks were
expected to teach as well as practice, the "serious" ones do zazen and koans
while the "lay folks" (which was the majority) is expected to do Nembutsu (for 
obvious reasons of simplicity). It was in these societies that Nembutsu became
the popular practice while Zen (which founded them) were "reserved" for the
"serious". 

	The above is one way how Nembutsu got into Zen. As for Zen's 
relationship with Taoism and Confucianism (yes, many people seems to neglect
this), it is much more complex involving political, philosophical as well as
social aspects. I recently discovered an excellent book by one Choichi Abe
(written in Japanese but with a short English outline) which examines the
political and social aspects of the connection between the three religions -
an often neglected area. Much of the above info are from this book. If I work 
up enough courage, I'll try to summarize the book. 

	Also, a lot of the bashing of Pure Land on the net is due to a lot
of common misunderstanding (which I too once held). Pure Land, especially
after the reforms of Shinran, is much more complex and deep than what people
on the newgroup makes it out to be. Again, if possible I would like to
make a defense of Pure Land in the future.

	Till then ...

with Metta,

W.F. Wong.

From: [email-masked] (Hun Lye)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: The joy of "letting go" according to Buddhism 2

>From the last issue...
"But instead, he teaches that there is an end to duhkha.  We are not  
hopelessly stuck with duhkha.  We can end duhkha.  So, how do we do this?"

	First of all we have to ask "why do I experience duhkha?"  What is  
the nature of duhkha?  Let's consider this.  How many times have it  
happened when we get all upset when someone says something nasty to us?   
How many times have we experienced duhkha because he heard something said  
about us that we don't like?  Personally, I think I am constantly caught  
up in this.  When someone says something nasty to me or about me, I get  
all upset.  I get mad.  I am pissed.  This is not true and not fair.  I am  
NOT like what he said!  How can she say that about ME?  There goes my  
day..or perhaps days.  We do not recognise that as far as that person is  
concerned he might have totally forgotten about what he has said about us.   
But there we are grasping and carrying that mental disturbance for a few  
days.  We let that affect us.  As a result we start to behave nastily  
towards other people.  We project our hell on to others.  Isn't that  
duhkha? Isn't that suffering?  It's *normal* to react that way but it is  
not *natural*.  why is it not *natural*?  Because, truly we do not want  
duhkha!  But if you truly don't want duhkha why are you carrying so much  
junk in your head?  Isn't it heavy?  Don't you think you should dump it  
somewhere or maybe recycle it?  If it is not heavy, it's probably smelly  
anyway.  Drop it!  Let go!  Don't grasp to things that are not really  
there.  The nature of duhkha is non-real; impermanent (anitya)  It only  
arises when we have an unhealthy relationship with the world.  The world  
as such is okay but it's our relationsgip with the world that often mess  
up things.  Therefore, do not deny the world.  That's not where the  
problem is.  The problem is our self-originated duhkha.  It rises out of  
causes and conditions.  Apart from causes and conditions, duhkha is  
non-existent.  It is illusory.  So, why do we create our own nightmares  
and scare the hell out of ourselves?  The Buddha says "Drop It!"  Drop the  
grasping and clinging.  All things have the nature of arising and ceasing.   
Other than that there's nothing.  Duhkha arises, duhkha ceases.  It is  
only when we try to grasp at it when we start the nightmare.  Stop  
grasping!  
	If we note the nature of our mind, we will observe that thoughts  
come and go.  They arise, they cease.  When we look at the world, it's the  
same.  Things arise and things cease.  There's no problem with that.  But  
the problem comes in when we try to hold on to something, thinking that we  
can keep it for good.  We had a good time say...last week when a very  
special friend visited us.  That's fine, that's okay.  But when we try to  
hold on to that - THAT's IT!  We are causing duhkha to arise.  If we keep  
thinking about it, keep complaining that the present moment is not as fun  
as THEN; we create duhkha.  When we are experiencing something good,  
that's great.  But let it go when it's time to go.  It is the nature of  
all things not to abide permanently.  Don't grasp at that good experience  
and that is not to say good experiences should be avoided.  experience by  
itself has no problems.  It only becomes a problem when we establish an  
unhealthy relationship with it Likewise, when due to unavoidable  
circumstances we experience unpleasant situations, don't grasp at it.   
Don't get all upset trying to get rid of it.  This is traditionally called  
"adding one head on top of another".  As if the first problem is not  
unpleasant enough, we add more problems by getting all upset over it.   
Don't do that.  Don't grasp at duhkha.  recognise it for what it is and  
let it go.  It will go because it's its nature to cease after arising.
	The way people use to trap monkeys in India is to put a jar with a  
narrow mouth near where the monkeys are.  Inside the jar there are usually  
bananas or sweets.  When a monkey comes and puts its hand into the jar, it  
will grasp at the banana.  But when the monkey tries to remove its hand  
with the banana from the jar, the hand can't come out.  The monkey panics  
and thinks that someone or something is pulling its hand from inside.  But  
in reality, there is no one there pulling the monkey's hand.  It is just  
its own grasping that got it trapped.  Don't this describe us well?  When  
we experience duhkha, we think there's someone or something causing it.   
But in reality it's our own grasping.  No doubt the world is there just  
like the jar and its goodies are there.  But by themselves, there's no  
problem.  Only when we try to grasp at things, when we don't know how to  
let go.  So, the Buddha saw that and explained to us that non-grasping is  
the way to attain calmness and happiness.  He said "Let Go!"  He did not  
concern himself with speculative thinking.  He saw the problem of sentient  
beings, he prescribed a cure.  It's as simple as that when you get down to  
it.  The Buddha mostly rejected metaphysical questions because he didn't  
think that those questions will answer to the basic problem of duhkha.   
For the metaphysics and speculations - go somewhere else, the Buddha  
teaches "duhkha and the end of duhkha".

To be continued....part 3

Any comments welcome.  Please feel free to contact me or anything....I am  
writing from my own experience based Buddhism - particularly on the  
Theravadin and Tibetan backgrounds.  I DO NOT claim that this is the only  
understanding of Buddhism or life as a whole, but this is my own  
experience and teachings I have recieved from different teachers.  I just  
want to offer them to others.  If you can use them - great.  If it is  
non-sensical to you - I'm sorry. 

--
[email-masked] (Hun Lye)

From: [email-masked] (Druta Karma)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Chanting

In <[email-masked]>
[email-masked] (Eric Middlecamp) writes:
>There is a third school called Obaku, I believe.
>It holds that chanting the nimbutsu will "save" a
>person. When they die, they go to Nirvana..
>
>Nothing more is recquired but this act of faith.
>I think it's sad. It's not what Buddha asked people
>to do. It's not what Christ asked people to do. It's
>just an easy way out. On the other hand, spiritual
>capacity varies. Rather, stubborness varies.
>

I think this could be the beginning of an interesting discussion about the
merits of chanting as opposed to whatever. First of all, are there any
nimbutsu experts out there who could comment on the idea that Buddha never
asked people to chant. That may be true. But I just don't know. I imagine,
however, that followers of that path might have a different opinion. But as I
said, I don't know and would like to hear. Same thing for Christ. Over the
centuries, many Christ followers have gotten into meditation on the names of
God. And in other paths there is something similar. I myself am a follower of
the bhakti-yoga system, and in this system, and in the Vedic system in
general, there is a lot of stress placed upon chanting mantras composed of
names of God. For example, I chant the Hare Krishna mantra (Hare Krishna, Hare
Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare, Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare
Hare) on meditation beads for about two hours daily as part of my meditation
vows. It is my primary spiritual practice. And I can tell you that it is not
easy. The basic principle is that Krishna is spiritually present in His name.
Hare is an address to Radha, the personified energy of devotion to Krishna
(female in form), Krishna is Krishna, of course, and Rama is another name of
Krishna meaning "spiritual enjoyment." Without getting into the whole
philosophy behind the chanting, I can just briefly say that the atma, or
conscious self, is naturally conscious of God, but has forgotten this original
object of love and devotion. Therefore the soul is now entangled in thinking
of getting enjoyment through the material senses with material sense objects.
Refocusing the mind on Krishna can deliver the soul from this entanglement. It
is not so easy, because the mind is accustomed for millions of lifetimes to
meditating on objects of material sense enjoyment and also on plans for
obtaining these objects in the form of sex, money, position, power, prestige,
etc. So focusing the mind on the mantra can be quite a difficult task, and it
requires lots and lots of spiritual work.  If you actually get into it, then
you also find there are various obstacles that have to be overcome. So it
really isn't so easy as you make it sound. But in another sense it is easy in
that one can rather quickly make some progress if one is serious. And even a
child can do it. 

Druta Karma
----
ProLine:  dkarma@pro-nbs
Internet: [email-masked]

From: [email-masked] (Hun Lye)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: The joy of "letting go" according to Buddhism....3

	To try to run away from the world like a prey would from its  
predator cannot be a healthy or skillful way of relating with the world.  
Many people think the Buddhism is a form of "escapism."  No doubt if you  
are a scholar in religious studies or a historian you can find traces of  
"escapism" in the Buddhist tradition.  But is it justified to call  
Buddhism "escapism"?  The Buddha did teach us how to "escape."  It is  
escape NOT from the world, not from our responsibilities and parts in the  
world.  Rather it is escape from duhkha (loosely translated as "suffering"  
or "unsatisfactoriness"; refer to my first posting).  No one in their  
right mind wants to remain in duhkha.  If the Buddha is considered a  
"pessimist" or "escapist" because he taught a way to end duhkha, then  
perhaps all other great teachers are pessimists and escapists.
	To try to run away from the world denotes fear and disgust on our  
part.  It shows that we do not recognise the true nature of phenomena.   
Like I've mentioned many times, the world is the way it is.  It is not  
evil or good.  These are just judgements and mental fabrication we put on  
to our experience of the world.  In reality, the world is just as it is.   
We do not run away from the world.  Instead, we learn how to experience it  
and establish some kind of healthy relationship with it.  In order to know  
how heavy something is, we need to pick it up.  After picking it up, we  
will not know how light it can be unless we are able to put it down again.   
Likewise, when we are faced with a negative situation where there is no  
way for us to avoid - don't run away!  Face it and learn from it.   
Recognise it for what it is - impermanence and non-self- that's what all  
things are.  Understanding their true nature of impermanence and non-self,  
we will cease to cling on to them.  When we are sick, go to the doctor by  
all means.  But the doctor only takes care of the body.  It is pointless  
if she heals your body while you let your mind get sicker and sicker.   
Recognise the discomfort.  Note how it arises, abides and ceases.  It is  
not there for good.  Nothing is!  This is how we learn from the world.
	From the Buddha's teachings we know that he discouraged  
self-mortification.  Some people think that the body is bad.  It is evil.   
It traps the pure spirit or soul that inhabits the body.  To release the  
soul from this corrupting body and world, one must torture the body so  
that we become "detached" from the body.  This is not the Buddha's way.   
Have you heard of the phrase "pleasures of the flesh"?  This seems to  
imply that the flesh or the body is capable of experiencing pleasures.   
Think about this then "can a dead body (still a body) experience pain or  
pleasure?"  "Can you arouse a dead body?"  When we contemplate this we  
realize that it is not the body!  It is our conceptualizing minds that are  
working.  It is the deluded mind that craves for this and hates that.  
	On the other hand, to chase after the world like a dog chasing its  
own tail is just as absurd.  Deludedly we imagine that we can have things  
we like for ever.  We want this, we want that.  When we finally get this  
or that, we find that now that we have them we begin to lose interest in  
them after sometime.  Ultimately we still can't keep it.  When something  
nice happens, enjoy it!  But don't get trapped.  Don't get caught!  To  
make things more complicated we fail to recognise that we ourselves are  
the origins of the traps.  If there is intrinsically a "trapping" value in  
something, then everyone no matter who it might be will be trapped when  
encountering it.  But this is not the case.  Some people fall in the trap  
of power while it's wealth for others.  For some it's relationships while  
for others it's chocolate!  Hence, the things themselves don't trap.  It  
is us the do the trapping.  
	Pleasurable experiences are no doubt more problematic than  
unpleasant ones.  It is true that it is easier to establish an unhealthy  
relationship with pleasurable things than those that are not.  One gets  
easily attached to good things.  So, there should be more awareness and  
mindfulness when we experience fun times.  Don't let yourself cling on to  
them.  Anything that has the nature of arising also has the nature of  
ceasing.  When you can have this kind of awareness with regards to the  
nature of all things, then fun things are okay.  Infact, not-so-fun things  
are okay too.  
	The enlightened mind is lucid, empty and calm.  It is lucid  
because it is able to shine and recognise all things as the are (not as  
what we *think* they are or what we *want* them to be).  It is empty  
because it does not contain loadfuls of junk like hatred, jealousy, worry,  
doubt, uncertainness or insecurity.  It is empty of all defiling entities  
that are in their respective nature impermanence and non-self.  It is calm  
because, the winds that stir up the waves are no more.  The fire that  
keeps consuming our energies have been extinguished.  
	The enlightened mind is expansive, humorous and compassionate.  It  
is expansive because it has been freed from the cages of prejudice,  
conceptualizing, and greediness.  It is able to open itself up to truly  
experience existence as it is.  The expansive quality of the enlightened  
mind allows one to open oneself up to the world, to those around us and to  
gather everyone in.  It is humorous because it knows that in reality we  
are free and peaceful.  It is able to laugh at itself and laugh with  
others.  It is compassionate because it recognises that all sentient  
beings share a common "problem" - the "problem" of duhkha.  Recognizing  
the way to end duhkha, it aspires and works towards the removing of duhkha  
from all beings.  
	BUT why are we still carrying some much rubbish around?  It's  
heavy, it's smelly - let go of it!  Drop it!  Drop it and you'll know how  
light it can be.  

To be continued.....

This is the third posting I am doing.  I welcome questions, comments and  
suggestions.  As I noted in my second posting, what is written here is not  
meant to be an definitive explanation of Buddhism in particular or life in  
general.  It's written based on personal experience and teachings received  
from other kind and insightful teachers.  Please give me feedback on the  
usefulness of the  posting so far and what particular aspects of this  
approach to Buddhism that you want to know more - I will also try my best  
to answer to you personally thru the e-mail.  If you find the stuff here  
useful and meaningful, I am glad I can share them with you.  If you find  
them meaningless, I hope you will be able to find something that makes  
more sense to you and apologize for my inability to help.  The next  
posting will probably be on the topic of "Becoming Enlightened?"  It is  
about how we constantly try to "become" something or someone when the  
Buddha taught that the desire to "become" only leads to duhkha.   And  
also, if anyone is interested in getting into the actual practice, feel  
free to contact me.  I hope I can give you some suggestions.  Finally,
let go and be happy!

"When our mind is open and in the state of wonder...that's the state of  
love - truly being with something as it is, whether it is horrible or  
pleasant"                   - Ajahn Kittisaro     

--
[email-masked] (Hun Lye)

From: [email-masked] (Hun Lye)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: The joy of "letting go" according to Buddhism ...4

	I remember that when I was small I wanted to *become* "one of  
those big guys."  I used to think how cool it would be to be a high school  
kid.  When I finally got to high school, I wanted to *become* a college  
student - wow...that should be the best....  And then college came and  
what next - I want to *become* one of those working guys out there!
	When I started getting interested in spirituality, I wanted to  
become "self-realised", to *become* "one with God" or when I started  
testing out Buddhism - I wanted to *become* enlightened!  However, is this  
how we should think?  Is this the right way to relate to things?  How  
healthy is this constant desire to *become*?  
	Very often we are so obssessed with the idea or wish of *becoming*  
that we forget what we should actually be doing.  This becomes especially  
true when we look at spiritual cultivation.  So many people go into  
practice to *become* this and *become* that.  It is of course normal and  
fine to begin something with a desire to want to *become*.  The reason why  
we even start to practice is because we want to become free from duhkha.   
This is indeed very valid.  Later, we might want to view our practice as  
not only for ourselves but also for the welfare of others.  This is also  
very valid.  No problems.  But very often we again set traps for  
ourselves.  These kinds of traps are even more dangerous than other kinds  
because these traps can often be "justified" by "religion".  
	It is impossible to truly practice if we are constantly wanting to  
become.  It takes the focus out of what we should be truly doing.  You  
will find that when you meditate, the more you try to become free from  
wandering thoughts, the more the thoughts would trample all over the place  
like a mad elephant - crusing and destroying everything.  The more you  
want to become enlightened, the further youy see to be moving away from  
it.  This is because of the sickness of wanting to *become*.  The Buddha  
taught us that *becoming* is duhkha.  No matter what you want to *become*   
only more duhkha is produced.  Now, instead of meditating we are  
projecting our hopes and ambitions into the practice.  We want to *become*  
enlightened.  We want to *become* a great teacher that can "save" everyone  
else.  Become, become, become and that's all that we are truly doing.  And  
duhkha, duhkha and more duhkha is what we get.
	Enlightenment does not involve *becoming* because what *becomes*  
must cease as well.  Sarva dharma anitya - "all things are impermanent."   
That which have the nature to arise will have the nature to cease.  What  
*becomes* must cease.  Therefore, enlightenment has nothing to do with  
*becoming*.  Enlightenment is rest, peace and calmness while *becoming* is  
duhkha.  
	Quit occupying our minds with thoughts or desires of *becoming*.   
Do not sit on the meditation mat thinking "when will I *become*  
enlightened?"  If you do that you are not meditating, you are "becoming"  
and that leads to duhkha.  Just be aware of the nature of all things - the  
constant arising and ceasing.  Just contemplate of the non-self nature of  
all phenomena and rest in that simplicity.  When thoughts of *becoming*  
creep up, do not try to *become* free from them.  Just note them arising  
and ceasing.  You don't have to fear these thoughts or desires on  
*becoming*.  Just learn how to recognize them.  The moment you recognize  
them, you will understand that there is no point in trying to get rid of  
anything of to acquire anything.  Why?  Because they are essentially  
impermanent and non-self.  They have no real existence so that either  
becoming attached to them or hate them is an absurdity.  It is disturbing  
to the mind.  The nature of the mind is calm and silent.  When you  
recognize the nature of all phenomena as empty and impermanent, you won't  
let them bug you.  You easily rest in simplicity.  You rest in the calm,  
expansive, luminous amd humorous nature of your mind.  but the minute you  
let ideas and desires of *becoming* take charge, you fall into your own  
trap again.  Recognize the true nature of phenomena and that's when you  
will truly rest.  Stop *becoming* and just *be*!

This is the fourth in the series.  Comments, questions, and any other  
kinds of feedback welcome.  This is written based on my own experience and  
the teachings received from various teachers of the Buddhist tradition.   
This series is NOT for discussion on Buddhist philosophy or metaphysics.   
It is posted with the hope that it will be of help to some people.  If it  
is, I'm happy to be able to help.  If it is not, I apologize for it.  The  
next topic in this series will probably be about the place of tradition in  
practice.  I know this is a hotly debated topic in this  
soc.religion.eastern part (especially with regards to the Guru-disciple  
question) and I hope this forthcoming topic in the series will not lead to 
that.  This series is meant for "letting go" - not "holding on"!  Be  
happy!  

--
[email-masked] (Hun Lye)

From: [email-masked] (Druta Karma)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Becoming aware

In <[email-masked]>
[email-masked] (Marc Wachowitz) writes:
>Druta Karma <[email-masked]> wrote:
>: There is a pleasure connected with sex in order to insure procreation. But
>: that pleasure is also available to the cats and dogs. And if one is attached
>: to that level of pleasure, then one remains in the cycle of birth and death,
>: because in order to enjoy the pleasure of genital contact, one has to have a
>: material body. And the material body is subject to birth, death, old age, and
>: disease. So the pleasure of material genital sex is intimately tangled up
>: with the miseries of birth, death, old age, and disease.
>
>Maybe the miseries you associate with the natural changes is "only" a result
>of an inappropriate way of living?
>Find out how to live, and death is nothing to worry about (nor to repress).
>[And I mean without assuming rebirth or similar hopes - whether true or not.]

Yes, the miseries are a product of inappropriate living--living in the
material world rather than the spiritual world. But anyways, let's look at all
four of the miseries and see if you think they could be enjoyable. The first
is birth. This for the child and the mother is a painful experience. Of
course, you can say that after it's all over, one sees it as beautiful, but
the physical experience itself, I am told, is one of the most painful one
could imagine. 

Next is disease. Try as you may, you cannot avoid disease in the material
world. And no one thinks it is pleasant. Otherwise, the latest kick would be
to go down to your local neighborhood disease shop and try out the latest new
disease like AIDS, or colon cancer, or Alzheimer's or whatever. Of course, one
can always learn to tolerate and "grow" and so forth. But the bedrock
experience of disease is quite painful. And we can include in that all the
mental diseases that people suffer. I would agree that a lot of disease is
caused by inappropriate lifestyles. Eating meat, for example, is a big cause
of heart disease and cancer according to many medical reports. But try as one
may one cannot become free from disease of the material body by material
means. There is a means to become free. But if you are satisfied with the
options before you, and aren't interested in the cure recommended in the Gita,
then that is of course your prerogative. 

Next is old age. I know there is a lot of propaganda about the wonderful
golden years. And one can adopt different mental attitudes. But I don't think
most women look forward to menopause with very much anticipation. I don't
think men or women like to see their physical capacities degenerate, their
bodies become old-looking, and so on. I am not denying that one can adopt some
kind of stoic attitude in the face of this inevitable decay of the body and
try to get along as best one can. But at rock bottom the experience is not
very pleasant, and most people, as far as I can see, make every attempt to
postpone old age, deny it, etc. Again, it is possible that good lifestyle
choices can lessen the pain of the ordeal, but it is still an ordeal.

And finally death. People do seem to go through quite a bit of trouble to
avoid it. And although some people do go "quietly in their sleep" in a great
many more cases there does appear to be some trauma involved. I think there is
also a lot of mental pain involved as one's emotional connections with friends
and family are about to be finally severed. 

I am aware that some people are not going to feel that these are things that
one should be trying to get free of by taking up a process of spiritual
realization such as the bhakti-yoga system described by Krishna in the
Bhagavad-gita. Everyone has free will, and everyone has particular desires they
are trying to satisfy. So some people feel it is better to concentrate on
going after whatever material pleasures are available to them in this life,
and tolerate the four miseries as inevitable parts of life. And they are free
to do that. It is a question of taste, ultimately. Aesthetics, if you will. 

Of course, if one thinks there is no alternative, and that all talk of a
spiritual self, afterlife, spiritual world, etc. is just imaginary, then one
has no choice but to make the best of a bad bargain. But as far as I am
concerned, I have encountered sufficient reason to accept that there is an
alternative, and I find life in the material world so aesthetically
unsatisfying, that I am willing to make an attempt to achieve a more
satisfying experience, starting now. But to each his/her own.

Of course, if one becomes self-realized and detached from material sense
desire, then one can become relatively free from the changes of the material
body. In this case, one identifies completely as the eternal spirit soul
within the physical machinery of the body. And one seeks pleasure not from the
contact of the material senses with material sense objects, but from
contemplation of the spiritual sense objects and Krishna, the reservoir of
spiritual pleasure. But as long as one is identifying the self as the body and
is depending upon material sense gratification for happiness, one is bound to
become disappointed as one's instrument of gratification begins to detiorate
and finally disintegrates completely. 

>
>: Material sex life is brief, mixed with unpleasantness, and the more you try
>: to enjoy it the less enjoyable it becomes due to physical limitations,
>
>One might "try" (read: strive) less (but not reject) and enjoy more what's
>already there.

What's there is available to any cat or dog. And as I said, the pleasure of
material sex depends on the body. And if you want to have sex in a material
body, then you are going to have to accept everything that goes with that body,
including birth, death, old age, and disease. If that sounds like a good
bargain to you, then fine. That is your choice. And if you think that is the
only choice, that is fine too. But there is evidence that there is another
choice, and I personally have accepted that. But that is my choice, and I
guess I will have to live with the consequences. Undeniably, there is some
pleasure connected with sex. As I said in a previous post, that pleasure is
there to insure procreation. In fact, one of the big miseries one has to
undergo in the course of one's sexual career is avoiding pregnancy. It seems
like quite a bit of anxiety goes into that. And if one does not succeed in
avoiding pregnancy, then all kinds of problems come up with the abortion
question. No matter what position one takes, one has to agree that this issue,
on the personal as well as the societal level, is the cause of quite a bit of
anxiety. And then there is the question of sexually transmitted diseases,
which seem to be more and more a cause of anxiety these days, especially for
those who contract them. Then there is the whole question of sexual
harassment.Sexual discrimination. Sex crimes, including child molestation,
rape, and so forth. And then there are all the interpersonal things that go
along with sexual relationships--ranging from, on the light side, all the mind
games and "trips" that go on from junior high on to the very heavy things like
finding your steady sex partner has been cheating on you, all the things that
go into divorce, and so on. 

And getting back to pregnancy, then usually one is married, and has kids, and
a tremendous amount of work and anxiety goes into that. One has to settle
down, be responsible, work hard, save money, and one never thinks one has
really done enough. And then if there is divorce,and there are children, that
creates a tremendous amount of anxiety. I could go on, but I just want to
suggest that the brief moments of pleasure that material sex affords are not
unmixed with material pain, anxiety, etc. But the main point is that material
sex means a material body, and a material body means birth, death, old age,
and disease. Among other things.

Obviously this is an analytical approach. And it may seem like a negative
approach. But as I have indicated in other posts, there is in the bhakti-yoga
system a legitimate form of sex, and that is between a married couple,
followers of bhakti-yoga, who desire to bring a soul into this world. In some
few cases, the soul that comes is already a greatly realized soul who takes
the opportunity to take birth in a spiritual family. In other cases, it may be
a soul that is given the opportunity to become advanced spiritually by taking
birth in a suitable family.So that kind of man woman relationship, including a
sexual component, is allowable. And if the couple follows the bhakti-yoga
principles, they will be able to cruise through the minefield of sex in the
material world with a minimum of material unhappiness and a maximum of
spiritual advancement. And if one can remain celibate by experiencing the
higher taste of transcendental rasa available through the bhaki-yoga system,
so much the better.So it is not a negative approach, although it may look like
that at first. People naturally are looking for happiness (rasa) in their
personal relationships, but the real rasa they are looking for is in their
spiritual loving relationship with the Original Person, Krishna, whose name
means "reservoir of pleasure." 

Druta Karma
----
ProLine:  dkarma@pro-nbs
Internet: [email-masked]

From: [email-masked] (Rye Senjen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: electronic buddhist texts

Here is a list of stuff that's available from coombs.anu.edu.au
by ftp

/coombspapers/otherwork/electronic-buddhist-archives
about-electr-buddh-archiv.txt - inf. leaflet (Jun 92)

/buddhism-general 

about-buddha-l-dbase.txt - about the BUDDHA-L listserv database

about-soc.religion.eastern.txt - about the USENET discussion/news group

about-tricycle-buddh-magaz.txt - about the TRICYCLE magazine

buddhist-etexts-info.txt - 1990 list of machine-readable Buddhist texts
                           projects

canonical-buddhist-texts.txt - a summary list of Canonical Buddhist texts

nw-usa-buddh-medit-list.txt - 1992 directory of NW USA buddhist groups

/buddhism-tibetan

sakya-lam-bras-bibl.txt.Z - Lama Choedak T. Yuthok's complete catalogue
        of Sakya Lam 'Bras literature

tibetan-buddhism-1bibl.txt.Z - Dr. G. Samuel's refs (up to early 1991) 

tibetan-buddhism-2bibl.txt.Z    to research onTibetan societies and religion
        (Buddhism & shamanism)

/buddhism-vietnamese
about-sbc.txt - inf. about Canberra Sakyamuni Buddhist Centre (c.1989)

/buddhism-zen
about-diamond-sangha.txt - inf. leaflet (c. 1990)

about-kannon-do-zen-center.txt - inf. leaflet (1992)

about-moon-mind-circle-jrnl.txt - inf. about Sydney Zen Centre quarterly

about-r-stone-roshi - about Roselyn Stone Roshi & Brisbane Zen Group (1992)

about-sydney-zen-centre.txt - inf. leaflet (c. 1990)

aitken-on-2nd-paramita.txt - lecture by Robert Aitken Roshi (late 1980s)

aitken-on-sesshin-conduct.txt - teisho by Robert Aitken Roshi (late 1980s)

aitken-on-western-zen.txt - paper by Robert Aitken Roshi (1987)

chinese-buddhism.txt - John McRae's (Mar 92) prelim. survey of studies of
        Chinese (chiefly Ch'an) Buddhism + 185 items of bibliography (version 2)

daily-zen-sutras.txt - Sanbo Kyodan (Three Treasures) sutras (in English)

dawson-on-breathing.txt - paper by Geoff Dawson of the Sydney Zen Centre

diamond-sangha-zen-sutras.txt -  Final (1991) version of the Sanbo Kyodan sutrasjaffe-79-thesis-abstract.txt - P.D. Jaffe's 1979 MA thesis on Hakuun
        Yasutani's commentaries to Dogen's Genjokoan

meals-zen-sutras.txt - Sanbo Kyodan (Three Treasures) sutras (in English)

modern-zen-bibl.txt - references to modern Zen Buddhism (1600-present)

sesshin-conduct-guidelines.txt - description of Western Zen ritual/practice 

sesshin-evening-ceremony.txt - description of Western Zen ritual/practice

sesshin-ino-notes.txt - description of Western Zen ritual/practice

sesshin-jikijitsu-notes.txt - description of Western Zen ritual/practice

sesshin-jisha-notes.txt - description of Western Zen ritual/practice

sesshin-time-structure.txt - description of Western Zen ritual/practice

south-american-zen.txt - interview with Augusto Alcalde Roshi (1991)

szc-audiotapes-list.txt - catalogue of modern teishos and lectures (c.1987)
szc-zen-poetry-file.txt - contemporary Australian Zen poetry

tarrant-on-bread-for-life.txt - teisho by John Tarrant Roshi (1991)

tarrant-on-luminous-life.txt - teisho by John Tarrant Roshi (1991)

tarrant-on-tanks-and-pears.txt - teisho by John Tarrant Roshi (1991)

western-zen-gathas.txt - paper by Gilly & Tony Coote of SZC (late 1980s)

zen-email-directory.txt - Jun92 list of 15 e-mail addresses

zen-precepts.txt - Sanbo Kyodan (Three Treasures) sutras (in English)

zen-shodoka.txt - Sanbo Kyodan (Three Treasures) sutras (in English)

/shamanism
shamanism-bibliogr.txt.Z - G. Samuel's April 92 bibliogr. (57kb) on shamanism

/taoism
tao-teh-ching-intrpltion.txt.Z - May 92 amateur interpolation of the 5 
        western transl of the TTC

taoism-bibliogr.txt.Z - B. Howarth's April 92 bibliogr. (94kb) on taoism
==========================================================================
Details of the current holdings of the COOMBSPAPERS collection are given in 
it's INDEX file. They are also available via TELNET from one of the ARCHIE 
world-wide databases of files kept by the anonymous FTP sites (e.g. archie.au 
in Australia, archie.ans.net in USA [NY],  archie.mcgill.ca in Canada or
archie.funet.fi in Finland). 
Since 10th April 1992 the COOMBSPAPERS files are fully mirrored (on daily basis)by wuarchive.wustl.edu site located at the Washington University, St. Louis, USA[sub-directory /doc/coombspapers]. 
Since 10th April 1992 the COOMBSPAPERS files are fully mirrored (on weekly
basis) by ftp.uu.net site located at the US national gateway, California, USA.
[sub-directory /doc/coombspapers].
Since 16th April 1992 the COOMBSPAPERS files are fully mirrored (on irregular
basis) by capella.eetech.mcgill.ca site located at the McGill Univ., Canada.
[sub-directory /wuarchive/doc/coombspapers].
Since 28th April 1992 the COOMBSPAPERS files are fully mirrored (on weekly
basis) by samba.acs.unc.edu site located at the Univ. of Nth Carolina, USA.
[sub-directory pub/wuarchive/doc/coombspapers].

These arrangements allow people in North America and Europe to fetch copies of
articles without having to traverse the overloaded trans-Pacific link.
==========================================================================

From: [email-masked] (Hun Lye)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: The joy of "letting go" according to Buddhism...5

The joy of "letting-go" according to Buddhism...5

	In the practice of "letting go", a question that comes up is "how  
useful is religious convention?" or "what is the role of a teacher?"   
Within Buddhism, depending on which tradition you are coming from, you  
would respond to the above questions in different ways.  Especially in the  
Vajrayana tradition, the role of the lama is very important.  It is said  
that without the lama's (guru's) blessings not much can be accomplished.   
This is particularly true when we are refering to the role of a lama in  
higher tantras.  However, in this article I will be taking the approach of  
the Thai Forest tradition (again, it is only my understanding of the Thai  
forest tradition and not a definitive statement of the tradition).  I hope  
I have accurately understood and presented the teachings of the Thai  
Forest tradition (with particular reference to Ajahn Chah's "lineage")
	Some of us are very attached to religious conventions.  For  
example, in the east most people practice Buddhism as a set of religious  
conventions they inherit from their parents and elders.  We go through a  
whole series of ceremonies, rites, festivals day after day, month after  
month and year after year.  For some of us this is our way of life and  
it's fine.  For others, it has become meaningless and useless and we  
abandon them.  And yet for some, it is the *only* way of life and anything  
less than that is not worth living for.  Of those who find the traditional  
conventions meaningless, some would try to find the meanings that used to  
be behind all those conventions and try to appreciate them.  For others,  
they abandon the conventions completely and substitute them with something  
else.
	As for the west, we observe that many people who practice Buddhism  
or some other eastern religious tradition tend to hold to the conventions  
very seriously.  Some get to the point of thinking and arguing that "our  
tradition is the best, in fact it's the ONLY".  "Mahayana is "greater"  
than Therevada - we are more compassionate, we have more skilful means!"   
"Oh no, you're utterly wrong.  We Theravadins are more pure, we accurately  
preserved the Buddha's teachings.  You others have corrupted the *original  
teachings*" And it goes on and on.  Isn't all this grasping?  Isn't all  
this just a different kind of junk that we carry around us?  Now that we  
have "given up" or become totally "detached" from arguing whether "*my*  
house is bigger and better than *yours*" or "*my* Lamborghini attracts  
more attention than *your* Audi" or "*my* dress is more expensive than  
*yours*; let's start arguing on *my* tradition, *my* lineage, the  
meditation *I* practice, the teacher *I* am training with. This is just  
another sickness.  It's just another trap set in another place but  
essentially trapping the same "victim".  If you think compassion, skillful  
means, purity and accuracy with regards to the original teachings can  
appear out of arguing and debating, you've missed the point.  You've just  
created more duhkha for yourself.  Practice is about recognising duhkha  
and its nature and NOT about creating duhkha.  
	Religious conventions and teachers are there to help and guide.   
Like all things they can be traps or keys.  It again comes back to our  
relationship with others.  Are we forming a "grasping and attaching"  
relationship?  Or are we having a relationship that is non-grasping?  Is  
our practice dependent on these conventions and teachers?  I remember one  
teacher advising us to contemplate this "is my practice dependent on  
religious conventions and teachers so that if those things are not there,  
my practice collapses?"  For example, I am very inspired by the Dalai Lama  
and my refuge Master.  That's okay.  But the real test comes when someone  
says something nasty about either the Dalai Lama or my refuge master, what  
is my reaction?  To tell you the truth, I use to (not so frequent now but  
not entirely non-existent!) get very upset!  I get mad at whoever was  
passing a negative remark about my inspirations.  "How can you say that  
about *MY* master?"  "You ignorant fool, you know nothing better but to  
slander the Dalai Lama - you know what?  Just wait and see; your karma's  
gonna get *YOU*!"  Isn't this foolish?  Isn't this more rubbish to carry  
around in our minds?  Instead of being keys to the calmness and coolnes of  
"letting-go", my grasping mind has turned the Dalai Lama and my refuge  
master into traps!  
	Again, what if the Dalai Lama decides to disrobe settle down?  Is  
that going to affect my practice?  Is my practice dependent on what others  
do or say?  What if my refuge Master's disciples are convicted of bank  
robbery?  Is that going to affect my practice of "letting-go"?  The  
ability to not let others affect your practice is a sign of maturity in  
practice.  Of course I am not saying we should blindly follow anyone.  But  
rather, if you have any teacher or inspiration, make sure you don't make  
them into traps.  Establish a healthy relationship with them.  But if you  
find yourself on the verge of setting up a trap for yourself, recognise it  
and get out of it.  It is easy to allow ourselves to build the trap  
because we don't want to appear as if we have failed and leave a teacher  
or a community.  But this is not practice - this is grasping.  the least  
you can do in practice is to be true.
	The opposite to this is to think we must be totally free from all  
conventions and teachers.  We reject all conventions and imagine that now  
we are truly free.  We see others practicing with their gurus and "pity"  
them for being so stupid as to imagine that they are ever free under a  
teacher.  We say that we are free from all authority and we don't want to  
do anything with conventions or teachers.  This is another trap!  This way  
of relating to things only shows that we don't understnad the nature of  
things, i.e. non-self, impermanence and duhkha.  We think that conventions  
and teachers are definitely traps and they are only out to get us!  we do  
not recognise that nothing has a definite "self" in them and the problem  
don't lie so much in things themselves but in the kind of relationship we  
establish with things.  To quote one teacher, imagine that you are  
confined in a prison cell.  Someone comes by and gives you the key to open  
the door.  What do you do with it?  You take it and hang it on the wall of  
your cell and say "oh...this great savior gave me this key, it must be  
powerful, I shall bow down to it and have faith in it".  This goes on for  
days and we keep bowing and believing in that key.  After sometime we  
realise that we have been "cheated" by this great savior.  Sometime later  
this great savior gives us another key - what do we do?  We throw the key  
out of the window and say "to be truly free, I don't need the key.  Last  
time I had so much faith in the key but nothing happenend therefore I am  
not going to have anything to do with this key anymore!".  Isn't this  
foolish?  The wise one knows what the precise relationship between herself  
and the key should be.  But the foolish one either becomes attached to it  
or despises it.  When you are still in "confinement" - use the key wisely  
and don't throw it away.  When you're out of the prison, then you can do  
what you like to the key.  Perhaps give it to someone else who needs it?
	It is our relationship with others that decide whether they are  
going to be traps or keys.  Inherently, they are neither traps nor keys.   
Potentially they can be traps or keys.  So, trap or key?  The choice is  
ours.  Practice should issue from non-grasping and letting-go and  
culminate in non-grasping and lettin-go!

The above is based on my own experience and teachings received from  
teachers.  It is not meant to be definitive.  If it is useful, take it.   
If it's not, leave it alone and don't let it bother you.  Just let-go!   
This particular post is NOT meant as a response to the on-going debate  
about the guru/disciple discussion in this net.    

From: [email-masked] (Roger Adams)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Undreamed of Possibilities (Part 1)

           "When you go beyond the consciousness of  
	this world, knowing that you are not the body
        or the mind, and yet aware as never before 
        that you exist - that divine consciousness is
        what you are. You are That in which is rooted
        everything in the universe."
      			Paramahansa Yogananda

[The following is a brief excerpt from a free booklet called _Undreamed
Of Possibilites, printed by Self-Realization Fellowship Copyright 1982
by Self-Realization Fellowship. If anyone wants more information on SRF 
or information on how to get this booklet, send me email for address of 
Self-Realization Fellowship].

"Ordinarily our awareness and energies are directed outward, to the things
of this world, which we perceive through the limited instruments of the five
senses. Because human reason has to rely upon the partial and often deceptive
data supplied by the physical senses, we must learn to tap deeper and more 
subtle levels of awareness if we would solve the enigmas of life - Who am
I? Why am I here? How do I realize Truth?

  Yoga is a simple process of reversing the ordinary outward flow of energy
and consciousness so that the mind becomes a dynamic center of direct per-
ception - no longer dependent upon the fallibe senses but capable of
actually experiencing Truth.

  In past centuries many of the higher techniques of Yoga were little under-
stood or practiced, owing to humankind's limited knowledge of the forces
that run the universe. But today scientific investigation is rapidly changing
the way we view ourselves and the world. The traditional materialistic con-
ception of life has vanished with the discovery that matter and energy are
essentially one: every existing substance can be reduced to a pattern or
form of energy, which interacts and interconnects with other forms. Thus
modern science is confirming the ancient principles of Yoga, which proclaim
that unity pervades the universe.

  The word yoga itself means "union": of the individual consciousness or soul
with the Universal Consciousness or Spirit. There are various paths of
Yoga that lead toward this goal, each one a specialized branch of one
comprehensive system:

Hatha Yoga- a system of physical postures, or asanas, whose higher purpose
is to purify the body, giving one awareness and control over its internal
states and rendering it fit for meditation.

Karma Yoga- selfless service to others as part of one's larger Self, without
attachment to the results; and the performance of all actions with the
consciousness of God as the Doer.

Mantra Yoga- centering the consciousness within through japa, or the repetition
of certain universal root-word sounds representing a particular aspect of
Spirit.

Bhakti Yoga- all-surrendering devotion through which one strives to see and
love the divinity in every creature and in everything, thus maintaining an
unceasing worship.

Jnana Yoga- the path of wisdom, which emphasizes the application of dis-
criminative intelligence to achieve spiritual liberation.

Raja Yoga- the royal or highest path of Yoga, formally systematized in the
second century B.C. by the Indian sage Patanjali, which combines the essence
of all the other paths. At the heart of the Raja Yoga system, balancing
and unifying these various approaches, is the practice of definite, scientific
methods of meditation that enable one to perceive, from the very beginning
of one's efforts, glimpses of the ultimate goal - conscious union with the
inexhaustibly blissful Spirit. Such methods are an integral part of the
Self-Realization Fellowship teachings."

        "It is not a pumping-in from the outside that
         gives wisdom; it is the power and extent of your
         inner receptivity that determines how much you can
         attain of true knowledge, and how rapidly. You can
         quicken your evolution by awakening and increasing
         the receptive power of you brain cells."
      			Paramahansa Yogananda

The Science of Kriya Yoga

   "The quickest and most effective approach to the goal of Yoga employs
those methods of meditation that deal directly with energy and consciousness.
It is this direct approach that characterizes Kriya Yoga, the particular
system of meditation taught by Paramahansa Yogananda. Specifically, Kriya
is an advanced Raja Yoga technique that reinforces and revitalizes subtle
currents of life energy in the body, enabling the normal activities of heart
and lungs to slow down naturally. As a result, the consciousness is drawn
to higher levels of perception, gradually bringing about an inner awakening
more blissful and more deeply satisfying than any of the experiences that
the mind or the senses or the ordinary human emotions can give.

All scriptures declare (wo)man to be not a corruptible body, but a living soul.
The ancient science of Kriya Yoga reveals a way to prove this scriptural
truth.

  Referring to the sure and methodical efficacy of devoted practice of the
Kriya science, Paramahansa Yogananda declared: 'It works like mathematics;
it cannot fail'."
----------

The Autobiography of a Yogi gives an excellent description of Kriya Yoga
for those who are interested. Self-Realization Fellowship carries on the
work of Paramahansa Yogananda and is the sole authorized source of his
teachings.
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Roger Adams
	[email-masked]               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: [email-masked] (Roger Adams)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Undreamed-of Possibilites (Continued)

	  "The aftereffects of Kriya bring with them 
	the utmost peace and bliss. The joy that
	comes with Kriya is greater than the joys of all
	pleasurable sensations put together."
		Paramahansa Yogananda

[The following is a brief excerpt from a free booklet called _Undreamed-of
Possibilites_, printed by Self-Realization Fellowship Copyright 1982
by Self-Realization Fellowship. If anyone wants more information on SRF 
or information on how to get this booklet, send me email for address of 
Self-Realization Fellowship].

Self-Realization Lessons

	"Through a series of printed lessons that can be studied at home,
Self-Realization students devote themselves to a period of preliminary
study and meditation in order to prepare themselves physically, mentally,
and spiritually for Kriya practice. During this time they learn three 
important techniques of the Self-Realization teachings:

1. Technique of Energization: enables one to draw energy consciously into
the body from the Cosmic Source. This technique of life-energy control
purifies and strengthens the body and prepares it for meditation, making
it easier to direct the energy inward in order to reach higher states of
consciousness. Regular practice also promotes mental and physical relaxation
and develops dynamic will power.

2. Technique of Concentration: helps to develop one's latent powers of
concentration. Through practice of this technique one learns to withdraw
thought and energy from outward distractions so that they may be focused on
any goal to be achieved or problem to be solved. Or one may direct that
concentrated attention toward realizing the Divine Consciousness within.

3. Technique of Meditation: shows one how to use the power of concentration
in the highest way - to discover and develop the divine qualities of one's
own true Self. The technique expands the awareness beyond limitations of
body and mind to the joyous realization of one's infinite potential.

	Since Yoga is based on practice and experience rather than adherence
to a particular set of beliefs, followers of all religions can benefit
from these techniques. When practiced regularly, the methods of Yoga lead
unfailingly to deeper levels of spiritual awareness and perception.

	After the preliminary period of study and practice, which takes
about a year to complete, students may decide whether they want to receive
Kriya Yoga, which signifies the establishment of the disciple-guru (see
footnote on _guru_) relationship. Before making such a decision, however,
all students - whether already versed in metaphysics and meditation or just
beginning - study the first two steps of the Self-Realization Lessons and
practice the three techniques described above. These techniques prepare the
body and mind to receive the liberating power of Kriya Yoga. And such practice
also gives students the opportunity to apply the teachings and make them a
part of their lives and consciousness before deciding to go on to Kriya
Yoga.

	Should students wish, they may continue to study the teachings and
practice the basic methods of meditation taught in the Lessons without 
receiving Kriya Yoga. All those who are sincere and earnest in their practice
will realize for themselves the truth in Paramahansa Yogananda's assurance
that one can reach the highest states of Divine Consciousness through any
of the Self-Realization techniques of concentration and meditation.

*Guru = Spiritual teacher (from the Sanskrit gu, 'darkness', and ru, 'that
which dispels'). The real meaning of the word guru is sometimes lost sight
of. Today it is commonly misused to refer simply to a teacher or instructor.
But a true, God-illumined guru is one who, in her/his attainment of self-
mastery, has realized her/his identity with the omnipresent Spirit. Such a
one is uniquely qualified to lead the seeker on her or his inward journey
toward perfection."

----------

The Autobiography of a Yogi gives an excellent description of Kriya Yoga
for those who are interested. Self-Realization Fellowship carries on the
work of Paramahansa Yogananda and is the sole authorized source of his
teachings.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Roger Adams
	[email-masked]               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: [email-masked] (Wong Weng Fai)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Obaku Zen

Hi,

	Bill writes ...

>Are you sure about Huang Po being founder of the Obaku school ?  The
>Shambala Dictionary of Zen/Buddhism says this is pure folklore, and
>Dumoulin seems to indicate that this school was started in Japan
>centuries after Buddhism had all but died in China - he also does not
>mention Huang Po as being its founder.
>
>Yours in Dharma,
>-Bill

	The Shambala Dictionary may or may not be right - depends on who's
point of view you take. Here's what I managed to come up with so far.

	Huang-po is actually the name of a kind of Chinese cork tree. There
is a place in Fujian, China, called Mt. Huang-po. In 789, a monk named Chen-gan
set up a small temple there. The famous Huang-po Xi-yun (?-850) was brought up
from that temple. Xi-yun (I'll avoid the confusion by rudely refering to his
name) was, of course, the teacher of the famous Lin-Zhi (?-867) founder of
Rinzai Zen. Xi-yun's left his teachings in just one book (which I do not
have the priviledge of reading). Xi-yun also taught at various places. The guys
at Mt. Huang-po after Xi-yun, however, do consider themselves a separate Zen 
entity. This was not widely accepted though as Huang-po is not included in 
the traditional classification of the "5 Families, 7 Sects of Chinese Chan". 

	Anyway, during the Ming dynasty, the emperor built a new temple on
Mt. Huang-po, the Man-fu Temple. One monk from that temple, Ingen Ryuki, was
invited to go to Japan in 1654. He is the founder of Obaku Zen in Japan. In
1661, he built a temple in Kyoto and named it Manpuku Temple, which when
written in Chinese is Man-fu Temple. In 1874, Obaku Zen combined with Rinzai
Zen (in Japan) but merely 9 years later, they parted ways again. One of the
major contribution of Obaku was the complete printing of the Ming Chinese
Tripitaka. As I described in another post, Pure Land elements were incorporated
into Chinese Zen. I am not sure though whether the Pure Land element in
Obaku came from the Chinese side or the Japanese side. My guess is that the
former is more likely. Today, Obaku Zen has about 400 temples and 200,000
adherents.

	And another thing ... Buddhism never "died out" in China - even
Communist China.

	I hope that clarifies the situation.

with Metta,

W.F. Wong.

PS : Source for the above info : H. Nakamura (ed), "New Buddhist Dictionary",
(in Japanese) 1979.

From: [email-masked] (Thomas J. McFarlane)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Symmetry and the Middle Way (An essay--Long)

The following is an essay I wrote some time ago that may be of interest
to readers of soc.religion.eastern.  It relates the concept of symmetry
in mathematics and science to the concept of the Middle Way in Buddhism,
as well as to analogous concepts in other religious traditions. 

Comments on this essay are welcome.

Symmetry  n. 1. (beauty resulting from) right proportion between the parts 
of the body or any whole, balance, congruity, harmony.  2. such structure 
as allows of an object's being divided by a point or line or plane or 
radiating lines or planes into two or more parts exactly the same in size 
and shape and similar in position relatively to the the dividing point etc., 
repetition of exactly similar parts facing each other or a centre; [f Gk 
summetria: sum like + metron measure.]  --The Concise Oxford Dictionary.

   I will show in this paper how the above definition of symmetry may be 
generalized to a universal principle.  Far from being limited to art and 
geometry, the essence of symmetry pervades the world at every level.  
Just as the artist mirrors the world and reveals its symmetrical 
structure, so does the mathematician, physicist, and religious philosopher.  
Symmetry is the archetypal key that unlocks the true nature of the world.

   Let us begin our investigation of symmetry with a simple example.  
Consider an isosceles triangle with a horizontal base and two equal sides 
that meet directly above the midpoint of the base. (Draw yourself a 
picture.)  Since a vertical line through the center of the triangle bisects it 
into two equal halves, such a line is an axis of symmetry.  This symmetry 
is called a reflection symmetry since an imagined reflection along this 
axis leaves the triangle unchanged.  Note that any other line does not have 
this property.

   Next suppose that the length of the base is equal to the length of the 
two other sides, i.e., all three sides are equal.  (Draw another picture.)  In 
addition to the symmetry axis just described, we now have two other axes 
of symmetry.  (Can you find them?)  Upon reflection through any one of 
these three lines, the triangle remains unchanged.  Choose any other line, 
however, and the triangle will end up different upon reflection.  Now 
notice that this triangle also has a rotational symmetry:  if you rotate the 
triangle around the point at its center by 120 degrees or 240 degrees, it is 
not changed.  Rotation by any other angle, however, will leave the triangle 
different.

   You can experiment with other figures in the same way to discover their 
symmetries.  (What are the reflection and rotation symmetries of a 
square?  A rectangle?  A circle?)  In each case, the principle is the same:  
how can you change the figure so that it is left unchanged?  This 
formulation of the idea behind symmetry suddenly reveals a paradox:  we 
want to at once change the figure and leave it unchanged, create a 
difference and yet leave it the same.  What's going on here?

   Let's return to our example of the triangle and try to isolate these 
opposing elements of difference and sameness.  On the one hand, we 
recognize that symmetry without any distinction is impossible, for if the 
vertices of our triangle are really identical then a symmetrical "change" 
does not change anything at all, so there can be no symmetry.  On the other 
hand, symmetry with absolute distinction is also impossible, for if the 
vertices are really distinct then the change does not leave anything 
unchanged, so there is no symmetry in this case either.  The point here is 
that there can be no symmetry if difference is taken as real or unreal.

   The harmony of symmetry is revealed upon the recognition that 
distinction is neither real nor unreal.  When we recognize it as imagined, 
the distinction becomes transparent to the underlying unity, and 
archetypal symmetry unfolds as the harmonious play of our imagined 
distinctions amidst the abiding unity.  Thus, rather than mistaking 
symmetry for the extremes of unity or diversity we see it truly as the 
playful creation of diversity-in-unity.

   From this simple example of the triangle we have extracted an 
archetypal principle which applies in general:  whenever we find an 
underlying unity amidst apparent distinction, we have an instance of 
symmetry.  But since all distinctions are only imagined, in truth there is 
always unity beneath apparent diversity, and thus symmetry is the true 
nature of every distinction.  Moreover, since every object's existence 
(literally "to stand out") depends on its distinction from a background, 
symmetry reveals the true nature of all existence.  "All things were made 
by it," we read in John 1:3, "and without it was not anything made that 
was made."

   We have thus found the archetypal principle at the heart of all creation.  
As Plato put it in Philebus 15D, "we say that the one and many become 
identified by thought, and that now, as in time past, they run about 
together, in and out of every word which is uttered, and that this union of 
them. . .[is] an everlasting quality of thought itself, which never grows 
old."  In his Commentary on Plato's Parmenides,  Proclus adds, "The cosmos 
is not a unity here and a plurality there, but a unity and a plurality at the 
same time throughout its whole being. . .and there is nothing you can take 
within it that is not both one and many."  The 20th century mystical 
philosopher Franklin Merrell-Wolff described this principle of symmetry  
as Equilibrium, the Law which appears as subject-object relationship.  
This symmetry of subject and object is revealed in the ultimate mystical 
insight:  the recognition of the imaginary nature of the subject-object 
distinction, and hence the underlying identity of subject and object.  Every 
object that comes into being is thus governed by this harmony of diversity
-in-unity, this Logos mediating between the one and the many.

   Just as we applied the principle of symmetry to the triangle, so we can 
apply this analysis of relationship to any object whatsoever, revealing the 
symmetry in all relationships, the unity amidst all distinctions.  As 
Simone Weil writes in her book Intimations of Christianity, "By analogical 
transposition [these relationships] furnish the key to the whole of human 
knowledge.  There is great profit in meditating indefinitely upon these 
relationships."--which is just what the Buddhists have done for 2500 
years.  An analytic meditation on the true nature of distinctions forms the 
foundation of their philosophic practice.  Through meditation on the 
symmetry of all objects we follow the Middle Way between the extremes 
of real and unreal, walk the razor's edge along the straight and narrow 
path.  This is what you must do, Plato tells us in Parmenides 136C, "if you 
would train yourself perfectly and see the real truth."

   Let us take this sagely advice and apply this analysis to objects other 
than the triangle.  Consider these words before you right now.  They appear 
as objects distinct from you.  Now let us investigate the nature of this 
distinction.  Suppose there is a real distinction between you and these 
words.  Then since you and the words are absolutely distinct and 
independent of each other, there is no common basis, and hence there can 
be no way for you and the words to relate.  But this contradicts your 
awareness of them right now:  since you have an immediate apprehension 
of these words right now, they cannot possibly  be completely distinct 
from you.  On the other hand, suppose that the distinction is absolutely 
unreal, that there is no distinction whatsoever between you and these 
words.  This also contradicts your awareness of them right now, for your 
awareness of these words is made possible by the fact that there is 
distinction between you and them:  with no distinction whatsoever, there 
can not be any words at all.  Therefore these words are neither absolutely 
distinct nor absolutely nondistinct from you.

   This analysis passes between the extremes, negating the exclusive 
claims of both absolute distinction and absolute nondistinction.  Without 
making any positive assertions, it show us our error simply by refuting 
the extremes on their own grounds.  Thus the analysis (literally, to loosen 
up, to free) liberates us from our clinging by revealing the contradictions 
inherent in holding onto one extreme or the other.

   In particular situations in our lives, we often find ourselves clinging 
repeatedly to an extreme.  In order to free us from this extreme, we apply 
the half of the analysis that refutes it.  For example, to develop 
compassion toward objects of aversion, we apply the half that shows the 
error of absolute distinction.  On the other hand, to develop detachment 
from objects of identification, we apply the half that shows the error of 
absolute nondistinction.  This amounts to the practice of discrimination.  
In either case, the archetypal symmetry guides us along the razor's edge 
between extremes.  And through the recognition of symmetry in our lives, 
the true nature of creation comes into focus until it is all seen to be the 
symmetrical play of imagined distinctions in utter unity.

   In addition to revealing the true harmony of symmetry, this 
understanding of the imaginary nature of distinction also shows us how 
paradoxes and illusions arise.  When we cling to the imaginary 
distinctions as real, the underlying unity is denied and the two distinct 
triangles cannot be related in any way.  Conversely, when we cling to the 
imaginary distinctions as unreal, the difference is denied and there are 
then no distinct triangles to be related.  In either case, there is ignorance 
of unity-in-diversity, and hence a denial of symmetry.  But since 
symmetry is the true nature of all things, we end up in conflict with the 
world.  And in this illusion lies the true origin of all our suffering.

   The very existence of this world apart from its source is Maya, an 
illusion which breaks symmetry, or ruptures equilibrium.  As Simone Weil 
writes, "the energy which moves [the universe] is the principle of rupture 
of equilibrium.  But, nevertheless, this becoming, composed of ruptures of 
equilibrium, is in reality an equilibrium because the ruptures of 
equilibrium compensate each other."  Or in the words of Merrell-Wolff, "An 
object exists as a tension.  Although, in the ultimate sense, every tension 
is balanced by its opposite phase, so the equilibrium is never actually 
destroyed, yet consciousness, taken in a partial aspect, may comprehend 
only one phase, or may be only imperfectly conscious of the counterphase.  
For this partial aspect of consciousness, equilibrium does not exist."

   Thus, although in reality everything is blended in a harmonious whole, 
through Maya we mistake the imagined asymmetry as real, and equilibrium 
is apparently ruptured.  This is only a trick of the imagination, though, an 
unconsciousness of the true nature of things.  In reality, there is no 
breaking of symmetry.  Not even in Maya is symmetry really broken.  It is 
only imagined as really broken--and that is Maya.

   In his book Kashmir Shaivaism, J. C. Chatterji describes this process of 
apparent division creating the world of Maya as an orderly unfolding.  
Indeed, "its operation is marked by steps or stages, which follow one 
another as logical necessities--each successive step following inevitably 
from the one preceding it, as the deduction of a certain conclusion of a 
particularised kind follows inevitably. . .from certain premises of a 
general type."  In fact, G. Spencer-Brown has developed a mathematics of 
distinction which he compares to "Levels of Eternity."  Beginning with the 
Void, we create a single distinction, and out of this a whole calculus of 
distinctions unfolds.  As he once described these Laws of Form, "it's what 
would be if distinction could be."  The lawful order of the universe and its 
mathematical structure are thus seen as a direct consequence of the 
principle of symmetry, the nature of distinction.

   We can now understand the creation of this illusory world as a 
symmetry-breaking process which veils the underlying unity, leaving 
behind the residue of a divided world.  Conversely, through insight we 
rediscover the lost unity and return back to the  recognition of the 
ultimate unity of all things in symmetry.  The One is both our origin and 
destiny.  In this world of apparent diversity, symmetry is both the link to 
our origin and the key to our destiny, connecting diversity with unity on 
every level.

   Although physics deals with levels far removed from the original Void,  
we can still clearly see the symmetry-breaking process in its theories. 
>From the universal laws, we descend down through progressive imposition 
of conditions which distinguish one situation from another and limit the 
laws accordingly.  Beginning with the universal law of gravitation, for 
example, we impose constraints on the equation so that it describes our 
particular experimental conditions, say an apple falling off a tree.  The 
equation we thus deduce has only limited validity and is very different 
from the equation we might deduce for calculating the moon's orbit around 
the earth.  Nevertheless, as Newton's genius was able to see, these two 
particular laws both derive from a single universal law of gravitation.  So 
from the unity of a law we break the symmetry by imposing distinctions 
which limit its scope and validity.  But if we recognize the universal law 
behind the derived particulars, the true symmetry is not lost.

   While the practical application of these physical laws pretends to break 
symmetry, insights such as Newton's bind broken symmetry back together.  
This act is therefore religious in the deepest meaning of the word.  
(religion:  literally, to bind back.)  So the whole of physics is a religious 
quest, for its purpose has always been to unify our understanding of 
nature, to rediscover the symmetry behind the apparently diverse 
phenomena.  For example, when Maxwell discovered the equations which 
unified electricity and magnetism, separate laws pertaining to different 
parts of reality were united in a single, more universal law.  Before 
Maxwell, the laws of electricity and magnetism were distinct.  Now they 
are understood to be merely different manifestations of the same 
underlying electromagnetic laws.  While electricity and magnetism still 
manifest as relatively distinct phenomena, today we recognize the 
identity behind these apparent differences, we see their symmetry.  Thus, 
embedded in the mathematical representation of the world by physics we 
find the same archetypal principle as in the religious philosophies.

   With our vision guided by symmetry, we have glimpsed the inner meaning 
of both scientific and religious thought, united under one archetypal 
symbol.  But this principle of symmetry offers us much more than a vague 
glimpse of the unity behind science and religion.  It provides a deep 
mathematical foundation which can show this unity explicitly.  From the 
perspective offered by such a unification, science and religion as we know 
them today would be seen as particular and limited views of the world 
which may be derived from a more comprehensive theory of symmetry.  
Such a theory would combine the coherence of mathematics with the 
spirit of religion to give us a truly sacred science.  In the visionary words 
of Simone Weil,

"I believe that one identical thought is to be found--expressed very 
precisely and with only slight differences of modality--in. . .Pythagoras, 
Plato, and the Greek Stoics. . .in the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita; in 
the Chinese Taoist writings and. . .Buddhism. . .in the dogmas of the 
Christian faith and in the writings of the greatest Christian mystics. . .I 
believe that this thought is the truth, and that it today requires a modern 
and Western form of expression.   That is to say, it should be expressed 
through the only approximately good thing we can call our own, namely 
science.  This is all the less difficult because it is itself the origin of 
science."

 --Tom McFarlane

 [email-masked]

From: [email-masked] (Bill Carter)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: virtual conciousness

   So I was reading through the Oct. 10 issue of Science News the
   other day, and I came across an article on the nature of concious
   experience.  It reminded me of the recent thread in this group
   about the soul, and who reincarnates.  Here are some quotes from
   the article that I though were relevant.  The scientific discipline
   is called "cognitive science".  Much of the article deals with a
   book written by philosopher Daniel Dennett called "Conciousness
   Explained".

   From Science News;
   "Dennett compares human conciousness to an evolved "virtual machine",
   a sort of computer software program that shapes the activities of its
   hardware - the brain.  The logical structure of the virtual machine
   relies on flexible rules that can incorporate one or more drafts
   [streams of information] into conciousness, fostering the deluded
   intuition that a single stream of conciousness pours forth."

   "Over the years, the brain's virtual machine composes the shifting
   representations of an individual's "self", which are based largely
   on social experiences, Dennett argues.  The self exists as a
   crucial fiction for getting around in the world, not a real thing;
   if all goes well, the created self endows its owner with the capacity
   for free will and moral responsibility, he holds."

   "Conciousness neither interacts with the brain nor can it be reduced
   to a state or function of the brain, Velmans contends.  Yet
   conciousness serves a purpose, he adds - it allows an individual to
   to experience enough of the world to endow his or her survival with
   a sense of purpose.  In a nutshell, conciousness gives us the will
   to get on with our lives, even though unconcious processes orchestrate
   our thoughts and feelings."

   "Computer scientist Drew McDermott of Yale University summarizes
   the multiple drafts model this way: "I am a character in a story
   my brain is making up.  Conciousness is a property I have by virtue
   of my brain's attributing it to me.
   ...
   If people are valuable, it is not because they are imperishable
   souls connected to bodies only for a brief sojourn, he asserts.  For
   now, we just have to take it as a postulate that creatures that
   invent concious selves are to be cherished and protected more than
   other information-processing systems."

   ---------------
   Just another virtual machine,
   Bill Carter

From: [email-masked] (Benson Lo)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: The Giving Rise of the Ten Kinds of Mind of the Bodhisattva

"The Buddha addressed Maitreya saying: `Maitreya, the ten minds like this
cannot be brought forth by any common foolish and unskilful man who is full of
defilements. What are the ten?
        Firstly, to give rise to great loving kindness towards all beings with
        a mind free from injuring and harming.

        Secondly, to give rise to great compassion towards all beings with a
        mind free from harrassing and vexing.

        Thirdly, not to spare one's life with regard to all the true Dharmas
        of the Buddha with a mind of rejoicing in protecting them.

        Fourthly, to develop supreme endurance regarding all Dharmas with a
        mind free from clinging and grasping.

        Fifthly, not to be covetous for gain, support and respect with a mind
        that esteems the pure bliss of mind.

        Sixthly, to search for Buddha wisdom at all times with a mind free
        from forgetfulness and negligence.

        Seventhly, to be towards all beings reverential and respectful with a
        mind free from contempt and disdain.

        Eighthly, not to hold worldly discussions but give rise to a determined
        mind regarding the factors of illumination.

        Ninthly, to plant all good roots with a pure mind that is not
        adulterated and stained.

        Tenthly, to give up and discard all the characteristics as regards all
        the Tathagatas giving rise to a mind of continuous recollection (of
        them).
Maitreya, this is called the giving rise of ten kinds of mind of the
Bodhisattva. It is because out of this mind that one will obtain rebirth in
the World of Highest Bliss of Amithaba Buddha. If a man regarding these ten
kinds of mind follows them and achieves one pointedness of mind. If he were to
have a longing to be reborn in that Buddha world and would not obtain birth
there, this would be an impossibility.'"

* From
    the ARYA ADHYASAYA SANCODANA NAMA MAHAYANA SUTRA
    OF THE MAHARATINAKUTA-SUTRA
    TAISHO TRIPITAKA NO. 310
    Translated from Chinese by Saddhaloka Bhikkhu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benson Lo                   |      "As like a deep spring
[email-masked]     |       clear, still, pure and lucid
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS      |       are the wise hearing Dharma
AT CHICAGO                  |       with a pure mind rejoicing."
                            |       -- Dharmapada
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Bill Kish)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Obaku Zen

> 	Anyway, during the Ming dynasty, the emperor built a new temple on
> Mt. Huang-po, the Man-fu Temple. One monk from that temple, Ingen Ryuki, was
> invited to go to Japan in 1654. He is the founder of Obaku Zen in Japan. 

Dumoulin points to Ingen Ryuki as the provisional founder.  I'm not sure
what sources were used in making the Shambhala dictionary I quoted
before, so I can't substantiate the non-Huang-po view any further than
this.  

> 	And another thing ... Buddhism never "died out" in China - even
> Communist China.

I did say "all but died out".  Master Sheng-yan (who now splits his
tims between Taiwan and Queens NYC) is living testament to Buddhism having 
survived in China.  But you have to admit, however, that Buddhism in China
has been riding a centuries long decline.   And as much as I'd like to
see a Buddhist revival in the PRC, certain causes and conditions would
seem to make this unlikely at the moment.

Yours in Dharma,
-Bill