In article: <1992Mar6.161024.15953@iitmax.iit.edu> sanjay@eng.umd.edu (Kumarasamy Sanjay) writes: > As for atman. Sankara says atman and brahman are the same. Ramana >says for those who realise the truth there is no duality. Tripura >rahasya says duality is perception but not the essence. Brahma Sutra >says there is neither existence nor non-existence apart from Brahman. I think that it would be interesting to point out that the concept of Brahman is of an all-pervading reality and that nothing is outside of this Reality, and so atman and brahman are one; "One is All, and All is One". I believe that the approach that Sankara had was to emphasize a positive Reality or an all pervading consciousness that will bring bliss to all those who realize It, and Buddha, on the other hand, put emphasis on getting rid of suffering and delusion and that what remains is bliss-happiness. I see this as two different approaches to the same bliss-consciousness. It should be obvious that for one who thinks that all is Brahman, will not see anyone, anything, any religion, any religious teacher, any master, any saint, etc. as being outside of this Brahman which is why when one has this orientation, they see the truth in all religions and are able to cut through seemingly unreconcilable differences. Nirvana = bliss-consciousness = samadhi = enlightenment = self-realization = salvation = cosmic consciousness = unity-consciousness or whatever way a particular religion or person wants to put it. If I'm concerned only with the idea that there is suffering and this suffering should be removed and that this suffering is caused by selfishness, and removing this selfishness brings happiness, then what do I need of dissertations about God or Atman? In this case the enlightened teacher may deny the concepts since they are distracting to this kind of path then the disciples, following this guidance can attain nirvana-bliss-consciousness. On the other hand, if I'm seeing that there is love, intelligence, peace, joy that I call God and I want let go and let this God be all that flows through me, letting ego be dissolved like the wave dissolving in the sea, knowing that this Brahman is what I am, infinite, ever-existing, ever- conscious, ever-new joy is what I am (Sat-Chit-Ananda) and I let go to this Reality, then there is no use denying the concepts and moreover, these concepts can be helpful, and the enlightened teacher may then allow the concepts and mention them, and following this guidance one can realize this nirvana-bliss-consciousness. Both paths point to the same Truth. The above is only meant as very general discriptions of different approaches and in no way am I'm saying that bliss-consciousness results from some concept or lack of concept or that it comes from any external source. Roger Adams radams@cerritos.edu To those in whom love dwells, Cerritos College the whole world is one family. 11110 Alondra Blvd A Hindu Proverb Norwalk, California 90650 USA 292 Dwapara :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In article <1992Mar6.161024.15953@iitmax.iit.edu> sanjay@eng.umd.edu (Kumarasamy Sanjay) writes: >[ The correct attributions for this post are: > >> Bill Mayne wrote the text after one angle bracket ">" >>> Weng Fai Wong wrote the text after two ">>" > >>(2) Different religions are saying the same thing, in which case they can >>all be true. I dismiss this as obviously false. As you say, different >>religions are different. > This rejection is not so obvious to me. In fact if it were to >be accepted that GOD (Whatever it means) has infinite number of >forms and attributes, for a simple mind it is perfectly natural >to expect infinite number of religions stressing various aspects of >IT. It is monumental task for any soul to realise the differences and >more importantly to identify that all of them are various aspects of >the SAME. What I reject is that all religions are saying the same thing. I accept the obvious differences as real differences, not to be explained away by muddled thinking. They are different on some points. Even if there are an infinite number of aspects and true statements it doesn't mean that there are no false statements, and when two flatly contradict each other I still don't see why people can't accept the possibility that at least one of them is false. >>(3) Some religions don't point to reality. Why is it that some people >>don't seem to want to admit that some religions, philosophies, or >>theories are false? > If I suggest that reality encompasses everything ( you need to >take this as axiom!!) then every damn thing we see is A face of reality. >If there is only TRUTH how can there be falsehood?... Incredible. You seem to be saying that "every damn thing" is true, which makes "truth" a trivial and utterly uninteresting and meaningless property. My statements which you disagree with must also be true. Sheesh. Bill Mayne Kumarasamy Sanjay wrote: > If I suggest that reality encompasses everything ( you need to >take this as axiom!!) then every damn thing we see is A face of reality. According to this definition of the word, yes. Yet you probably see a difference in statements about reality; e.g. "this is an e-mail message" and "this message is written by a red-green- striped easter bunny". Though none of the statements is "absolutely correct" (oops, I'm talking about something I don't know not fitting into some category for which I don't know an example - got that? :-). > In fact none of the teachers answered all the questions. There >essential point is to drive the people to strive for realising the goal. >Once the goal is reached, it becomes too obvious (Atleast I hope so) that >these questions become meaningless. Is there a goal to be reached? Do the questions have meaning at all? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Wachowitz 75742@novell1.rz.fht-mannheim.de * wonder everyday * nothing in particular * all is special * In article: <1992Mar10.221731.27896@iitmax.iit.edu> "Marc Wachowitz" <75742@novell1.rz.fht-mannheim.de> asks: >Is there a goal to be reached? If I am drowning in the ocean and I desperately need air, is my wanting air a "goal" as in: "For whom it may concern, my goal at this point in time - since I appear to be drowning and have at any rate a tendency in my character to be goal-oriented - is, to the best of my knowledge, after giving it some thought, and of course subject to later review, is to breath some air" ?! Or is it just pure instinct, independent of opinion? If so, then you just get air and leave the debate to the armchair philosophers as to whether or not there is a goal to be reached :-). Roger Adams radams@cerritos.edu To those in whom love dwells, Cerritos College the whole world is one family. 11110 Alondra Blvd A Hindu Proverb Norwalk, California 90650 USA 292 Dwapara :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There has been some discussion on the notion of reality, atman (did buddha really deny it), the oneness or difference of religions etc. I just wanted to add some thing from the Madhyamika point of view (Well, which is no view, if that's possible). For Nagarjuna (and later Madhyamika commentators) the Atman, whether refering to the Ultimate, i.e., Brahman, or the self in general, has the status of "name only" (nama-matra), arising from the network of conceptualization underlying all our concepts of reality. To assert the reality of Atman is to posit an ultimate existence to a mere term, a name that arises on the basis of some concept. For the Madhyamikas, there is neither a self, nor a self essence. Hence the notion of the emptiness of individuality and the factors of existence. Reality for the Madhyamikas is the fact that all things arise in interdependence, hence any one thing is empty of self essence. From the ontological perspective the ultimate being of all beings is non-being, that the ultimate reality of emptiness is its identification with co-dependent arising, and vice versa. From the experiential perspective it is bliss (shiva) and the cessation of all conceptual elaboration (nihprapanca). Furthermore, the Madhyamikas maintain that he who perceives the emptiness of self and things does not actually see, because there is still an implicit division between the perciever and perceived. Hence, an empty yogi apprehends an empty emptiness in an empty meditation. And of course this apprehension is a non-apprehension. For those of you who value the logic of Indian philosophy, Nagarjuna and company are some of the most rigorous in their logical arguementation. And for the zen oriented, well, Nagarjuna (and of course the earlier Prajna-paramita sutras he commented on) is the precursor to paradox. (I know, and the chinese had alot to do with this). So what does this have to do with the general discussion? We should ask, what kinds of concepts are we trying to absolutize? Of course, some claim that the true Atman is beyond conception, and since Nagarjuna "deconstructs" concepts he point to the samthing. If that's the case, why even talk of soul, atman, brahman, and the like? Nagarjuna may be pointing to the danger of creating our goal so we may achieve something (whether by 'ourselves' or the inheritence of a tradition). Well, there's my 2 cents worth. But since we were spanning the globe (-al rel.) I thought it would be proper to mention the "most important" Buddhist philosopher/mendicant for the Mahayana tradition. He was influencial for the advaitin Shankara too (that might be the reason some of Shankara's Hindu opponent's called him a 'closet buddhist') -- ******************************************************************************* -- John Cha "The present is always more interesting than the future or the past" ******************************************************************************* This article of March 2nd appeared at Microsoft today on March 10th. I am sure there must have been some more discussion on this topic and it is possible that I am totally off the thread by this time. In article <1992Mar2.195029.27123@iitmax.iit.edu> wong@rkna50.riken.go.jp (Wong Weng Fai) writes: >Dear Friends , > > There was a posting a few days ago by Mr. Umesh Mokate maintaining >that the Buddha was just a revolutionary Hindu. Together with the charge that >Buddhism is nihilistic, this must be one of the oldest accusations leveled >at Buddhism. There has also been a lot of talk on the net about ALL the >major religions are the same. First, let me state my stand : > > I am willing to accept that - > > 1. Maybe all religions leads to the same goal. I simply am not >enlightened enough to know what the goal is so I have to give everyone the >benefit of the doubt - maybe they are right but maybe they are wrong. > > 2. I am also more than happy to hear of people accepting more than >one religion. If it works for them, that's fine with me. As much as my knowledge goes, Buddha indeed was a Hindu same as Christ indeed was a Jew. If there are references where Buddha proclaimed himself as non-Hindu or renonunced it, I would like to know about it. Now whether Buddha was "just" revolutionary Hindu or more, that is what I wanted to know. Before things become more confused because of miscommunication, I would point out what was my intension when I replied to the original posting "Buddhism in Nutshell". 1. I wanted to point out that to appreciate teachings of Buddha, one should also take into account the social condition at that time. 2. I wanted to point out that Buddha should get proper credit for whatever he preached and if there are somethings in his teachings which predate him, then the credit should be given to his successors. Buddha surely gets credit for arriving to those concepts independently but as far as teaching to people goes, one must say that someone else had preached it earlier that Buddha. > >BUT I simply cannot accept the grossing over of the obvious differences >(esp. in terms of practice) to conclude that the religions are all the same. I have not read article saying that ALL religions are same. Even if that is the case, I maintain the opinion that "goal" of all religions is the same namely "realization of God" and it is called by different names. The basis for this opinion is Vedas saying that "there is only one TRUTH, people of realization call it by different names" and the example of Ramakrishna who after following different schools in Hinduism as well as Islam and Christianity asserted this. One can give example of saint Kabir also but I do not have much knowledge about his biography. They have obvious differences in practise, not in principle goal. >They simply are not and there are very deep and fundamental disagreements >between them. Although clever ones have reinterpreted others' scriptures to show >how >>their own<< scripture contains and thus, implicitly supersede, the >others, that to me is sheer arrogance. But I am not too upset because in our >society today there are many who make a living out of interpreting data >and documents to their advantages. Lawyers, politicans, statisticians come >to my mind ;-) > > OK, let's get to the juicy part ... > >Mr. Mokate writes ... > >>After these incidences, he started >>contemplating on the sorrows of humanity, not from his childhood. > >Neither Theravadans nor Mahayanists accept this. To the Theravadans, Buddhahood >is the climax of countless milleniums of practices in his past life. >Mahayanists, as outlines in the Lotus Sutra, goes even further to claim that >he is the projection of Reality itself. > Aren't you supporting then the Hindu view that he was an Incarnation? Because Vishnu is considered as "Sagun Brahman" which is Reality with Forms and attributes. Are you trying to imply that he was aware of his spirituality from childhood? i.e. he was "nitya-siddha" (spritually awakened from birth)? When I said that "after these incidences he started comtemplating", I wanted to say that is what I have read about his life account in worldly sense. >>I do not see that it was the "new" way Buddha invented. Gita clearly tells that >>a yogi lives a "balanced" life; he neither eats too much nor too less, he >>neither sleeps too much nor too less, etc. May be at the time of Buddha, the >>prevalent conditions did not conform to this, so Buddha re-asserted it. > > Here's the meaty part ;-) First, to strengthen my case, I want to >state some facts about the Hindu scriptures. I dug the following up from my >library - > > 1. The earliest scriptures which the Hindus claim descendent from is >the Vedas (literally, the "knowledges"). Presently, there are 4 Vedas - the >Rg-veda, the Sama-veda, the Yajur-veda and the Atharva-veda. They in turn >contain 4 important things - the Samhita (mantras), the Brahmana (rituals), >the Aranyaka (mystical discourses) and (the most well-known) the Upanisads (the >philosophies). However, in the Buddhist scriptures only the first 3 Vedas >are mentioned. It is quite clear that the fourth (on miscellanous blessings and >charms) is new (w.r.t. the Buddha). Furthermore, the modern Upanisads consists >of well over 200 chapters. It is known that the Upanisads at the time of the >Buddha has much less than 100 chapters - the Brhad-aranyaka-upanisads and >the Chandogya-upanisads are representative of the older version. I have read >some part of the Upanisads and I agree with the popular view that it is very >beautiful, indeed romantically beautiful. > It is maintained by Hindu scholars that there were many Upnishands But in due corse of time they were lost. At the time of Shankara (500 ad?) there were only 100 of them available, of which he pointed out that only 11 are important. So only those 11 Upanishads are considered as important in present days. If you have a reference which says that there are 200 Upanishad in modern times, I would like to know which 200 Upanishad are those! You have confused me. What you mean by "modern Upanishad consists of well over 200 chapters"? Are you saying that it a single book with 200 chapters? > 2. The Mahabharata is the longest poem in the world - 18 chapters and >100,000 verses. It tells of the battle of the Bharata clans in the 10th century >B.C.E. and is attributed to the deity Vyasa. However, while historians thinks >that the battle did actually took place, they do not believe that such a long >piece of work could have been written by any single person (of course, the >Hindus was say that Vyasa is a god so ...). It took its final form around the >4th century C.E. (Christian Era). I have seen parts and piece of it (in a TV >drama) and I must say that the moral ethics it contains is hardly agreeable >to us modern day being, although its suppose to be god's work (something akin >to the Old Testaments). Ramaayan and Mahaa-bharat are considered as Puraan. It is not the place on which Hindu philosophy is based. It is for common people who can not understand the abstract concepts of Upanishads. They are called as "sugar coated bitter pills" i.e. they explain Vedantic philosophy to a layman by examples of people. Can you explain more about "the moral ethics it contains is hardly aggreable to us modern day beings"? What part of "ethics" is not aggrable. The message of both Rammaayan and Mahabharat is "be rightuos and TRUTH only wins". Is it non-agrreable to us "modern day beings"? The writer of Mahabhrarat is sage Vyasa. He is considered as Sage, not God. One can say that it contain story about Lord Krishna along with other things but not surely God's work! About the date of Mahabhaarat, the historians in west and east do not agree. There are people who have proved it to be very much before Buddha based on astrology. I am under the impression that even according to western historians, the time of Mahabharat is 2000-1500 BC. Knowlegable people are requested to shed more light on this matter. > > 3. The Bhagavad-gita which Mr. Mokate quotes, consists of the 700 >verses most of which are contained in the 6th Chapter of the modern >Mahabharata. It tells of Krishna (Krsna) lecturing to Prince Arjuna about >bhakti (love of God). It is dated to around the time of Christ. > If Gita is recent than Buddha, then I surely am wrong in saying that Gita has already told about balanced life before Buddha. Gita not only talks of Bhakti( chapters 6-12) but karma (chapters 1-6) and Gyana (chapters 13-18). This is very broad grouping, each chapters of Gita has a specific name indicating in which "yoga" it is specializing. > OK, now lets try to build the case ... > > 1. Besides (repeated mentions of) the 3 Vedas, no mention was ever >made of the other Hindu scriptures suggesting that they were not around or >not important at the time of the Buddha. Hindu scriptures are considered to be vedas( i.e Upanishads), Brahma-sutra and Gita (which supposedly condenses other two scripturs!). Other things are not considered as "scriptures" on which Hindu philosophy is based. On the lines of your argument, one can say there is no mention or indirect reference in Gita or in any Hindu epics about Buddha's teaching (since it was written LATER THAN Buddha's time according to you), suggesting that they were not around or not important after Buddha's time!! > > 2. The Buddhist Pali Canons were committed to writing before the 1st >century C.E. If we accept that the suttas were finalised and committed to >memory at the First Sangha Council (no more than 100 years after Buddha's >parinibbana), we can see that the Gita writings are more recent than the >Buddhist scriptures. Are you trying to say that since Gita was no written on "physical medium" until 400 AC (according to you), it never existed before? So one can compile some folk stories/songs today and write them down for the first time on physical medium and can say they never existed before this time!! If Buddha's teachings can be transmissted vocally and written after 100 years of his death, why can not Hindu scriputres be transmitted in the same way ( as done even today) and may be written on "physical medium" for the first time in 4th AD? If the teachings which were written after 100 years of Buddha can be taken as "his" teachings and not of someone else, why not Hindu scriptures be taken as work of people earlier than Buddha? > > 3. The Pali Canon indicates that at the time of the Buddha, the >Khattiyas (the noble-warrior caste) was above the Brahmin caste. Again, this >is not the situation today. And all evidences suggest that the Buddha did not >participate in this change of ranking. Indeed, he went all out to try to >abolish the entire caste system (which no decent Hindu, even today, would >even doubt). > > 4. Apart from the gods Sakka and Brahmas, no other Hindu diety esp. >Vishnu, Siva or Krishna, was known or mentioned. They may have been "recent >incarnations". In fact, "Brahma" in the Pali Canon actually refers to a whole >race of diety. It is recorded that "One Great Brahma, Sahampati" begged the >Buddha to lecture to the world. The incarnation Krishna is considered earlier than Buddha. Lord Shiva is mentioned in "Yajur Veda" in Rudra Sutka. The trinity Brahma, Vishu and Shiva is well developed at the time of Upanishads one can find references to all of them in them. > > 5. The Mahabharata and the Gita is about war and how to kill in the >name of God. I think the Buddha will turn in his grave if he hears of someone >associating him with this ballgame. > In my opinion this is "gross" mis-representation of teachings of Gita. Gita says (for karma yoga) that one can not avoid killing. Your mere living is based on killing of other small insects, germs, etc. So there is no point to avoid or try to stop it. So one should do karma in dettached manner, so one is not responsible for the good or bad fruits of it. It is not "killing in the name of God". Mahabharat is a story ( if one believes that it never happened) about a dynasty. There is a war between the dynasty, but it is very gross mis-representation that it is about "war" only. >>Isn't this all fit to what Krishna says in Gita as "whenever there is loss of >>Dharma, I incarnate to uphold it"? > > 6. Apart from the evidence that the Gita was written AFTER the Buddha, >the Buddha himself INSISTED that he was not a god but is "a Teacher of gods >and men". Here is a case of "my god is defined (by me) to be all powerful and >therefore your god is but a reincarnation and/or a servant of mine". Of course, >it may very well be true but what I want to point out is the obvious flaw in >logic here - a definition may or may not be true. > > But certainly the most powerful evidence aginst it all is that all the >Hindu scriptures are about how to praise, admire or be union with the Atman >principle. Buddhism in ALL its form will EXPLICITLY deny this just as the >Buddha has done so. In fact, Buddhism goes a step further and assert that there >is no such thing as Atman (and therefore, Brahma, Vishnu, Siva and Krishna >which are projections of the Atman). This is something new I am learning about Hinduism. Hindu scriptures are not only about how to praise, admire or be union with Atman but with Brahamn. They point about that the nature of atman and that of Brahman is same. What Buddhism denies of atman is what Hindu scriptures deny the exsistance of Ahankaar (ego) in the true nature of Atman. > > As for his other questions ... > >>Buddha died of food un-intensional food poisoing. > > For that last meal, he asked Cunda, the smith, to prepare a special >dish for him and that should he not finish it, everything on the dish must be >buried and not given to any other living thing. Hardly, "unintentional" ... >but as to what his exact intentions were ... I don't know either. > > >>How do you know that he is not an incarnation of Hindu God Vishnu? If Vishnu >>can incarnate as fish, tortoise, beast, half man & half beast, etc, why can't >>he incarnate as Buddha? > > This question cuts both ways - how do you know Vishnu is not one of >the Buddha's disciples/bodhisattvas ? Because Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are well know in Vedic time which predates Buddha time, I do not understand how Vishu can become Buddha's desciple? > > There were many schools of thoughts at the time of the Buddha covering >the entire spectrum of philosophy. The Buddha, however, being egoless agreed >and disagreed with them solely on their merits and not on whether he had to >be deliberately different - the mark of humility. There are incidence when what >the others said made sense and he would institute them into the discipline. At >other times, he would blast them down. > > All in all, I believe the two religions have a very close tie (not >unlike Judaism and Christianity) and have exerted substantial mutual influences. >I think it is indeed true that Buddhism went extinct in India because the >later days Mahayanists grew so close in outlook to the Hindus that their >existence was superfluous. This is quite sad but as I told someone, if the >Buddha had any positive influence on Hinduism at all, then I think it was a >good thing. But surely if he had his way, Hinduism would not be what it is >today. > >W.F. Wong. > >PS : > >>Gambhirananda notes following difference between two "for Christ >>other people did not understand him but his disciples, But for Buddha other >>people understood him but his disciples." > >I don't understand Gambhirananda ... ;-) Buddhism first of all spread in India because hindus believed him to be a Hindu and followed him. Jainism predates the time of Buddha but was not so largely followed by Hindus. Similarly, in later days, other religions came to India but majority of Hindus never followed them. So one can reasonably believe that majority of Hindus followed Buddha because they consodered him to be a Hindu. It is not that the later day Mahayaanist lost their identity that they started resemblimg Hinduism, but because of Shankara who is credited for wiping out Buddhism from India. Umesh... > > Let's accept this. The point (from my point of view, of course) is > > that, if interested in reality, one would then try very hard [using > > whatever means] to experience this reality --- rather than further > > classifying or trying to define it. > What does one experience when one doesn't try hard? The Reality is Here and Now, and being experienced by every one all the time. But, one is not consciously aware of it; and one takes "limited" for the "whole." Therefore, "trying hard" is required. Not to gain anything extra, but to see that no "trying hard" is required. In fact one always IS what one IS. [I AM THAT I AM]. > > Of course different people feel different. That's OK. I accept one > > elephant as the whole elephant. > Isn't the situation somewhat like an elephant trying to become more > "elephant-like"? :-) How nicely you put it! Thanks. Yes, a "being" tries to be a "being." That's why many have said: BE! don't become! ---raj > > If I suggest that reality encompasses everything ( you need to > >take this as axiom!!) then every damn thing we see is A face of reality. > According to this definition of the word, yes. > Yet you probably see a difference in statements about reality; e.g. > "this is an e-mail message" and "this message is written by a red-green- > striped easter bunny". Though none of the statements is "absolutely correct" > (oops, I'm talking about something I don't know not fitting into some > category for which I don't know an example - got that? :-). > Yes! (you are trying to explain ocean to me - who is land locked and haven't seen even a pond) Is the anology correct? > > In fact none of the teachers answered all the questions. There > >essential point is to drive the people to strive for realising the goal. > >Once the goal is reached, it becomes too obvious (Atleast I hope so) that > >these questions become meaningless. > Is there a goal to be reached? The Goal is Here and Now. But I take it to be somewhere else and later. Therefore the "search." It is like the glasses on my nose. Somehow I think I have lost them somewhere. So I go on a search and find them (where they were all the time - on my nose). But if I felt that I lost my glasses, and didn't try to find them, I wouldn't know that they are on my nose. > Do the questions have meaning at all? No, they are not [in fact]. But, as long as questions arise in my mind, I have to deal with them. ---raj Some of the postings related to the topic have been really interesting. My views regarding this incomprehensible subject crystallized after going through some texts of the Indian origin. I would like to share some of my thoughts, hoping that it would give me a chance to correct myself. (1) The foundation of "Sanatan Darshan"(Eternal philosophy)or popularly known as the Hindu philosophy is based on "Pratishthana Traya" (The three pillars) i.e. THE BRAMHA SUTRA BHASYA, THE UPANISHADS and THE BHAGAWAD GITA. (Note: Upanishads are essence of Vedas) (2) "ATMAN" (soul) exists. There are doucumented evidences of NDEs, reincarnations and unfortunately ghost related incidences. It is a boon that we do not remember our past lives. (3) Soul is the spark of life. It is the REAL source of intelligence, conscience, enjoyer and sufferer and NOT the MIND. Mind is different from soul. Like the body, mind is also a platform for the soul. (REFER-1) (4) GOD or the Superconsciousness or the Bramhananda exists. "THAT" manages the universe and it's laws (eg. the laws of karmas and every other laws of nature). Souls emanate from "THAT" or "HIM". Thus HE resides in each soul. Hence HE is present in ALL living creatures. (5) YOG (yoga) means to unite. The unity of one's consciousness with HIS or the SELF REALIZATION or to EXPERIENCE THE TRUE NATURE OF SOUL. (6) Why realize HIM ? Ans: To get rid of the painful cycle of reincarnation. There is more to that. HE wants our LOVE/DEVOTION. (7) Why is realization difficult ? Because HE has layed obstacles in the form of MAYA (illusion), EGO, LUST etc. that covers the soul. Why he has done that way, probably it's precise answer would be difficult even for the greatest realized souls. (8) But why question HIS ways of creation. HE is the master, HE has done the way HE liked. HE has set a big hurdle race to reach HIM. There is no other way but to pass through that. But HE has been very very kind. HE has given lots of hints and examples in form of HIS own AVATARS, HIS teachings and examples set by numerous saints. HE has also given the flexibility to choose different paths. It is up to us to select what is best depending on our temprament. THE PATHS OF REALIZATION ======================== The aim is self realization or to know HIM. This state results in NIRVIKALPA SAMADHI in traditional yoga texts. The two most popularly followed paths of yoga are: * RAJ YOGA (i.e. Patanjali's yoga/Kundalini yoga/Laya yoga/Hath yoga etc) * BHAKTI YOGA (i.e. The path of devotion/ love for GOD ) There are other paths like Gayana yoga (followed by Adi Shankaracharya)etc are much more difficult, I guess. Yoga demands tremendous sacrifice and strong will. Bhakti yoga seems to be the easiest, but to get devotion in it's purest form is also very difficult. Texts say that MIND is the bridge between soul and body. Body is connected to the mind through gross and subtle NADIS (nerves). Spinal cord and the subtle SUSHUMNA CHANNEL are part of nadis. Respiration and sexual systems are intimately connected to the nadis. Yoga exercises are meant to keep the body and gross nadis healthy. PRANAYAMA (breathing exercise) keeps the subtle nadis healthy. This also clears the blockage in the Sushumna through which the Kundalini is supposed to flow. On the other side there are barriers like ego, lust, desire, restlessness etc between mind and soul. These barriers can loosely be stated to be the attributes of mind. Basically both body and mind are gross. The difference is, after death the body dies but subtle nadis, mind and it's attributes stays attached to the soul. It is only after self-realization that the soul can get rid off the mind and it's attributes and it is then the LAST TRACES OF KARMA gets burnt. The purpose of Yama, niyama, prathyahara, dharna and dhayana is to train the mind and trying ones best to get rid off the barriers between soul and mind. A Bhakti yogee also undergoes similar rigours. For example, a devotee is not a true one, if he has tendencies to steal. But the power of true devotion is so overwhelming that, he naturally undergoes the primary rigours outlined by Patanjali without knowing about them. Similarly a true devotee indirectly undergoes dharna and dhayana while chanting holy names in the following sequence : loudly->murmuring->lip movement->mental (with EFFORT)->mental chanting without any EFFORT. At the final stage the holy names become overpowering. Again it needs a great deal of sacrifice to attain this exalted state. It is to be noted that this is neither a hallucination nor self hypnosis. The difference in exalted and self hypnosis can be accounted for in terms of the freshness/immense pleasure/ocean like peace that descends on the yogee or devotee after that exalted state. During Sadhana (spiritual practice), Kundalini is voluntary aroused by a Raj yogee which is involuntary in case of a true devotee in the exalted ecstatic state. Shri Ramakrishna Paramahansa, master of Swami Vivekananda, formally was an Advaitist. He had his Advaita initiation from Sw. Totapuri. But RK was a devotee at the core of his heart. His sadhanas used to begin from bhakti marg (path) and end in Nirvikalpa samadhi in the ecstatic state. About Kundalini he used to feel as if some fishes are moving in a stream. He used to describe his samadhi experience as: a doll made out of salt is when dropped into an ocean. (REFER: Gospel of Shri Ramakrishna) Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was the king of devotees. His devotional chantings and dances used to end in an exalted ecstatic state. In fact he ended his journey by merging himself with the Lord at the famous Jagganath temple (Puri-India). Maharshi Aurobindo (the saint of Pondecherry-India) was a Raj yogi. But his spiritual quest gained momentum after a vision of Lord Krishna, while undergoing a sentence in a jail. (Note: He went to the jail because he was a revolutioanary during British rule in India) The essence is that GOD wants love more than anything else. In a Raj yogee, devotion comes naturally when the Kundalini pierces the Anahata Chakra at the heart centre. In fact the most difficult aspect of Raj yoga is the journey of Kundalini from Ajna Chakra at the eyebrows to the Shahashra at the crown. This has been described to be as difficult as the mountain climbing. That is because beyond Ajna Chakra there is no Sushumna to guide the Kundalini. Only the grace of Lord can make this final journey possible to experience "NIRVIKALPA SAMADHI". RK could achieve this feat within a few days during his Advaita initiation, which took more than 40 years for his master Sw. Totapuri. The consolation is that, like all karmas, the yogic karmas are also stored in the Sushumna. In the next birth it gets naturally activated at a proper time.Probably that is why some people have natural inclination towards yoga/devotion etc while others treat this with skepticism. It is said that during Siddhartha's (Buddha's former name) birth, the astrologers had said that he was a very advanced yogee in his past life. Despite all comforts, Buddha got a suitable opportunity to take to the spiritual path. ||Asato ma sat-gamaya; Tamaso ma jyotir-gamaya; Mrityor ma amritam-gamaya|| O lord; lead us from untruth to truth; from darkness to light; and from death to immortality (i.e. realization) ---- Upanishad PRANOB ================================================================================ In article <1992Mar12.062028.27763@iitmax.iit.edu> dogen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (John Chq) writes: >The thread on the Hindu/Buddhist connection has become interesting, and >somewhat annoying. I refer to those who claim Buddha was a hindu. > >Aside from historical data, can we claim that Buddha was a Hindu? What is >a Hindu anyway? Siddhartha was purportedly from the Kshatria "caste". But >aside from that there is nothing to suggest he taught a revised form of the >Brahman/Atman doctrine. The Four Noble Truths, Dependent Arising, the >psychological/mental view of karma, Nirvana, etc., are either different >from or come into direct conflict with traditional "Hindu" beliefs. If >Buddha were a 'good' Hindu, then he would have stayed home and performed >his duties as a prince/warrior, correct? Not necessarily. There were any number of ascetics - both Brahminical and otherwise - at the time of the Buddha. Were they "Hindus"? Were Sanjaya, Ajita, Mahali Ghosala, Purana Kassapa and others Hindus to begin with, or not? If they were, why not the Buddha? I'd be interested in any non-metaphysical answer, for it is futile to attempt to grasp the Tathagatha under any system. I mean, was the Buddha Buddhist :-)? >BTW, the notion that Shankara wiped Buddhism out from India is nonsense. >This is latter day Vedantin "legend" or more accurately "myth", in the >perjorative sense. The 'death' of Buddhism in India came at the hands of >the Muslims, over 500 yrs after Shankara. Besides, Shankara's insightful >philosophy was possible only by incorporating Nagarjuna's philosophy (1st >or 2nd century CE); hence Shankara's opponents accusing him of being a >'closet Buddhist'. If such is the case, it only goes to show that there is room for Buddhist insights in Hinduism. >All in all, the attempt to "rope Buddha into the boundaries of Hinduism" is >really disrespectful to Buddhists. The dispute is about how society viewed the Buddha *in his time*. The Buddha's followers were referred to as "followers of the ascetic Gotama" or as "Sakyaputtiya" (sons of the Sakyan). There was a certain social ambience at that time that we can loosely describe as "Hindu". The Sangha was part of that, and the burden of proof is upon those who claim otherwise. As for "disrespect", I'd like to shift into a meta-discussion. Much of history is a matter of perception. Rightly or wrongly, Hindus have a syncretic view of their religion. The Buddha is part of the Hindu pantheon of saints and there is ample space of "Buddhist" practice within "Hinduism". I do not wish to get into an arguement about "purity" of practice, for then we'd have to figure out whether worshipping relics and chanting "Na Mu Myo Ho Ren Ge Kyo" are really Buddhism. Why should Buddhists tell Hindus what Hinduism really is and how Hindus ought to view the Buddha? What *is* disrespectful is the tendency of modern Buddhist intellectuals to label every social practice that they disapprove of in their own societies as really being "Hinduism". This is something that I have heard from Thai and Sinhalese people on more than one occasion. Aside from this, there is the question of usurpation of history. Apart from its philosophical impact, Buddhism has had great influence on Indian society - in matters of diet, literature and architecture. Hindus repudiate none of this and for the Chinese, Thais, Japanese, Sinhalese, Burmese (and modern Western Buddhists!) etc to lay exclusive claim on one of the major figures of Indian history is a bit much. All that said, I will readily grant that Indian Buddhists expended a great deal of energy in preserving the integrity of their teachings and in resisting the syncretic tendencies of society-at-large. >There is no denying the historical and >social connection, but to claim identity is like asserting >that Christ was a Jew, in the doctrinal sense. Though he was in the >'ethnic' sense, he did have a different message. Ah, but how were the Buddha and Christ received in their respective societies, and how were they perceived by *others*? Peace, Sridhar 9203.13 (Friday the 13th!!) John Cha writes: The thread on the Hindu/Buddhist connection has become interesting, and somewhat annoying. I refer to those who claim Buddha was a hindu. Aside from historical data, can we claim that Buddha was a Hindu? What is a Hindu anyway? Siddhartha was purportedly from the Kshatria "caste". But aside from that there is nothing to suggest he taught a revised form of the Brahman/Atman doctrine. The Four Noble Truths, Dependent Arising, the psychological/mental view of karma, Nirvana, etc., are either different from or come into direct conflict with traditional "Hindu" beliefs. Response: I was told by a professor of Buddhism recently that three concepts, taken from the Sramana Movement (circa 800 BCE to 20 CE), survived from the traditional Vedic Movement into Buddhism: Rebirth, Samsara, and Karma. In any case, Siddhartha was a Warrior who took up the life of a Sramana, a wandering mendicant. This was an orthodox Hindu path, though most often assumed after one's role in society (Student, Householder and Forest Dweller) had been fulfilled. Some people did not follow the general guidelines for their renunciation. Siddhartha was thus definitely a Hindu, though perhaps we may place him within the unorthodox of his time. Thus, it may be an error to say that all of the Buddha's teachings, especially the earliest, come into direct conflict with traditional 'Hindu' beliefs, especially when it is quite possible that the Sramana Movement of the time may have been promoting many of these new concepts (out of the heart of the forest enclaves). It may have been a secret teaching which Siddhartha simply took to the streets. This has been suggested of Jesus and other prophets. They may have simply dared to say in public what was being uttered in the secret circles of their orthodox religion. In this case, Buddha was certainly a mainstream Hindu, yet we can never know for sure. John: If Buddha were a 'good' Hindu, then he would have stayed home and performed his duties as a prince/warrior, correct? Response: Not necessarily. As mentioned above, some people left to become wanderers before their social time had arrived. This began to cause the orthodoxy some small concern, you may conjecture. What would happen if all those in the villages simply got up, abandoned social life, and wandered as begging ascetics? The answer they arrived at was to co-opt the new ideas as their own and 're-socialize' it. When the Sramana movement began, it inspired the idea of the '4 Stages of Life', as mentioned above: Student, Householder, Forest Dweller and, finally, Sramana, or wanderer. Siddhartha may well have learned the 4 Noble Truths from the Sramanas he went to study under after rather quickly bypassing his social roles. John: And the notion that Buddha is an incarnation of Vishnu, etc., is also, well how can I put it..., one cannot argue with this because one does not hold such beliefs (i.e., totally different premises) in incarnations, and the like. Buddha is considered a human, one who has attained emancipation via great spiritual efforts, but a human nonetheless. Of course we can get into the doctrine of the Bodhisattva but then remember the true Bodhisattva who preaches Dharma is No Bodhisattva who teaches No Dharma! Response: It is not quite fair to mention Bodhisattva when speaking of the Buddha either, since it was a Mahayana term - taken in response to the 'Arhat' of the Theravadins, the Old School. Yet, I think that considering Buddha (and Jesus, etc.) incarnations of Vishnu makes a lot of sense to those who understand both traditions. Sure, the Buddhist will not understand if they don't know the basics of the traditions from which the Buddha arose, yet this is true of Christians who aren't familiar with Judaism. One comes to a deeper, more profound understanding of one's tradition if one has a grasp on the foundation from which it arises. Buddhism is no exception. To truly appreciate it, I think it helps to have a firm knowledge of Hinduism, orthodox AND unorthodox. John: With the exception of the more popular sutras, all Buddhist philosophical texts of India (I mean Nikaya texts in Pali and the foundational schools of Nagarjuna, Asanga, and Vasubandhu) teach insubstantiality, emptiness and dependent co-arising, accompanied by harsh critiques of Atman/Brahman, substantivist views of karma, etc. Response: Yes, but what are they criticizing, actually? Are we stuck on terms without getting to know the concepts which are behind them? Is it possible (and I don't really know the answer to this question) that the 'atman', which Buddhism teaches does NOT have reality, is not the same 'atman' which Hinduism teaches IS a reality? I suspect that there is quite a case to be made in favor of this. I'll continue to look and hope that others will post on the subject of the atman in relation to both traditions. John: BTW, the notion that Shankara wiped Buddhism out from India is nonsense. This is latter day Vedantin "legend" or more accurately "myth", in the perjorative sense. The 'death' of Buddhism in India came at the hands of the Muslims, over 500 yrs after Shankara. Besides, Shankara's insightful philosophy was possible only by incorporating Nagarjuna's philosophy (1st or 2nd century CE); hence Shankara's opponents accusing him of being a 'closet Buddhist'. Response: I was not aware that Buddhism had died in India. News to me. But I'm not all that well read, either. Was it really obliterated? John: All in all, the attempt to "rope Buddha into the boundaries of Hinduism" is really disrespectful to Buddhists. There is no denying the historical and social connection, but to claim identity is like asserting that Christ was a Jew, in the doctrinal sense. Though he was in the 'ethnic' sense, he did have a different message. Response: Yes, but there are countless Jews who have messages like that of Jesus. There are also countless Hindus who have similar ideas to those of the Buddha. Where does one tradition start and another end? This reminds me of an article which I read once that suggested that 'Hinduism' does not exist and that the only 'ism' we may be able to draw from India is 'Dharmaism', since this term/concept is so integral to all of Indian tradition. What do you think of this idea? Also, if I may be so bold, perhaps Christianity is a pagan cult gone dogmatic in the same way that Buddhism is a Hindu cult gone wild. I'm suggesting that Buddhism is a subset of Hinduism (those traditions that arose within the geography of the Indus Valley Region) in the same sense that one might consider Christianity a subset of Paganism (albeit adversarial toward its competitors). There is some substance behind this assertion. I hope it is not simply dismissed out of hand. I don't know how much analysis it can stand, however. Yours in concavity, Tagi In article <1992Mar14.042459.8982@iitmax.iit.edu> pingali@gaia.cs.umass.edu (Sridhar Pingali) writes: > >Not necessarily. There were any number of ascetics - both >Brahminical and otherwise - at the time of the Buddha. Were >they "Hindus"? Were Sanjaya, Ajita, Mahali Ghosala, Purana >Kassapa and others Hindus to begin with, or not? If they were, >why not the Buddha? I'd be interested in any non-metaphysical >answer, for it is futile to attempt to grasp the Tathagatha >under any system. I mean, was the Buddha Buddhist :-)? I think we are talking on two different levels. From a historical viewpoint I don't deny that Buddha was a "Hindu"; it was his society, culture, etc., and I am fully aware that he was not the only one to challenge the authority of the Brahmins and ritual efficacy. And no, Buddha was not a "Buddhist". However, he did chalenge the authority of the tradition as a whole, therefore he did renounce those characteristics that 'define' Hinduism. >>BTW, the notion that Shankara wiped Buddhism out from India is nonsense. >>This is latter day Vedantin "legend" or more accurately "myth", in the >>perjorative sense. The 'death' of Buddhism in India came at the hands of >>the Muslims, over 500 yrs after Shankara. Besides, Shankara's insightful >>philosophy was possible only by incorporating Nagarjuna's philosophy (1st >>or 2nd century CE); hence Shankara's opponents accusing him of being a >>'closet Buddhist'. > >If such is the case, it only goes to show that there is room >for Buddhist insights in Hinduism. > >>All in all, the attempt to "rope Buddha into the boundaries of Hinduism" is >>really disrespectful to Buddhists. > >The dispute is about how society viewed the Buddha *in his time*. >The Buddha's followers were referred to as "followers of the ascetic >Gotama" or as "Sakyaputtiya" (sons of the Sakyan). There was a >certain social ambience at that time that we can loosely describe >as "Hindu". The Sangha was part of that, and the burden of proof >is upon those who claim otherwise. I agree, but so many of "hindu" persuation go beyond the social and historical perspective to a "theological" one, hence claiming the Buddha is some incarnation of Vishnu etc., and other such non-sense. If Buddha and subsequent Buddhists deny this I say take there word for it. >As for "disrespect", I'd like to shift into a meta-discussion. >Much of history is a matter of perception. Rightly or wrongly, >Hindus have a syncretic view of their religion. The Buddha >is part of the Hindu pantheon of saints and there is ample space >of "Buddhist" practice within "Hinduism". That Buddha is considered part of the Hindu pantheon of saints is not my point. Again, your perspective is sociological/anthropological, in a social context yes Buddha is a part of the Hindu religious structure. However, you imply that we cannot discuss fundamental doctrines of Buddhism etc., because either we are not 'enlightened' or that the Dharma is ineffable. While I agree that the experience is not to be captured in words, in various Buddhists texts there are extensive philosophical arguementations regarding the status of various Buddhist and non-Buddhist viewpoints. And from this we can at least come to some understanding of the danger of clinging to concepts such as "Atman" and Brahman". All in all my perspective is "Buddhist" in a philosophical sense, therefore I see the importance of not adorning any naive syncretic standpoint. > I do not wish to get >into an arguement about "purity" of practice, for then we'd >have to figure out whether worshipping relics and chanting >"Na Mu Myo Ho Ren Ge Kyo" are really Buddhism. Why should >Buddhists tell Hindus what Hinduism really is and how Hindus >ought to view the Buddha? What *is* disrespectful is the >tendency of modern Buddhist intellectuals to label every social >practice that they disapprove of in their own societies as >really being "Hinduism". For me its not a matter of approving or disapproving of any type of praxis. Again, you come from a sociological standpoint, which pretends to be non-impirialistic in its recognition of lay praxis and its criticism of traditional (i.e., modern western views) of what Buddhism, or any other religion, is. I only want to ask you this: 1) do you hold the view that one can have a "pure" interpretation, or is interpretation theory laden? 2) And if it is 'theory laden' whose theory do you adhere to? > This is something that I have heard >from Thai and Sinhalese people on more than one occasion. I've also heard that Buddhists (non-western) find it quite comical that some academicians come and observe specific forms of praxis and try to write up about it. One can do a sociological analysis on those who do sociological analyses on one's religion. :) >Aside from this, there is the question of usurpation of history. >Apart from its philosophical impact, Buddhism has had great >influence on Indian society - in matters of diet, literature >and architecture. Hindus repudiate none of this and for the Chinese, >Thais, Japanese, Sinhalese, Burmese (and modern Western Buddhists!) etc >to lay exclusive claim on one of the major figures of Indian >history is a bit much. I agree, and I do not attempt to obtain any exclusive claim on anything. But I do think it muddleheaded to gloss over Buddhist doctrine/philosophy and claim that since all things are Brahman therefore the Buddhists are speaking of the same thing. >All that said, I will readily grant that Indian Buddhists expended >a great deal of energy in preserving the integrity of their teachings >and in resisting the syncretic tendencies of society-at-large. Yes, because they wanted to avoid (among other things) the mental fabrication of any "ultimates". And when they did speak of ultimates, it was always in the context of their particular stance (or no-stance, for the Madhyamikas). >>There is no denying the historical and >>social connection, but to claim identity is like asserting >>that Christ was a Jew, in the doctrinal sense. Though he was in the >>'ethnic' sense, he did have a different message. > >Ah, but how were the Buddha and Christ received in their >respective societies, and how were they perceived by *others*? Again, you place importance upon the social setting of a particular Religious Leader (I do not like this label). Yes from an historical/social viewpoint this question is important. But as you said earlier, history is a matter of perspective. I would broaden this and claim one's approach to the subject matter is a matter of perspective. Did you ever ask what is the view of history from a Buddhist theoretical standpoint? You see, in the attempts to counteract "Orientalism" some scholars turned to the social praxis (historical and contemporary) to study religions etc. But my question is, what theoreticla assumptions are you making, and given that Buddhist 'theory' does deal with many issues pertinent to contemporary discussions on method, how can YOU avoid being imperialistic in your approach? E.g., what do you mean by *others*? And what does Nagarjuna say about this? We must consider that which many deem a horror, the "hermenuetical circle". >Peace, >Sridhar > -- ******************************************************************************* -- John Cha "The present is always more interesting than the future or the past" ******************************************************************************* In article <1992Mar14.171801.29927@iitmax.iit.edu> portal!cup.portal.com!Tagi@uunet.UU.NET writes: >9203.13 (Friday the 13th!!) > > >John Cha writes: > >The thread on the Hindu/Buddhist connection has become interesting, and >somewhat annoying. I refer to those who claim Buddha was a hindu. > >Aside from historical data, can we claim that Buddha was a Hindu? What is >a Hindu anyway? Siddhartha was purportedly from the Kshatria "caste". But >aside from that there is nothing to suggest he taught a revised form of the >Brahman/Atman doctrine. The Four Noble Truths, Dependent Arising, the >psychological/mental view of karma, Nirvana, etc., are either different >from or come into direct conflict with traditional "Hindu" beliefs. > > >Response: > >I was told by a professor of Buddhism recently that three concepts, taken >from the Sramana Movement (circa 800 BCE to 20 CE), survived from the >traditional Vedic Movement into Buddhism: Rebirth, Samsara, and Karma. >In any case, Siddhartha was a Warrior who took up the life of a Sramana, >a wandering mendicant. This was an orthodox Hindu path, though most >often assumed after one's role in society (Student, Householder and >Forest Dweller) had been fulfilled. Some people did not follow the >general guidelines for their renunciation. Siddhartha was thus definitely >a Hindu, though perhaps we may place him within the unorthodox of his time. The traditional Vedic notions of Rebirth, Samsara, and Karma are quite different from the Buddhist ones. Of course the Buddha used the same terminology but that does not translate into identical meaning. Again, I'm not denying that Buddha was a "Hindu". But karma became a term denoting the effects of all intentional actions performed by the individual (both in terms of moral causation and "psychological" traces and volitions-samskaras), and not the actions of the Brahmanical priests. Likewise, all other "traditional" terms took on psychological (spiritual), and moral implications rather than overtly social ones. >Thus, it may be an error to say that all of the Buddha's teachings, especially >the earliest, come into direct conflict with traditional 'Hindu' beliefs, >especially when it is quite possible that the Sramana Movement of the time >may have been promoting many of these new concepts (out of the heart of >the forest enclaves). It may have been a secret teaching which Siddhartha >simply took to the streets. This has been suggested of Jesus and other >prophets. They may have simply dared to say in public what was being >uttered in the secret circles of their orthodox religion. In this case, >Buddha was certainly a mainstream Hindu, yet we can never know for sure. Well, he was a mainstream Hindu, until he fled the palace. Again this notion of Buddha continuing some "Brahmanical" tradition pops up in your comment. This theory of "secret" doctrines made explicit by Siddharta is another attempt to justify ones opinion with no actual justification (I realize we are talking/writing from the conventional level-vyavahara-but as Candrakirti noted, this is the only level we can discourse on, hence the need to be 'critical' in argumentation). Let us keep in mind that despite the major differences between the so-called Nikaya Buddhism and Mahayana, the Buddha never spoke of some underlying unchanging substratum, or an absolute self. The doctrines of transiency and dependent co-arising are continuous throughout. Shouldn't this figure into your discussion? >John: >If Buddha were a 'good' Hindu, then he would have stayed home and performed >his duties as a prince/warrior, correct? >Response: > >Not necessarily. As mentioned above, some people left to become wanderers >before their social time had arrived. This began to cause the orthodoxy some >small concern, you may conjecture. What would happen if all those in the >villages simply got up, abandoned social life, and wandered as begging >ascetics? The answer they arrived at was to co-opt the new ideas as their >own and 're-socialize' it. When the Sramana movement began, it inspired >the idea of the '4 Stages of Life', as mentioned above: Student, Householder, >Forest Dweller and, finally, Sramana, or wanderer. Siddhartha may well have >learned the 4 Noble Truths from the Sramanas he went to study under after >rather quickly bypassing his social roles. The notion that Buddha learned the 4 Noble Truths from other sramanas is a rather shakey and sectarian notion. It is clear from the Pali texts that the Buddha 1)did learn many things from the sramanas, but 2)realized the incompleteness of these teachers/teachings. In the Arya-paryesana-sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya it lists the various teachings the Buddha encountered during his ascetic years, and his renunciation of them, not due to there falsity, but because they were incomplete and not conducive to full emancipation. I would suggest that you take this into consideration too. >John: > >And the notion that Buddha is an incarnation of Vishnu, etc., is also, well >how can I put it..., one cannot argue with this because one does not hold >such beliefs (i.e., totally different premises) in incarnations, and the >like. Buddha is considered a human, one who has attained emancipation via >great spiritual efforts, but a human nonetheless. Of course we can get >into the doctrine of the Bodhisattva but then remember the true Bodhisattva >who preaches Dharma is No Bodhisattva who teaches No Dharma! > >Response: > >It is not quite fair to mention Bodhisattva when speaking of the Buddha either, >since it was a Mahayana term - taken in response to the 'Arhat' of the >Theravadins, the Old School. Sure it is. The Buddha is considered to be a Boddhisattva in both the Theravadin and Mayayana branches. The term does take on a different significance, since in the Mahayana we are all Bodhisattvas (with the exeption of the Yogacara school) >Yet, I think that considering Buddha (and Jesus, etc.) incarnations of Vishnu >makes a lot of sense to those who understand both traditions. Sure, the >Buddhist will not understand if they don't know the basics of the traditions >from which the Buddha arose, yet this is true of Christians who aren't >familiar with Judaism. One comes to a deeper, more profound understanding >of one's tradition if one has a grasp on the foundation from which it arises. >Buddhism is no exception. To truly appreciate it, I think it helps to have >a firm knowledge of Hinduism, orthodox AND unorthodox. In other words, all religions are in essence "Hindu". I cannot verify this since I am still enmeshed in prapanca, but I would suggest we all are (again I cannot verify this). If we can assume this our only recourse in this "illusory" discourse is to be critical in our discussion. Do you realize I cannot argue with you, accept for mentioning I am familiar with Hinduism and its "orthodox" schools of thought? My suggestion would be to study them and the MASSIVE, in volume, Buddhist critique of all Hindu forms of thought. Again, do take this into consideration. > >John: > >With the exception of the more popular sutras, all Buddhist philosophical >texts of India (I mean Nikaya texts in Pali and the foundational schools >of Nagarjuna, Asanga, and >Vasubandhu) teach insubstantiality, emptiness and dependent co-arising, >accompanied by harsh critiques of Atman/Brahman, substantivist views of >karma, etc. > >Response: >Yes, but what are they criticizing, actually? Are we stuck on terms without >getting to know the concepts which are behind them? Is it possible (and I >don't really know the answer to this question) that the 'atman', which >Buddhism teaches does NOT have reality, is not the same 'atman' which >Hinduism teaches IS a reality? I suspect that there is quite a case to be >made in favor of this. I'll continue to look and hope that others will >post on the subject of the atman in relation to both traditions. Terms arise from concepts, in the Buddhist tradition, and when I stated the arguments concerning atman it is from the texts themselves. In the Madhyamika tradition, the Atman (yes the Hindu notion), and all derivative aspects of "It" are merely the product od mental fabrication. Emancipation IS the uprooting of the Atman illusion, BOTH as the notion of specific individuality and as the Ultimate, unchanging core of existence. The Yogacara likewise asserts the non-substantiality of Atman and lists both the concept of Atman as individuality AND as the ultimate as articulated by the various Hindu schools. If you want I can list the sources and page numbers. > >John: > >BTW, the notion that Shankara wiped Buddhism out from India is nonsense. >This is latter day Vedantin "legend" or more accurately "myth", in the >perjorative sense. The 'death' of Buddhism in India came at the hands of >the Muslims, over 500 yrs after Shankara. Besides, Shankara's insightful >philosophy was possible only by incorporating Nagarjuna's philosophy (1st >or 2nd century CE); hence Shankara's opponents accusing him of being a >'closet Buddhist'. > >Response: > >I was not aware that Buddhism had died in India. News to me. But I'm >not all that well read, either. Was it really obliterated? > > >John: > >All in all, the attempt to "rope Buddha into the boundaries of Hinduism" is >really disrespectful to Buddhists. There is no denying the historical and >social connection, but to claim identity is like asserting >that Christ was a Jew, in the doctrinal sense. Though he was in the >'ethnic' sense, he did have a different message. > >Response: > >Yes, but there are countless Jews who have messages like that of Jesus. >There are also countless Hindus who have similar ideas to those of >the Buddha. Where does one tradition start and another end? > >This reminds me of an article which I read once that suggested that >'Hinduism' does not exist and that the only 'ism' we may be able to draw >from India is 'Dharmaism', since this term/concept is so integral to all >of Indian tradition. What do you think of this idea? "Dharma" has different connotations, and the "hinduism=dharmaism" implies the law aspect of dharma, i.e., duty in social station. Though the terms are the same the meaning is quite different. >Also, if I may be so bold, perhaps Christianity is a pagan cult gone dogmatic >in the same way that Buddhism is a Hindu cult gone wild. I'm suggesting >that Buddhism is a subset of Hinduism (those traditions that arose within >the geography of the Indus Valley Region) in the same sense that one might >consider Christianity a subset of Paganism (albeit adversarial toward its >competitors). There is some substance behind this assertion. I hope it >is not simply dismissed out of hand. I don't know how much analysis it can >stand, however. Define "cult". And which religion is "the standard" from which you justify the label 'cult'? Its not that you are incorrect, but I sense if not an infinite regress, surely one that reaches far past recorded history. >Yours in concavity, > >Tagi > -- ******************************************************************************* -- John Cha "The present is always more interesting than the future or the past" ******************************************************************************* I believe that memory argument is weak and even futil to prove or disprove the phenomenon of rebirth. A sceptic uses the argument, triumphantly, in disproof that we have no memory of our past lives and therefore there were no past lives! One smiles to see such reasoning seriously used by those who imagine that they are something more than intellectual children. The argument proceeds on psychological grounds and yet it ignores the very nature of our ordinary or physical memory which is all that the normal man can employ. How much do we remember of our actual lives which are undoubtedly living at present moment? Our memory is normally good for what is near, becomes vaguer or less comprehensive as its objects recede into the distance, farther off seizes only some salient points and finally, for the beginning of our lives falls into a mere blankness. Do we remember even the mere fact, the state of being an infant on the mother's breast? and yet that state of infancy was, on any but a Bhudhist theory, part of the same life and belonged to the same individual, - the very one who cannot remember it just as he cannot remember his past life. Yet we demand that this physical memory, this memory of the brute brain of man which cannot remember our infancy and has lost so much of our later years, shall recall that which was before infancy, before birth, before itself was formed. Obviously, if our past lives are to be remembered whether as fact and state or in their events and images, it can only be by a psychical memory awaking which will overcome the limits of the physical and resuscitate impressions other than those stamped on the physical being by physical cerebration. On the contrary, even if we could have evidence of the physical memory of past lives or of such a phychical awakening, I don't think the theory would be considered any better proved than before. The sceptic can always challenge them as mere fiction and imagination unless and until they are placed on a firm basis of evidence. Even if the facts alleged are verified, he has the resource of affirming that they are not really memories but were known to the person alleging them by ordinary physical means or were suggested to him by others and have been converted into reincarnate memory either by conscious deception or by a process of self-deception and self-hallucination. And even supposing the evidence were too strong and unexceptionable to be got rid of by these familiar devices, they might yet not be accepted as proof of rebirth; the mind can discover a hundred theoretical explanations for a single group of facts. Niether can modern science help us here, because science knows nothing about a before-life or an after-life for the human soul, knows nothing indeed about a soul at all, nor can know. Its province stops with the flesh and brain and nerve, the embryo and its formation and development. It does not have any apparatus by which the truth or untruth of rebirth can be established. Not only that, the modern criticism is no very efficient truth finder. It is good at discovering data, but except where data themselves bear on the surface their own conclusion, it has no means of finding out with surety the truth or untruth of a doubtful historical assertion. In my opinion, the concept of rebirth is an intellectual necessity, a logically unavoidable corollarry, which accounts for such things as the phenomenon of genius, inborn faculty and so many other psychological mysteries. The explanation by heredity accounts only for our physical make-up, our temperament, our vital peculiarilites. Its attempt to account for genius, inborn faculty and other psychological phenomena of a higher kind is a pretentios failure. Also, Eastern philosophers had made lot of progress in the philosophy of rebirth because, unlike their Western counterpart, they rejected, at a very early stage, the idea of an immutable personality as means to reaffirm the concept of rebirth. It is the survival of identical personality that attracted the Western thinkers. Eastern thinkers perceived that there is a continuity and they sought to discover what determines this continuity and whether the sense of identity which enters into it is an illusion or the representation of a fact, of a real truth, and, if the latter, then what that truth may be. For more reading please, please refer to "The Supramental Menifestation", Sri Aurobindo -- Virendra Hello, Mr. Malone writes ... > In summary, there is no need for you to say that religions are the same >or different. It changes nothing. You are right in that it changes nothing. But my original intention was to register a resentment - one which I see arose because of people are interpreting things to their own advantage without admitting it. The attitude of "your god is but a (implicitly lesser) reincarnation of mine but you are foolish in not admitting and worshipping the true one, i.e. MINE" is, to me, a clear violation of the dignity of others. And here, I am not just speaking for Buddhism. There seems to me to be an ulterior motive in doing so. This is what I seek to expose. If you ask me, I would say, "let's admit our differences and be friends !" We DON'T have to be the same in order to love one another ! Having said so, I must admit and apologize for the extra input of adrenaline that ran (runs) in my blood as I wrote (write) the postings. I do not want to attack anyone - I just want to expose their logical flaws when they claim, "Mine is the truth and the whole truth." I do not believe anyone have a monopoly of truth. The Encyclopedia Britannica (E.B.) sums up this attitude very well, "... we find here only one of the many instances of the ability of Hinduism to accomodate different views of God, while at the same time no doubt is left as to which is the truer view". Hypocritical, isn't it ? Back to Mr. Mokate's arguments ... >As much as my knowledge goes, Buddha indeed was a Hindu same as Christ indeed >was a Jew. According to what I know, Hindus also claim that Christ is but a Hindu god - the Christians just got it wrong. Am I correct ? >If there are references where Buddha proclaimed himself as non-Hindu >or renonunced it, I would like to know about it. To begin with, the word "Hindu" was not around then. Also, according to the E.B. "it is impossible to define Hinduism because there are no beliefs or institutions which are common to all Hindus and which mark them off from others. ... Every belief considered basic to Hindus has been rejected by one group or another." Here Mr. Mokate asserts that the Buddha is Hindu because he did not say he wasn't one. Obviously, it can be turned around - "Krishna is just a lesser disciple of the past Buddhas, if there are any references where he proclaimed himself as non-Buddhist or renounced it, I would like to know about it." >1. I wanted to point out that to appreciate teachings of Buddha, ... >2. I wanted to point out that Buddha should get proper credit for ... Agreed. >Even if that is the >case, I maintain the opinion that "goal" of all religions is the same namely >"realization of God" and it is called by different names. The basis for >this opinion is Vedas saying that "there is only one TRUTH, people of >realization call it by different names" ... How do YOU know ? Can't the Vedas be wrong ? If so, is the Koran wrong in insisting that there is no other God than Allah (and no such thing as incarnations) ? A lot of people in this group talk as if they have realized "the goal" or seen "God" while concluding nobly "all is one". While I appreciate the emotions (some would argue spiritual emotions) that "all is one", (I myself sometimes have this inclination) there is absolutely no evidence nor is there any reason why this should be so. As long as we don't have an enlightened being or reincarnation of God with us (i.e. universally accepted and with proveable evidences), your guess is as good as anyone else's. Someone dismissed this as "dry polemic" but I argue that there is a very serious argument here which religionists are all too ready to throw away. If I am correct, it forms one of the major basis of the anti-religionists' arguments. >Aren't you supporting then the Hindu view that he was an Incarnation? No. >Vishnu is considered as "Sagun Brahman" which is Reality with Forms ... Well not by me. Back to the "your definition is as good as mine" argument ... >It is maintained by Hindu scholars that there were many Upnishands But in due >corse of time they were lost. At the time of Shankara (500 ad?) I concede that I cannot come up with the number 200. I got it from a Japanese encyclopedia on Indian philosophy somewhere. But the Funk and Wagner International Dictionary of the English Language states 108. Sorry, my fault. Should have checked. >Ramaayan and Mahaa-bharat are considered as Puraan. It is not the place ... This is where your "holier-than-thou" attitude shows - "commoners" (and I presume you mean those not of the Brahmin caste) are too stupid to understand the Upanisads. Sheesh ... Have you been to a Hindu temple lately ? Do you think the brahmins and followers there know the Mahabharata better or the Upanisads better ? >About the date of Mahabhaarat, the historians in west and east do not agree. This is the second thing which I will also concede - there is NO concrete evidence showing which is correct. >On the lines of your argument, one can say there is no mention or ... OK ... You scored a point here ;-) >Your mere living is >based on killing of other small insects, germs, etc. OK, agreed ... >So there is no point to avoid or try to stop it. 2 WHAT ?!? You mean, "if you can't beat them, join them ?" Sheesh ... This is where Buddhism and Hinduism differs drastically. In Buddhism, irrespectively of schools, one is taught you can "cut" your karma and achieve the highest goal. In Hinduism, you can't (as Mr. Mokate so vividly argued) - if you are borned (by karma) to be a Kali (or is it Druga) worshipper, you have no choice but to perform human sacrifices of blood. >So one should do karma in dettached manner, so one is >not responsible for the good or bad fruits of it. It is not "killing in the >name of God". Your argument simply eludes me. So, one is never responsible for one's actions because its in one's "karma" ? Where does the next karma come from ? >There is a war between the dynasty, but it is very gross mis-representation >that it is about "war" only. And God took sides and took part in the killing. The Gita may be very nice in its philosophical arguments but the intentions of Krishna is clear - get Arjuna to kill his kinsmen. It is his fate. It is his duty to God. There is absolutely nothing he could have done about it. >What Buddhism denies of atman is what Hindu scriptures deny the exsistance of >Ahankaar (ego) in the true nature of Atman. No. Buddhism denies Atman (period). >Because Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are well know in Vedic time which predates >Buddha time, I do not understand how Vishu can become Buddha's desciple? You see there were countless Buddhas before Sakyamuni and so ... ;-) By the way, according to E.B. the chief object of worship in the Rigveda is Rudra. Vishnu is just a minor aspect of the sun god. Aren't you getting your priorities wrong ? >Buddhism first of all spread in India because hindus believed him to be a Hindu >and followed him. Please produce the evidences ... I hope I did not attacked anyone personally. All I seek to establish is the followings: 1. The claim that "all is one" is often used for ulterior motives. 2. The claim that "your god is lesser than mine, you just don't know it" is a clear violation of the dignities of others. 3. We should seriously think about this whole "all is one" business as anti-religionists (such as Russell) have so often urged us to. 4. Hinduism is not a unified system of practice but is a catholic system of sometimes contradictory beliefs ranging from pantheism to monotheism, from the liberal to the ultraconservatives and from (E.B.) "suttee, human sacrifice, devadasis, the worship of blood thirsty village goddesses with the slaughter of animals, the excesses and distortion of the Shakti cult" to the very best of human philosophies. (The same may also be said of modern day Buddhism, Christianity and even Islam but surely the range is not as diverse as that of Hinduism.) 5. The Buddha was not a Hindu in the sense of subscribing to the view that all is governed by a supreme being and that our purpose in life is to seek union with it. As noted in 4, if you widen the definition of Hinduism enough, then anything Indian is Hindu (although the word did not exist at the time of the Buddha). My personal contention is that he is Indian but certainly not Hindu. 6. Buddhism, especially since its passage through the rest of Asia, is very different from Hinduism. 7. We can still live happily ever after despite (in fact BECAUSE) of our differences. Does all this make sense to anyone else ? W.F. Wong. In article <1992Mar14.170708.1751@iitmax.iit.edu> wong@rkna50.riken.go.jp (Wong, Weng Fai) writes: > > You are right in that it changes nothing. But my original intention was to >register a resentment - one which I see arose because of people are interpreting >things to their own advantage without admitting it. The attitude of "your god >is but a (implicitly lesser) reincarnation of mine but you are foolish in not >admitting and worshipping the true one, i.e. MINE" is, to me, a clear violation >of the dignity of others. And here, I am not just speaking for Buddhism. Do you think that the Buddhist record in this matter is any better? Hindu gods appear in the Pali Nikayas seeking the Buddha's guidance. In fact converting local deities into Dharma guardians was a standard technique used by Buddhists in coopting other religions. The (Sinhala) Mahavamsa has the Buddha instructing Vishnu to guard over the island of Lanka. Lanka is of course, in Sinhala myth, the Dhamma Dipa - chosen by the Buddha himself as the home of the "pure" doctrine. Tibet is another classic case to the point. Legend has Padmasambhava subduing the deities of Tibet, converting them to Buddhism and then appointing them as Dharma protectors. Maybe the Bon people should start a holy war against the Tibetan Buddhists, eh? For a Vaishnavaite Hindu, an avatar of Vishnu is not "inferior" to anybody - so what do your implicit assumptions tell us about Buddhist conditioning :-)? > Back to Mr. Mokate's arguments ... > >>As much as my knowledge goes, Buddha indeed was a Hindu same as Christ indeed >>was a Jew. > > According to what I know, Hindus also claim that Christ is but a Hindu god - >the Christians just got it wrong. Am I correct ? I do not really think that you are. I am aware of some beliefs that have Jesus visiting Kashmir during the "missing years", but none that have him as a "Hindu" god. So, please do cool off the sarcasm. [deleted] >>Ramaayan and Mahaa-bharat are considered as Puraan. It is not the place ... > > This is where your "holier-than-thou" attitude shows - "commoners" (and I >presume you mean those not of the Brahmin caste) are too stupid to >understand the Upanishads. *Why* do you presume that? Incidentally, there is a great deal of (modern) Buddhist myth-making around the "caste" issue. [Caste is a much misused term. We are really talking about varnas and not jati, but I do not wish to get into that debate]. Buddhist "egalitarianism" is highly questionable. For example, there is stuff about the undesirability of rebirth in the "nichakulani" (low clans) of chandalas (progeny of brahmin-sudra marriages), nesadas (hunters), venas (bamboo-workers), rathakaras (chariot-makers), and pukkusas (refuse-sweepers) in M iii 169 [1] and A i 107 [2]. Also in the Ambattha Sutta of D i93f [3] there is evidence that the Buddhists upheld the view of the kshatriyas which was *more* conservative than that of the brahmins in matters relating to maintaing the purity of Aryan blood. > Sheesh ... Have you been to a Hindu temple lately ? >Do you think the brahmins and followers there know the Mahabharata better or >the Upanisads better ? Too much adrenaline again, Mr Wong :-)? [deleted] >>Buddhism first of all spread in India because hindus believed him to be a Hindu >>and followed him. > > Please produce the evidences ... Well, the Buddhists consciously presented themselves as being the "real" brahmins. The Sangha was described in the same terms that traveling brahmins used for themselves: "ahunayyo, pahunayyo, dakkhinayya, anjalikaraniyo" (worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of respect). The monks seem to have taken an existing system and converted it to their purpose and the technique used was to sell themselves as being the genuine upholders of tradition. Now the Sangha became "anuttaram punnakhettam lokasa" - the unsurpassed field of merit in the world while previously the priestly brahmins had described themselves just so. Giving to the Sangha became the meritorious thing to do for they were now the folks who hearkened back to the golden age when a man was a brahmin by virute of his conduct: "Truly, Vasettha, (that) brahmins who are versed in the three Vedas but who go about having renounced those states that make one a brahmin, adopting instead the states that make one a non-brahmin - being enslaved, infatuated and addicted to the five strands of sense-pleasures....." D i 245f [3] Apart from the conduct arguements, Buddhists apparently upheld some very conservative views : "..(The Buddhists)..openly criticised what they took to be a band of indigenous opportunists, but in this they were motivated by no egalitarian ethic on behalf of the despised clans. Indeed it was rather the other way around for the evidence of the Nikayas suggests that it was the altogether more conservative cause of the kshatriyans that they favoured. The kshatriyans were so intent on preserving the purity of Aryan blood that they took to incest whereas the brahmins would go with any varna or indeed any woman of the despised clans (A iii 228), accepting, unlike the ksatriyans, any offspring. It was no doubt for this reason that they considered the brahmin low-born, to the extent that Pasenadi, king of Kosala, would not allow the brahmin Pokkharasadi to enter his presence....(D i 103)"... "They (Buddhists) also saw in the brahmin of their day a degeneration of the former ideals of Vedic society which they cherished and it was these that the Buddhists claimed they were preserving". (About seeking material support)..."All they were doing was adopting, and adapting, an already well-established insti- tution in which brahmin families - for it is almost totally amongst brahmin families that the texts suggest the Buddhists sought their sustenance as indeed it was nearly always brahmins to whom the Dhammacakkhu was given - believed themselves to be acquiring merit". The above are some samples from a whole chapter on these ideas in [0]. > 5. The Buddha was not a Hindu in the sense of subscribing to the view > that all is governed by a supreme being and that our purpose in life is > to seek union with it. As noted in 4, if you widen the definition of > Hinduism enough, then anything Indian is Hindu (although the word did > not exist at the time of the Buddha). My personal contention is that he > is Indian but certainly not Hindu. Ah, but Hindus are not required to agree with you and the Nepalese may quibble about the "Indian" part. > 6. Buddhism, especially since its passage through the rest of Asia, is > very different from Hinduism. Buddhists can insist that they are not Hindus if they wish, but *Hindus* can be Buddhists and remain Hindu if they like. The rest of Asia is not India - so that makes no difference. I don't wish to create the impression that there are no limits *in practice* to what Hindus will accept. For a sample point of one - I present my own case. I was raised a Hindu; now for all intents and purposes, I have embraced Buddhist practice. I have yet to meet a Hindu (not excluding my family) who is bothered in the slightest by this or who thinks that my "Hindu" credentials have thereby been damaged. If I had chosen Islam or Christianity, reactions would probably have been different. People may make whatever they wish of that. Regards, Sridhar ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Disclaimer: I am no scholar and all my quotes are from a secondary source [0]. [0] "Divine Revelation in Pali Buddhism", Peter Masefield, 1986. [1] Majjhima Nikaya, ed. V. Trenckner and R. Chalmers, 3 vols, London, 1888-1889. [2] Anguttara Nikaya, ed. R. Morris and E. Hardy, 5 vols, London, 1885-1900. [3] Digha Nikaya, ed. T.W. Rhys David and J. Estlin Carpenter, 3 vols, London, 1890-1911. In article <1992Mar15.045338.8660@iitmax.iit.edu> dogen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (John Chq) writes: >I think we are talking on two different levels. From a historical >viewpoint I don't deny that Buddha was a "Hindu"; it was his society, >culture, etc., and I am fully aware that he was not the only one to >challenge the authority of the Brahmins and ritual efficacy. And no, >Buddha was not a "Buddhist". However, he did chalenge the authority of the >tradition as a whole, therefore he did renounce those characteristics that >'define' Hinduism. I have quite carefully confined my comments to the social side of things (atleast so far :-)), largely because I do not have the competence to engage in a textual (doctrinal) debate. I can pull out some quotes from various sources, but chances are that I will not be able to explain context. Let me request *you* to read the Masefield book (gee, I keep coming back to it) "Divine Revelation in Pali Buddhism" - ISBN 0-04-294132-6. Please look at all the quotes that he provides from the Upanishads and the Nikayas in arguing his case on the similarities (and differences) between Vedic religion and Buddhism, and how the Buddhists may have consciously adopted terminology (even for nibbana, for example) in order to place themselves within the tradition and not outside it. If you have contrary ideas, I'd be happy to hear them - I don't have fixed views on the matter. Also, in terms of insight, I don't feel any particular need demonstrate that "all is one". The Buddha may well have broken radical new ground (or, no ground :-)). Actually, it is my opinion that he did, though I am in no position to validate that opinion. >However, you imply that we cannot discuss fundamental doctrines of Buddhism >etc., because either we are not 'enlightened' or that the Dharma is >ineffable. While I agree that the experience is not to be captured in >words, in various Buddhists texts there are extensive philosophical >arguementations regarding the status of various Buddhist and non-Buddhist >viewpoints. And from this we can at least come to some understanding of the >danger of clinging to concepts such as "Atman" and Brahman". All in all my >perspective is "Buddhist" in a philosophical sense, therefore I see the >importance of not adorning any naive syncretic standpoint. Here is where I have some comments based on my admittedly limited observation and practice. What I do see is Buddhists (in practice) falling into the same trap as others. Asserting that "there is no atman" is no different from asserting that there is. "Life is suffering" (another favourite one) is just another dogma. Our attachment to views is very subtle and just why should we believe the Madhyamists when they claim that their no-view is not a view? Some others similarly claim to negate everything (neti, neti) and refrain from asserting anything positive about brahman. In order to live at all, we have to use concepts. They are pretty useful and surely if it is possible for the Madhyamists to use them without attaching to them, it is also possible for others. I doubt that attaching to the concept of brahman is any more harmful than attaching to anatman or shunyata or nirvana. I am aware that Buddhists warn against that, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We can only hazard some vague guesses based on external signs whether such and such a being is free from all attachments and such "free" people (insofar as we are able to judge) do not seem to be exclusively Buddhist. And, in terms of practice, many others have also stressed the value of mindfulness - native Hawaiians are an example. >For me its not a matter of approving or disapproving of any type of praxis. >Again, you come from a sociological standpoint, which pretends to be >non-impirialistic in its recognition of lay praxis and its criticism of >traditional (i.e., modern western views) of what Buddhism, or any other >religion, is. I only want to ask you this: 1) do you hold the view that >one can have a "pure" interpretation, or is interpretation theory laden? 2) >And if it is 'theory laden' whose theory do you adhere to? Well, *my* interpretation is quite theory laden, but then I am not "englightened". Nor do I feel that it is impossible not to conceptualize (three negatives !). My theory seems to keep changing, but the overall structure is mainstream modern western Theravadan (though it wouldn't seem so, from the way I have been going on, would it :-)). I don't really have an anti-intellectual stance - I think that right understanding is crucial and it has to begin somewhere. >But I do think it muddleheaded to gloss over Buddhist doctrine/philosophy >and claim that since all things are Brahman therefore the Buddhists are >speaking of the same thing. *Why* do the Buddhists speak at all - if they really believed what they say? Mahakaruna is an answer that I'll accept, though the polemicists seem dubious candidates for that (another view of mine). >>Ah, but how were the Buddha and Christ received in their >>respective societies, and how were they perceived by *others*? > >Again, you place importance upon the social setting of a particular >Religious Leader (I do not like this label). Yes from an historical/social >viewpoint this question is important. But as you said earlier, history is >a matter of perspective. I would broaden this and claim one's approach to >the subject matter is a matter of perspective. Did you ever ask what is >the view of history from a Buddhist theoretical standpoint? You see, in >the attempts to counteract "Orientalism" some scholars turned to the social >praxis (historical and contemporary) to study religions etc. But my >question is, what theoreticla assumptions are you making, and given that >Buddhist 'theory' does deal with many issues pertinent to contemporary >discussions on method, how can YOU avoid being imperialistic in your >approach? E.g., what do you mean by *others*? And what does Nagarjuna say >about this? We must consider that which many deem a horror, the >"hermenuetical circle". I have no idea what the theoretical Buddhist view is on how to approach history - I wasn't aware that there was one (particularly with regard to social history). I'd be quite willing to listen though, if you care to take the time to explain it. By *others* I meant their contemporaries, not present-day Buddhists or Hindus (or present-day Christians and Jews). My not-so-subtle point was that Jesus' ministry lasted 3 years, while the Buddha received - for most part- a courteous hearing for 45 years. That *may* provide some hints on how they were perceived by others and why the original analogy between the Buddha and Christ is flawed. I also believe that the Buddha could not have been harmed anyway, but that is my view as a Buddhist. I mean no disrespect to Christians, I am aware of the symbology surrounding the crucifixion. I can well see that I cannot avoid being imperialistic in my approach. My "defense" is that I am reacting to what I see as altogether too much Buddhist smugness in social and also doctrinal matters. I also think that there is a real danger that meditation can be used to bolster a certain kind of intellectual pride. Claims to exclusive insight are troubling, as are claims to being the only people to teach how it really is. I don't think that means we must not be discriminating - I am all in favour of keeping Manjushri's sword handy- but the Buddha described this sense of having the "correct" practice as a defilement. I don't claim to be immune to this - I think that is a danger that most religious people face. Lest this be misunderstood, I must repeat that I am not arguing in favour of eclecticism. The fact is, in my (very limited) experience, Buddhists are no freer than anybody else and genuinely wise and compassionate folk of deep religiosity are found in many traditions. Peace, Sridhar I had said in my earlier posting that "some Buddhist kings destroyed Hindu scriptures". ........ . My knowledge about ancient Indian history is based on what I've read in the schools. We used to follow NCERT (govt of India publications) text books. Also refer history of ancient India by RC Majumdar. This is a popular text book, specially those who are preparing for the Indian admin. service exams. . Banerjee The articles at Microsoft appear almost 10 days late than rest of the world. Since I am still a student at Penn State, I can read the articles by logging at PSU but since there are problems with telnet, I can not edit any files which is necessary to reply to articles. I can save the articles and mail them to myself at Microsoft and then reply but I prefer to wait until the article appears at Microsoft. But this time I thought to reply earlier... I missed the reply of Weng Fai Wong to my articles so I can not reply to all his/her points. I got some points from Shridhar Pendali's reply to his/her article and I am replying to them. Before we continue, I would like to point out my feelings on this topic. Weng Fai Wong seems to be very offended by my comments on the articles on Buddhism and he/she seems to have taken it as a moral duty to defend Buddhism from such attack. First of all I do not feel that I wrote any thing offensive about Buddhism. I do not think that my stand 1. that Buddha was not the first person to preach certain ideas 2. that Hindus consider Buddha as an incarnation of God 3. that Buddha reformed Hindu religion at his time is offensive. If he/she feels that I am trying to prove Buddha or Buddhism inferior and if one can prove that it was really my intention then I will happily apologize else I will appreciate he/she takes back the accusation "this is case that my god is superior than yours etc. mentality". In article <1992Mar14.170708.1751@iitmax.iit.edu> wong@rkna50.riken.go.jp (Wong, Weng Fai) writes: > > You are right in that it changes nothing. But my original intention was to >register a resentment - one which I see arose because of people are interpreting >things to their own advantage without admitting it. The attitude of "your god >is but a (implicitly lesser) reincarnation of mine but you are foolish in not >admitting and worshipping the true one, i.e. MINE" is, to me, a clear violation >of the dignity of others. And here, I am not just speaking for Buddhism. I believe that this group is for open discussion on eastern religions, so I can freely express about view of Hindus on Buddha and his teachings. If one feels that he/she does not agree with me, then they are welcome to express their view about it rather than critisizing Hinduism. In the zeal to prove that Buddhism is different than Hinduism, Weng Fai Wong wrongly states that Mahabharat and Gita are Hindu scriptures and are low in morality. I do not see how this is going to help prove difference between Hinduism and Buddhism. Also, practises in Hindu society which are not in accordance with Hindu scriptures are cited to prove the point. I think this is not a way to prove difference between Hindusim and Buddhism. One can also critisize Buddhism and its followers that way, but I will not approve of it either. > Sheesh ... Have you been to a Hindu temple lately ? >Do you think the brahmins and followers there know the Mahabharata better or >the Upanisads better ? What is our discussion on? Is it on practises in present day Hindu society? Nonetheless, I had replied to these articles refuting only that information which I felt to be wrong according to my understanding. The sole intention is to discuss and learn about things rather than slander other views/religion. With that intention I do welcome anyone to disguss and argue, not with the intention to prove the so called scriptures of Hinduism to be low in morality and ethics. Because with argument one can defeat someone in debate- not convince at heart about the correctness of one's viewpoint. [deleted] >>Ramaayan and Mahaa-bharat are considered as Puraan. It is not the place ... > > This is where your "holier-than-thou" attitude shows - "commoners" (and I >presume you mean those not of the Brahmin caste) are too stupid to >understand the Upanishads. This is a very nice example of contorting my point. If you read my reply, it is clear that I was refuting your point that Mahabharat is considered as Hindu scriptures. I was telling that it is not considered as scriptures as you were saying but considered as Puraan. All hindu scholars on Hindu scriptures and mythology maintain the opinion that Puraans are where concepts of Vedas are explained to "commom people" who 1. do not want to go through the pain of interpreting ideas of Vedas to apply to their day-to-day activities or 2. who are followers of path of devotion and do not care for path of knowledge or 3. who simply do not understand the abstract philosophy of Upanishads or 4. Who do not know the language thoroghly to understand themselves (please note that the language of Vedas though Sanskrit is much harder to understand/interprete than language of Puraans). So it is not *me* who is saying that they are for "common" people, I just stated the fact about the position of Hindus on this matter. Please do not misrepresent my point. [deleted] > 5. The Buddha was not a Hindu in the sense of subscribing to the view > that all is governed by a supreme being and that our purpose in life is > to seek union with it. As noted in 4, if you widen the definition of > Hinduism enough, then anything Indian is Hindu (although the word did > not exist at the time of the Buddha). My personal contention is that he > is Indian but certainly not Hindu. > > 6. Buddhism, especially since its passage through the rest of Asia, is > very different from Hinduism. Yes, to say this you need not talk about "non-palpitable morals of Mahabharat or Gita" or practises in Hindu society. I would appreciate if you stick to showing exact differences between the two religions rather than passing your judgement on morality and ethics. Conclusion: 1. I feel that we are digressing from our main point of discussion, at least I do not see any relavance of your objections about Gita and practises in temple to our discussion about Philosophical differences between Buddhism and Hinduism. 2. You are entitled to whatever you want to believe and express. I am just questioning relevancy of some of your points to the current topic. 3. I am not a Hindu scholar nor a custodian of Hindu religion. I am a "common" Hindu and I am a student of Hindu Philosophy. So it is very much possible that I do not have correct idea about many things if not all. I can explain you some of your objections on Gita etc. based on my understanding provided you really want to know about it. I am sure that there are other knowlegable people on this topic and they will also contribute to it. We are not in hurry, we will do it once we are done with this topic. There is no need to mix up different topics. Umesh... In article <1992Mar18.230310.26266@cco.caltech.edu> t-umeshm@microsoft.com (Umesh Mokate) writes: >In article <1992Mar6.233653.11404@iitmax.iit.edu> raj@globe1.att.com (Rajendra P Sharma) writes: >> > >[deleted] > >>>>In fact, Buddhism goes a step further and assert[s] that there >>>>is no such thing as Atman (and therefore, Brahma, Vishnu, Siva and Krishna >>>>which are projections of the Atman). >>> >>> Did Buddha ever say that "There is no ATMAN?" >> >>>Yes. You can quibble about the meaning of the word "atman" in Buddha's >>>statements, but he did say this, in so many words (allowing of course >>>for translation). >> >>What Buddha really said, we can't know. So let's leave this >>here. Again, different people will have different opinions. That's >>ok. > >No, that seems to be key difference Buddhists on the net are putting forward >for their argument against Hinduism. If we do not have any way to know what >Buddha said then why did we get into this disccusion in the first place? >(please note that this discussion started on my comments on the original >posting "Buddhism in Nutshell".) I don't think you can say that the "Buddhists" on the net are arguing against Hinduism. Much of the discussion revolves around the Hindu claim that Buddha somehow taught the Atman/Brahman doctrine. >[deleted] > >> >>> And did he not say: Please STRIVE to get rid of suffering. >>> FIRST things FIRST. So, do not bother enquiring about GOD, ATMAN, etc? >> >>Again, as above. No use trying to present facts or quotes to each >>other. So let's leave it here. >> > >Then why did some of the Buddhists on the net started this discussion as if >I was attacking Buddhism? Then what was the point when Buddhists on the net >started showing how Buddhism is "high in morality" than Hinduism? >If one can see, I had just expressed popular Hindu view on Buddha to inform >readers of the other side of the story. I was stunned after seeing the negative >reaction on this net! Well, I think that on the whole no one was asserting the "higher morality" of Buddhism over Hinduism. Its just that there is no justification for saying that Hinduism=Buddhism as far as doctrine/philosophy is concerned. My view is that if as a Hindu you consider Buddha as part of the Hindu pantheon of saints, eyc., that's fine, but don't start asserting it as "the way it actually is". >Umesh... > > -- ******************************************************************************* -- John Cha "The present is always more interesting than the future or the past" ******************************************************************************* In article <1992Mar18.225557.25996@cco.caltech.edu> radams@cerritos.edu writes: >In article: <1992Mar17.041524.5691@cco.caltech.edu> >dogen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (John Chq) writes: > > in response to my previous remark which was: >>>Nobody is saying that *Buddhists* are speaking the same thing because even >>>amongst themselves, buddhists are not saying the same thing and many >>>different interpretations and sects have been formed as has happened in >>>all other religions. Just imagine the finger-pointing, red-faced arguing, >>>name calling, and downright hostility that would result in putting a large >>>group of buddhists, christians, and hindus in the same room with one another >>>- especially if the more fundamentalist elements of each were fully >>>represented > >John: >>Methinks you might be getting a little red faced? :) > >No, you are mistaking my enthusiasm for anger (I perhaps mistakenly use a >"*" to emphasize certain words; I probably should use a "_" instead) as >this topic of different religions essentially pointing to the same truth >is one of my favorite subjects as some readers of my previous posts may >have gathered by now :-). But you see, many of the Buddhist traditions deny this! Their point is that false "spiritual experiences" can be had based on a misconception or misunderstanding of doctrine. I am saying that the Buddhists are right, all I am suggesting is that the "ALL ONE" stance is not accepted by most of the major Buddhist traditions. >Me: >>> and now contrast that chaotic scene with imagining the very >>>serene picture IMHO of Christ, Buddha, and Krishna communing silently with >>>one another. The argument is *only* among the followers of these great ones >>>much like the blind men and the elephant story. > >John: >>My point is, seeing that we are embedded in prapanca >>if we are going to discuss the similarity/differences of so-called Truth in >>Buddhism and Hinduism, we should take the advice of the ancient pundits: we >>must discourse on the conventional level. For the actual experience, go >>practice, or study with a guru, etc. > >As long as people want to argue, they must keep the level of discussion >on the conventional level since that is where all the differences are. >However, I am more interested in truth which is not on the conventional >level of discourse where an apple is an apple and an orange is an orange >and one fails to recognize that the life force that is in both and creates >both is the same essentially and the difference is in the vibratory rates >of both. I'm not arguing against the assertion that the same truth is underlying all things. My point is that in the Buddhist tradition (its not momolithic, I know) they do not agree, not just on philosophical grounds, but also on soteriological ones. >>You see there you go talking about essences, as if it is an absolute truth >>that the core of all religions is the same. I cannot verify or refute >>this claim on absolute grounds. But we should notice that when these >>"perenial religionists" talk of "onness" and "unity" it is usually in the >>context of their own chosen "doctrine". > >I think we have all "chosen" something even if its to not believe in anything. >The viewpoint that I am expressing about the truth being in all religions >(essentially) is one that I feel I always have had, long before finding >the path I follow now. The core of all religions is the same only if you >take truth and truth alone as being the core. If you say that the core >of your religion is the part that denies other religions or some idea or >doctrine of other religions, then they would obviously not be the same. >It all depends on your perspective prior to engaging in comparison of the >various religions. So we are all then making points based on our perspectives >which causes our conclusions to be different. My perspective: first and last >there is Truth and all the religions are different ways of explaining the >same Truth and different ways of realizing It. You know the story of the >blind men and the elephant, and you admit to having blindness still, as >I do, and yet you continue to maintain that the elephant is like a giant >column whereas even though I'm blind and cannot see the whole elephant >either, I feel intuitively that the master who is trying to break up the >fighting of the blind men by telling them that they are all partially right >but also partially wrong, is _correct_ but I won't be satisfied until I am >no longer blind :-) :-). Are you implying that you truly see? Or is the view of "All is same" just a projection of prejudices previously held? > > Roger Adams > radams@cerritos.edu To those in whom love dwells, > Cerritos College the whole world is one family. > 11110 Alondra Blvd A Hindu Proverb > Norwalk, California 90650 > USA 292 Dwapara :-) >------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- ******************************************************************************* -- John Cha "The present is always more interesting than the future or the past" ******************************************************************************* Part-1: For analysing the practice of idol worship in Hinduism, let us first look at the highest levels of the Hindu tenets. At the highest levels of the Hindu philosophy, organised religion takes second precedence. Adi-Shankara, in his study of the Brahma-sutras defined the supreme being as being absolute and one without any qualities. Shankara propounded the theory of monism. Some of the later scholars like Madhvachaarya were proponents of Dualism. His concept was that, God or the supreme Brahman was different from all the other things in the universe. Whereas, Shankara says that the chief way to attain God is GYANA MAARGA or the way of knowledge, some of the later Achaaryas lay emphasis on the BHAKTI MAARGA, ie., God can be attained by sheer devotion. Indeed, this was the path followed by great saints like Mira-bhai, Tukaram, Gyaneshwara, Eknath etc etc. At this point one may ask; 'is there a conflict between the two ways'. My answer is NO, because, true Gyana leads to the conclusion of the existance of the Supreme paramaatman and this in turn makes the Gyani devoted. What has idol worship got to do with this. IMO, idol worship is a the extrapolation of the BHAKTI maarga. The Bhakti Maarga, as I said earlier, emphasizes the need for sincere devotion. Even a fool, with no knowledge can attain God with sincere devotion. Idol worship or the Bhakti maarga assumes the existance of the Parammatman without apriori questioning. Indeed, some of the Bhakti-vedaantists call this maarga to be superior to the Gyaana maarga.Idol worship further assumes the God to be embodied in the idol, which is not a wrong concept, assuming God is omniscient. Is the practise of idol worship concdemnable.... Other religions have pointed out the idol-worship practises of the Hindu faith as one of its major weakness. IMO, this is not a weakness. Let us examine Islam and Christianity. Both these faiths ask for unquestioning acceptance of God and His word as embodied in the Koran or the Bible and to be sincerely devoted to him. I see nothing different from the Bhakti-Maarga philosophy of Hinduism. Indeed, one can conclude that Islam and Christianity follow the Bhakti maarga. The concept of gyana is unique to Hinduism. Coming back to the original point, idol worship is just an extrapolation of the Bhakti maarga. It asks for sincere devotion to God as embodied in the idol. Is idol worship neccessary.and is it justified..... Our Rishis were wise to define a gradation in the level of the thought process. Beginning at the highest levels of the Supreme paramatman, which appeals to the learned and to the intellectuals, they also devised the bhakti maarga and its extrpolation, the idol worship to appeal to the common man. They knew that the abstract concept of Brahman would not appeal to the peasant on the field. But they also gave the individual freedom to expand his horizons. It was upto the individual to enquire and slowly get away from the practise of just confining God to the idols to the concept of the supreme Atman. But however, they did NOT PUT DOWN THE PRACTISE OF IDOL WORSHIP. The puraanas talk about the strength of the Bhakti maarga through the story of Rishi Bharadwaaja. I will post this story in a later article. Hinduism is not a single concept, but gives the individual full freedom to grow and question. But let this questioning be NOT IN THE DEROGATORY SENSE FILLED WITH PUERILE ARROGANCE. The Hindu way of thinking is one of the most systematic way of POSITIVE questioning about and the FINAL ACCEPTANCE of the Paramaatman. Part-2: In my earlier article I had posted that some of later Achaaryas in the post-adi-shankara period, emphazised the Bhakti-Maarga(path of devotion) over the jnaana maarga (path of knowledge). Shankara in his trestise of the Brahma-sutra had expounded on the strength of knowledge, though later in his career, he started expousing the strength of bhakti. At this point, one may ask whether the post-Shankara Achaaryas down played the value of knowledge. My answer is no, as the post-shankara-achaaryas were fully aware of the strength of knowledge but were wary of the individual who follows the Jnana maarga to go astray and lead himself into false knowledge or ignorance and go to the wrong conclusions, which may make the individual foolish and arrogant. Therefore they opted fro the low-risk-total-commitment and sincere beleif path of the bhakti maarga. sivaram --------------------------------------------------------------- Life is complex, make it simple. From: mani@crissy.stanford.edu (Mani Varadarajan) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: God? Date: 3 Feb 1994 17:39:17 -0800 In article <2ipn48$4lr@gap.cco.caltech.edu> verma@pfeast.enet.dec.com (Virendra Verma) writes: > In article <2inifj$3cg@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, "Amir B." > writes... > > > I have been left with the impression that Hinduism reveres a creator God > >but am still far from clear on the subject. > > God of Hinduism is passive entity as opposed to active or creator > of things. While this may be true of some minor subsects of Hinduism, most Hindu theologians, including many following the Vedanta, teach of an active God. The following passages from the principal Upanishads should suffice as evidence. "He resolved to become manifold in name and form." -- Chhandogya Upanishad This passage is usually cited to indicate God's willingness to emanicipate the souls (jivas) caught in samsara. "The Self cannot be attained by merely hearing, thinking, or talking about it. Only he who is chosen by the Self attains the Self." -- Mundaka Upanishad (among several) Many Vedantins cite this as an example of necessity of God's active grace in achieving emancipation. In addition to other examples in these Upanishads, the Svetasvatara Upanishad and the Bhagavad-gita, two other fundamental texts for most Hindus, postulate an adorable, gracious, active God who is constantly acting on behalf of those who love him. Chapter 11 of the Bhagavad-gita is especially filled with teachings of this sort. However, it must be said that "creation" in the Hindu mentality is not "ex nihilo" (out of nothing) like it is for the semitic religions. Rather, everything is an attribute or part of God, and he fashions and molds things as he wishes. Hence, he gives things "name and form", just as the Upanishad states above. The fundamental theological text of Vedanta, the Brahma-sutras ("aphorisms on the nature of Brahman"), teach that God is pan-en-theistic; the universe is created out of him, but he is not the universe. It is only a (small) part of him and he ensouls it in its entireity, as indicated in the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad (Antaryami Brahmana). > In nutshell, God is not required to explain the existence of > universe. For the sake of explanation, the existence contains > two primal entities called - Purusha (Spirit) and Prakrti (Nature). > Purusha is passive and serves as a background or a witness. The doctrine of the passive Purusha was vigorously controverted by the Vedantins, and it essentially lost any hold it among the religious intellectuals of India long ago. Rather, a variation on this theological position, that of an active Purusha, gained hold, as is evidenced by studying the teachings of medieval theologians. One final note on the "activity" of God: nearly 100% of the vernacular religious literature of India speak of an active, lovable God, and in their devotional fervor are perhaps unparalleled. Peace, Mani From: dbsbanka@solomon.technet.sg (Star Gazer ***) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Forgive Yourself: The Fremont Lecture (1/4) Date: 14 May 1994 01:16:23 GMT Forgive Yourself ================ A lecture by the Supreme Master Ching Hai at Fremont Hindu Temple, CA, USA, on November 25, 1993. (Originally in English) The Spiritual Food ------------------ Thank you that we have the opportunity to see each other and also to have a devotional day to God, in whatever form and name we may call this Supreme God Head. I have to thank you and all of the people who have made the effort to push me here, because otherwise I wouldn't do anything. (Master laughs.) So every time I have a chance to give a lecture or to be in a gathering, I will be again thankful and thankful, cause then I feel that I am doing something right. If nobody demands or requests or pushes me into this kind of work, then I won't do anything. Yes. And I also don't feel anything about it. I mean I don't feel regret or I don't feel remorseful that I don't do the job. I don't know why such a beautiful job I never desire to do. I don't know why. But every time I do it, I feel it's good, you know? It's good that I should do it, but then I never desire to do it again. Then somebody push me out to give a lecture, then I am grateful again that I will do it. Do you know what that is? Must be laziness, I think. (Laughter) I really don't understand myself. People just say that, "When you are enlightened; you are Master, you are supposedly to know yourself." But I must confess that I don't know! (Master laughs.) I don't know. I can just equally be happy stay home and sleep. (Master laughs.) So I really don't know. But when I am here, I am very happy and grateful that I am here. When I am in bed and sleep, I am happy and grateful that I sleep. But I truly am grateful that you have pushed me to come here and you know, I feel just good, very good, that probably I become a little bit useful. Also a temple is useful, that we can gather together and have a nice devotional day to the Supreme God. Or do you just came for lunch? (Laughter) No? I didn't make a mistake, no? You came for God, right? (Yes) Okay, good, then you are entitled to lunch later. (Laughter) Surely if we don't have spiritual food, it doesn't matter what we eat; it will never satisfy us, mentally and physically. Therefore, we keep getting hungrier and hungrier, again and again, and even we eat a lot of nice food and vitamin we still get sick and sometimes distressed and indigestion. In the Bhagvad Gita, it is mentioned that the food which was prepared for offering to God first and then we eat it, should be very nutritious and full of blessing for us. If, however, we prepare the food just for personal satisfaction then we truly make mistake. And that will give us a lot of dissatisfaction, and sometimes trouble, indigestion and all that. Actually, in the Bhagvad Gita it says stronger than this, very strongly, like: "You eat in sin if you don't offer first to God." So it's not me who spoke like that; it's Krishna (Master laughs.) The Heartbreaker ---------------- Now, everything is the same; it's not only food. All of you know the Bhagvad Gita or not? That is the book of wisdom of ancient India. It is about five thousand years old. Yes, it was spoken by the Supreme Master of that time, Krishna, the beloved black beauty. (Master laughs.) His complexion was dark, you know, like many Indian people, but he was so beautiful and handsome that people call him "heartbreaker". It's also because he breaks everybody's heart when he leaves. (Master laughs.) And wherever he goes, people love him, adore him and make offering to him, just following him madly. I hear that he had about seventy thousand wives, no, sixteen thousand wives. Well, the Indian people, sometimes they exaggerate things, (Master laughs.) but he must have a lot of followers. It's not really wives, you know, disciples. Probably mostly were women, because probably he was very handsome, I hear! I wasn't there. Maybe I was there but I forgot. (Master laughs.) So the Bhagvad Gita is the record of the teachings of the Master, Krishna. You can find much wisdom and guidance in this book. I still look at it from time to time. I still do, yes, because it is very beautiful, concentrate and wise. Sometimes you get solace and calmness by reading that book. If you truly understand and digest it, it is a wonderful masterpiece of wisdom. Many of the masters of the past have connection with the Indian law, therefore we could not not to mention India and the Bhagvad Gita. Even Milarepa, do you know? The great yogi of Tibet. Even that great yogi of Tibet, his possession consisted of a pot and the Bhagvad Gita. Now, in that book it is mentioned that not only the food that we should first prepare in the spirit of offering to God before we take it, but also everything else we do in life must be an offering, must be a sacrifice, to the Supreme Spirit. In that case we will never reap any bad or any good result out of that, because bad result or good result bind us to this material world. Even if sometimes we cannot help ourselves, we lose our temper; we get angry, and we know we shouldn't. And then sometimes we feel very very sorry for a long time, after our anger has already subsided. Forgive Yourself ---------------- But, I tell you, forgive yourself. Forgive yourself anytime. Whatever you do, just make offering to God and let it be, whatever the outcome, because we are not the body anyhow. We are not the action. We are not the doers of anything in this world. Even if we are; suppose we are the doers, we still have to forgive ourselves. Forgive ourselves when we make mistakes or when we cannot help with our habits, like anger or sometimes greed and sometimes lustful thoughts, because these things also arise from circumstances. It's not truly the Self; it's not truly the soul that desires all these things. So we always have to try again and again, and forgive ourselves after all, I mean, above all. Because the inside is God, the Supreme Wisdom, we can't scold it; we can't abuse it; we can't be rude to it. You understand what I mean? So if we are angry with ourselves, we should be angry only with our habits, our accumulated habits. Or we should blame the situation also, not to blame the Supreme Wisdom, the real Self because the real Self never err, never make any mistakes. Suppose we are even the doers and we are in society like this, sometimes we get angry. It's not always our fault. Most of the time it is not. Sometimes everything can make us angry. For example, you work in a company and you work with the wrong personal, right? Whatever you tell him, he just doesn't understand. Or he understands but he does the other way around. He just makes you angry and angry. Even you forgive him again and again, he repeatedly does that. A very small thing, even a small thing irritates our minds and makes us feel miserable. So it is good that we know that there is something else above the mind and above the body. The body is composed of only material substances, like earth, water, iron. Well, our iron inside is much enough to make a few nails. Do you know? (Master laughs.) And water, earth and maybe fire, the vital fire so that the body would be warm and all that. Meditation Is A Way To Reprogram Our Thinking --------------------------------------------- The mind is consisted of what? It's just a collection of all kinds of information, bad and good. It is just like a computer, whatever you program it, and when you push the button, it comes out the same, right? One of our fellow practitioners, he has an electric organ, and he programs it into different musical rhymes, and he can play it again from the cassette. So the same thing with our brain. It would be empty; it would be absolutely blank, just like a brand new computer, until we start to record things and information, and sometimes good, sometimes bad. If we happened to record the good information and when we want to make use of it, then the good information come out. If we happened to record the bad information, then of course the bad information comes out. So now, to meditate, to pray to God or to study the holy scriptures is just a way to reprogram our thinking, our way of life. Because we reprogram it in a good way, the result that comes out is always good, or at least not as bad as before, or at least not all bad. Even though we can't help to record some more bad information daily, the number will be less than before, right? It's because we keep recording good things, like we meditate; we meditate on God name, we meditate on God power and we get the God power coming through us, filling us with joy, virtues and goodness. Then even the bad information comes in, it has no room, and also maybe minimized. And because of the goodness and the powerful energy from God, through meditation each day, we will be able to dilute or maybe digest completely any information that is harmful to our minds and our souls. That's why we cannot not to meditate! We cannot not to study the holy scriptures. Understanding The Holy Scriptures After Enlightenment ----------------------------------------------------- Many people don't like to study holy scriptures, why? Because they don't understand. So I hear that many of the holy men from churches, or from temples, they complain that the young people or the people of today do not like to study scriptures; do not like to study holy book. It is because most of the holy scriptures are too profound, too sophisticated, too deep, sometimes too difficult for the modern man, for the layman to understand. But we have one solution, first, we have to open the understanding power, then we can understand the Bible or the scriptures. Anything you get into your hands, any book, you will be able to understand. I also could not understand much of what is said in the Bible or in the Bhagvad Gita or in the Buddhist scriptures or in the Lao Tze books and all that. Kon Tze and Lao Tze book I read. I understood somehow but not as profound, not as deep, as I do now. After our power of understanding is open, the wisdom is made to be useful again, then we can understand many things. So if we do not understand the scriptures, and the best thing is first to get enlightenment. Enlighten means you open the power of understanding, and then the heavenly light, Godly light, will shed all understanding upon any object that we wish to study. So that's why even now in college, people teach the students many kinds of meditations, at least to calm their turbulent minds. And if they have a better meditation, the good kind of meditation, which can even open the seat, the door of wisdom, the power of understanding, then so much better for them. Therefore many of the students who study in college but at the same time meditate, they find it easier to master any subject that they want to study. And they are always very good at school. This is a fact that everybody knows by now. The Water In A Cup Is One With The Ocean ---------------------------------------- Why is there reincarnation? It is because we do not know the real Self and we chase after the container of the Self. Therefore we chase after one to another. For example, the water in the sea is all one. If we happened to put it in a cup, or we put a cup into the sea like this and then we seal it, then the water in the cup is separated from the ocean. But as soon as the cup is broken, it become one with the ocean again. And if the water inside the cup is attached to the container and then after it's broken, it goes to seek another cup. Then it will forever be separated with the ocean. Similarly, our real Self is not contained in this body, never! It's because it's all pervading, and this is just one of the station, one of the things, that contain a little bit of ourselves. Therefore, when we broke this limitation, we will be one with the whole. We don't have to break the body to go out, (Master laughs) there is a way to go out. For example, we don't need to break the cup to free the water in the cup; we can just, you know, where it is leaking or there is a hole somewhere, and so even the cup is still there and the water is still inside, but at the same time the water is in and out all the time and connected with the whole ocean. Similarly, our cup here, the body, has a hole, and it is blocked. It's made blocked so as to keep the soul, the water of life inside, but we can open it. Similarly some of the cups, you know, are all made like this (Master takes up a cup.) but there is a hole in the bottom and then they use a plastic cover to cover it, right? Or sometimes medicine bottle also. We just take a little cap, plastic cap or something, and then we can connect with the content inside. So there is a place where we can be connected with the whole Universe while still keeping this instrument, the body. That is the third eye center, the seat of wisdom, the seat of the soul. If it is opened, by any mean at all, by our own perseverance, power of desire for liberation or through a master, then we will be connected right away with the whole Universe, with the Most High, which is all over the places. The power of the Most High is not only contained in this body but it's in the air right now. It's everywhere. It's in every blade of grass and the leaves of the trees, in all Creation. It is easier to open it if we have an experienced guide, you know, who has already been connected with the whole Universal Power. Then he is very powerful because he doesn't use individual power anymore. He uses the whole Universal Power, because he is already connected. Just like the water in the cup, even though it's still in the cup but it's always connected with the ocean water through the hole; and there is always fresh water coming in and out, even though it is still contained in the cup. Therefore a master, or an enlightened person, is like that. The initiated person is the one who has this connection, has the button open, and the master is the one who realizes the Universal Power. Be The Master Of Your Own Destiny --------------------------------- Even though we all have it, the master is the one who realizes it. It's just like if two persons have the same amount of money inherited from the father, but the one who knows it, who knows where it is can use it. The other one, even though he has it but he puts it somewhere or he never knows where it is, can he use it? He cannot! Similarly, we are all the same, but if we know where to use our Universal Power, then we will become masters of ourselves, masters of our destinies, and we can lead many others to become masters of their own destinies as well. Otherwise, even though we are equally great, we don't know our greatness and that's a waste of time. Therefore, we have to come back again, again and again in search for this treasure, until we find it, then our journey ends. Very simple! We are here to search for this forgotten treasure and we never give up until we find it. That's why our lives are never satisfactory because we always know there is something else, something greater than what we have right now. We always somehow know that we are not this container, the flesh, because after we so-called die, the body is still there but we cannot move; we cannot do anything; we cannot love any person; we cannot open our mouths; we cannot do anything at all! That means we are not the body. Something in the body is there to make the body move and work while we are living. Something in the body left when we die, so we cannot move any of our bodily instruments. So somehow we know; very deep in our hearts we know. Well, I know! I don't know if you know. (Master laughs.) Do you know? You must know. That's why sometimes when you have time, when you are in trouble especially, you sit down and you don't want to be with anyone; just want to be alone. Then you think, and then you feel better and better, because you thought there is something there, something that sometimes comforts us in silence. I used to be like that before I know the Quan Yin Method. I used to pray a lot. I pray to Buddha and I pray to Jesus. I am afraid that one of them cannot hear. (Master laughs) So I pray to anyone I know. Sometimes I pray to Krishna, Hindu God. (Master laughs) There is no Hindu God; there is only God, actually. Just sometimes God resumes an Indian form or a Chinese form, so we call this Hindu God or Chinese God, actually there is no such thing. So sometimes when I was in deep sorrow, before I know the Quan Yin Method, I prayed very deeply, just to be alone; not to pray very loud, but to truly lament inside. Then I felt like something lifted me up, and I felt so soothing and so smooth and I felt that there was nothing to worry about. That is the time when we realize that something is greater than life; something is always there to listen to us. Most people pray, and they say they don't have any response. It's because they don't pray deeply enough. That is why we have more response when we are in deep sorrow because we are truly sincere at that time. We pierce through all the layers of pretending of hypocrisy and we pierce through our false self and we get in touch, somehow, even briefly, with the true Self. That is when we get the response. But I suggest that we don't have to wait until we are in deep sorrow to do this. That would be too traumatic. Yes. We have a better way to do it. We practice it even when we are not in sorrow; that would be better. The Link Between A True Master And God -------------------------------------- We practice before we die; that would be better. So when we die, it is just like walking from one room to the next. No problem! And we can walk out forever. We can break the whole cup and be united with the whole ocean, or we can keep it; we can seek another cup in order to satisfy someone else's longing or to help someone else. It's like the master, sometimes the master reincarnates again and again, into different bodies, in order to help mankind. Some masters just like to enjoy Heaven, enjoy Nirvana and never want to go back again. Some masters never, never ever incarnated on this Earth, with no intention to do so. Some masters incarnates again and again in order to help the children who are suffering, who have the great treasure but don't know how to use it; therefore, being very poor, poor and miserable. In India people appreciate the masters very much. They worship the master even more than God because of this reason. They say, "Oh, if both the master and God appear right now, I would only worship the master. I don't care about God." (Master laughs.) It's just a kind of adoration and gratefulness to the master. Actually, they worship the master because of God; they worship God because of the master. Without the master, they don't know that true God exists or not. Yes. Without God power, the master is also nothing, understand? We Are Much Greater Than Our Intellectual Understanding ------------------------------------------------------- So we all come from God, whether masters or not masters. The master is the one who knows God, and the non-master is the one who doesn't know God yet, but they still have God; they are still from the same. I told you about the story of the cup, the ocean water in the cup. So at the time of initiation, you know already, the button is pushed open so that we can get in touch, somewhat, to God, at least for some moments. Then we continue to do that everyday, until we completely realize that we are one with God; there is no separation. You see, there are many things that the initiated persons understand and know, but it's difficult to put them into words. Me also. If nobody demands anything from me, I would not even think of God. Do you know what I mean? He is just kind of always standing around or He is just inside me. So I don't even think of Him. I don't talk about Him. I don't miss Him. I don't seek Him anymore. Just for other people's sake I talked about God. I talk about these things. Sometimes it's difficult for me to talk about God. Maybe that's the reason why I don't desire to go for lectures or anything like that, because I am just satisfied wherever I am and whatever I do. The initiated people are mostly like that. Many of them have this satisfaction right away at the time of initiation and continue forever. Some of them have to wait sometime to realize that they have found the treasure. Why is it so? Some people's curtains are thicker than the others, because we are obstructed by intellectual understanding and by many of the knowledge that we have accumulated during our lifetime, and we are proud of it and cling to that. That's why we have forgotten that we are greater than this knowledge, greater than the Ph.D. certificate, greater than the name that we are proud to have, like Dr. so and so, or such and such position. We are greater than this, greater than any king on this Earth. Sometimes we don't even realize that we have this ego and that we are trapped into this ego, the Maya net. We don't even realize it until we practice more and more. And the more we practice, the more we realize that we are obstructed by our own habits, by our own collections of garbage, of a lot of nonsense thinking. The Secret To Attain The Whole World ------------------------------------ Similarly, everyday we are busy with our daily work and we busy with our worldly knowledge and we think we know that much, this much, and then we forgot that we are the great ones. We know more than that. We know above all these things, including these things. Now, the greatest power, the great wisdom, is so big like that, for example, so great, so pervasive, and then we use that great wisdom just to understand a little bit of the worldly knowledge, for example, the medical knowledge or the lawyer knowledge or anything, and then we cling to that. The whole wisdom we use just to pay attention to this corner of the knowledge. Therefore we forgot the whole. Do you understand what I mean? That's it. And we thought that we are very great already, we are this doctor and that Ph.D.. I don't mean to talk about you. I said "we", meaning including myself. Sorry! So now we think we know that much. We are beautiful. We have this and this certificate and that. In fact, we lost the whole 99.9999 percent of our great wisdom just to pay for that much worldly knowledge. In the end we have nothing because this is ephemeral; this knowledge will change. We know many medical definitions or many medicines have been proved outdated and then replaced by another. Or scientific facts have always been changed, removed and replaced by another idea, and then it would be replaced again and again, as mankind progress into a higher consciousness. Therefore, it doesn't matter how much knowledge we gain from this world or from the brain power of research, we will never have the whole thing, just one little point in the Universe. Just like the water in the cup is proud that he is so big and he doesn't know that he is the whole ocean, you know? When he is connected with the whole ocean, he became the ocean. I guess you understood what I say. ===================== Questions And Answers ===================== Masters And Religions Are Crutches ---------------------------------- Q: Master, why Krishnamurti said, "Gurus and religion are crutch?" So he refused to be their crutch for his students. M.Why didn't you ask him? I am not responsible for anybody else's teaching. Everyone has his own independent thinking and philosophy, provided he keeps it for himself. Probably what he meant is that if you are too attached to religious dogma or to any teacher at all, then you will be handicapped. In that sense he is correct. The teacher or the master is not the one on which you lean, but from which you gain experience and wisdom and then you walk yourself, Okay? Most of the time if a teacher is worth his salt he should teach the student this way. Do you know what I mean? But never mind! Even then, if a student of any master should feel that he is not yet able to develop himself, then he can pray to the master, in the initial stage of his spiritual practice. Later when he grows up, he just automatically drops the master. It's just like a person; not everybody can walk straight. I need an umbrella to walk; my legs are weak sometimes. But when my legs are okay, I don't need it. Yeah? Somebody, sometimes they are naturally born handicapped or accidentally handicapped, and then they need the crutch. It's okay with him. Can you just kick him out? And say, "You don't need the crutch. It will make you dependent!" Understand? (Yes.) So we cannot just say like this, black and white; to say that the master, the guru or the religion are no good absolutely for people. It's good to someone. Right? If you don't need it, it's fine. If you need it, stay a while until you don't. So I don't preach anything extreme. In my opinion, religions are also very good for many people. At least they learn the virtuous way of life. They fear God. They fear the law of cause and retribution, and many people became good. I tell you the truth. But, as long as we know that this is not the ultimate. Do you know what I mean? Yes, not the ultimate, just like, for example, the master, in the physical body is not the ultimate, you know? The ultimate is inside the master, and inside you! Through the master you will find the ultimate. That's fine! If you have not found it yet, you can rely on the master, to help and carry you for a while, and then you can walk. It's fine. But there is no such thing as extreme as to throw everything altogether. Is it not so? (Applause) Q. Master, how long have human beings been on this earth? M.Wow! I have to count with my fingers. (Laughter.) Do you know how long? What for do we know how long? It's enough to work everyday! It's been a long, long, long time. Some have reincarnated. Some have been liberated. Some come back again and again. So if you want to count this, it's difficult. You can say, aeons has past. Q. Does one have to give up all other teachings, gurus, etc. when initiated by Master Ching Hai? If one doesn't become initiated, can one still pray to Master Ching Hai and receive Her blessing? M.You don't have to give up your teachings and your teacher; I told you already; nor religion, you don't have to give up religion neither. For example, I am initiated; I still talk about Bhagvad Gita. I still talk about the Bible, the Buddhism and all the things, all the masters, even past masters. So I didn't give up anything! I just enrich myself with more wisdom, more knowledge from different masters, past, present and maybe future. The future masters, you can meet in the higher sphere because they have not yet descended on Earth, but while in meditation, you can see the future masters as well and learn from them. So you lose nothing; you only gain. Okay? If you are not initiated and you pray to the so-called Master Ching Hai, I don't know if She helps you or not? You have to ask Her at that time. (Master laughs) Maybe She does; may be She doesn't. It depends on how sincere you are and your karma. The World Is The Best School For Practicing ------------------------------------------- Q. Master, when I meditate, I cannot keep my mind concentrate at here. It runs all over the place and it talks about all kinds of different subjects. How do I concentrate and meditate better? M.Is that the initiated or not? (MC: Are you an initiate?) Because I would answer differently. Who asked that question? (Somebody answers: Yes.) That's why we have to go to group meditation. Because the concentrated power will help us, and we have to take time; some people can concentrate right away; some people take a longer time. I have mentioned previously in the lecture. Also forgive yourself. The situation in this world is not conducive to our tranquil meditation and calm thinking, but try again and again. In this world, we have an advantage, that because this world is so difficult for us to practice, God's blessing is with us many folds. So we walk one step and the Master Power will walk a hundred steps to help us. If we are in Heaven and practice, it's not that lucrative. Therefore in Heaven if you want to practice, it takes a longer time. For example, here we practice one day it is equal to one hundred days in Heaven. That's why many devas, heavenly beings, they like to be incarnated into human bodies, in order to practice faster. It's because here we have all kinds of rubbing force, like karma and situation and disaster and war and suffering and happiness, all these mixing. It's a kind of a high degree fire to forge us. These fires will forge us into a strong, useful tool for ourselves and for the world. While we are practicing here, we have also the opportunity to help our fellow beings and, therefore, we gain more merit as well. For example, you meditate alone at your home, so you have only one personal merit. But, if you, through your effort or through your eloquence, you offer your place, for example, for a hundred persons to meditate, then you have a hundred more merit to add up to your personal merit. So you have a hundred times more quicker, you understand what I mean? Or you get another hundred persons to come in to get initiation, these merits are also yours. Because after all we are one, the more we connected with more people, the more expand we become and the greater we become, in terms of merit. Mathematical wise speaking, it is like that. So it is better than in Heaven. In Heaven everybody is having a good time and so they take it easy. They don't have the motivation behind them to push them to concentrate. That is why I say when you are in deep sorrow or when you are despair you pray better, and sometimes you meditate even better. At that time you remember the master more; you say, "Oh, Master, please, please, please ..." (Laughter.) And then you get better experience that day, bigger light, stronger sound or feel more elated, more near to God. So it is good to practice in this world even though it is difficult. I am happy that many of our fellow initiates practice very diligently. Some come to the center just to look around but later... Well, they don't look around that long because everybody closes their eyes. So they feel embarrassed after sometime and they also close their eyes, and then they see something inside, instead of looking at pretty girls outside. So there is a very good advantage of having a temple or having a center, where people come together and do the same thing, concentrate and one-pointedness thinking of God; that helps very much. So you take your time. You can look around for a while, and then when you are fed up with it, you close your eyes and meditate with all the people. Okay? The mind is always having trouble to be controlled; that's why we have to practice everyday. Otherwise, I would tell you, "Get initiation and you are the Buddha." No more work! Right? It is because our habit is long term. It has been many thousands of years of time, maybe more! So to take one lifetime to clear all these is hard work, but it's worth it. Or you want to stay here a thousand more years to continue to do that? Well, it's fun! So that is why I tell you to have to meditate longer time, two and half hours or three hours, because the first twenty minutes is struggling. Just go on, go on with it and after about twenty minutes, it begins to settle down. After half an hour, you begin to enjoy, and forty minutes, you are gone. (Laughter) Learn To Balance Yourself In Life --------------------------------- Q. For what purpose has mankind been created in this life form? Is there any humanlike life in another planet in the universe? M. Yes. There are human lives in other universe, in other planet. And for what purpose? I don't know. That you have to ask the Creator when you go up there. I never ask Him why, cause I don't ask many questions. I am kind of a quiet person. (Master laughs) Okay. Q. How do we know to liberate ourselves from suffering, painful emotions, at the right time when we want so bad to let go of the lives, the circumstances around us? But it's so hard to see through because of the people we are attached to, and know that there is more to life itself than just ourselves and love of someone else we couldn't let go? M. I told you, just forgive yourself and try again. Sometimes in some circumstances we are able to control ourselves, but with some great effort, and some other times we don't want to control ourselves or we can't control ourselves. In either way you just do what is good for you at that moment. Okay? Don't worry much about the emotion. It is only the waves on the surface of the ocean. It is not the ocean's fault. It is the wind. It is the rotation of the earth that makes the waves. So the ocean cannot blame itself all the time, and says that he makes waves, he makes troubles for the boats and he makes trouble for the people, etc. He cannot help himself. The ocean cannot help herself or himself. Is it him ocean or she ocean? MC. Whatever You want to call it. M.We never know. Well, let's make it a she because I am Ching Hai. Ching Hai means "pure ocean". Actually in India they name it Vishudananda. I think I have to change my name into Indian name now to attract more Americans. (Master laughs) The other day one of the American disciples said to me, "Oh, all the Americans like Indian teachers only, so that's why You don't attract so many of them. You attract only the Au Lac people and the Asian." I said, "Okay! Why don't I change my name?" He said, "Do You have an Indian name, by the way?" I said, "Yes, I do, Vishudananda." (Master and the audience laugh.) That's the translation of my name. Anything "Ananda", Da Da Da, will do. (Laughter.) Sounds very much Indian. (Applause) Now you may call me, Ananda, Vishudananda. It sounds very Indian, right? Q. How do we attain inner peace or happiness in everyday life? M.Slowly. After initiation, the more wisdom, the more this peace and grace from God we receive, the more peaceful our lives will be, but only if you don't become a master. I can't promise you a peaceful life if you want to be a master. But if you are a disciple, everything perfect. (Master laughs and audience applaud.) Q. Dear Master, I always make the same mistake that I don't want to make. I feel there are two of me inside, one good and one bad, how can I stop this? M.Well, maybe that's the balance proportion in your life that you need to learn. Actually we can't be too good all the time. You will break! Yeah? You see the man in the circus, when he walks the rope, he has to walk this side, that side. You know what I mean? One time he dips in this side, the other time he is siding to this side. Otherwise, if he walks just like this, he will fall down. This life has two sides anyhow; one is positive, and the other is negative; one is happiness, and the other one is misery. Sometimes we can't help ourselves to dip from one side to another. It's okay! Forgive yourself. Try if you can; if not, forgive yourself. Alright? Do other things in contradiction to that, to counter attack this habit if you think it's bad. For example, if you are normally very stingy; don't want to give to people, now force yourself to give. Every time you want to take, you give instead! So next time you dare not want to take any more, because every time you want to take, you lose the business! (Laughter) For example, if you want to take one dollar, then force yourself to give two dollars. So next time you dare not to want any more! Or if you normally like to look at other woman besides your wife, so every time you want to do like that, just go home and look at your wife. So next time you are fed up, and you don't want any more. Maybe you try it. (Applause.) The Reason That Many Prophecies Never Come True ----------------------------------------------- Q. Some religions are saying the end of the world is coming. What is the true meaning of this saying? M.No religion ever says that! Q.Only the Christian Religion, right? M.What? Christian religion says so? Q. I mean, the Bible. M. The Bible doesn't say that we end at 2000. The Bible just have some revelation about some kind of destruction of the world, but that is one man's experience only. And we, some of the people, sometimes have this kind of experience. When you enter into some kind of destructive past, when you have seen it before in your previous life, and now you saw it and you thought it would be this time for this Earth. It is not true. Maybe you see the end of the other galaxy, the other planet, and you mistaken that for this world. Or sometimes you see it in the past, mistaken for the present time. Sometimes you see it in the very, very, very remote future and you miscalculate the time; you think that it is now. That is why many prophecies never come true. Just recently somebody in Keeth has predicted the end of the world and she shifted three or four times. Supposedly it should be on Friday, then Friday was holiday, so it became Sunday, then on Sunday it never came. (Applause) But never mind, the end of the world comes when we die anyhow, so make preparation for that day. Be prepared so that when we leave this world, we go with God, instead of going with the angel of death. That would be the end of our world. Q. What is the relationship between compassion and mindfulness? M. Mindfulness means you concentrate well. Compassion means you love other people. Compassion, you have mercy, you love other beings, love animals, love people. You don't want to harm them. You want to help them when they're in need. That is compassion. Mindfulness is the concentration degree you get when you meditate. Q. Earlier You said that if when you open your mind to the Universe, then you can gain the wisdom, knowledge and will be able to understand any book. My question to You is, "What if you were born with not so bright a mind? How can you be able to learn the knowledge from the Universe once you open your mind?" Learning new knowledge would take time and hard work. For me, in the past I had tried to learn to become a professional person. I failed because I am dumb. Can You show me the way? M. Not being able to learn in school doesn't mean you are dumb. Maybe you lack courage, maybe you lack good teacher, good friends or good circumstances, or maybe you lack patient. Some people learn quicker; some people learn it a little bit slower. But that doesn't mean you are dumb; doesn't mean you are stupid. Not to know your own great wisdom is the true stupidity. (Applause.) So I invite you to come for the initiation and get to know your greatness, then you will understand many things. It is because everything I say is just a big mouth, talk too much. Anything without experience is just advertising. It doesn't matter how much I tell you the orange juice in my cup is very good and is very nutritious and good for you and a lot of vitamin C, and you drink it, it quenches your thirst. But if you don't ever come and drink it, it doesn't matter how much I say, it is all big mouth. Do you know what I mean? It's nonsense! Talk too much. So the best thing is just to drink it. Get enlightenment! (Applause.) Any Living Master Will Respond To Our Prayer Q.I feel lost. I have searched and searched but have not found Home, that is what I am supposed to be and what I am supposed to do. How does one find Home here on Earth? M.Get enlightenment. Home is very near. It is next to you. It is nearer than your skin. But if you don't have the light, you can't see it. You can't see things in the dark; it doesn't matter how near. You might have a feeling about what it is, but you don't see it; have to have the light. The light of God will shine on everything you want to search for, including Home. But this is all abstract speaking, really you have to have experience, and that comes only with diligent practice after initiation. You know how to practice and you do it and then you realize day by day. Q. Why is it that after so many years of religious teachings and past masters that the world has not gotten better but much worse? M. It is because the past masters cannot teach you. You have to look for a present master, who can answer your question, help you when you are in doubt and take you by the hand back to the Kingdom of God. We need a person to person contact, not the past lives. Just like it doesn't matter how great the beauties of the past; you cannot marry her! She cannot produce any children to you; cannot produce the love feeling that you have with a living wife. Q. I was taught in my fundamental Christian church that we were to pray only to God, not to Jesus, not to virgin Marry, not to the angels, not to anyone or anything but only to God, the Father of Jesus, the Creator of the Universe. Why then are people praying to You as a master, or to any master? M. I don't know. That's their problem. (Master laughs.) Just like before, somebody asked me if he doesn't want to get initiation, that means he doesn't want to get direct contact with God, can he pray to Master Ching Hai? What can I do about that? Well, if she prays, she gets the response, so she continues to pray. But I always advise that you go for initiation, and get contact directly with God and pray directly to God. That's the best way. But if somebody don't want to choose that way and want to choose the second way, easier way, no vegetarian, no two and half hours meditation, no rules, nothing, just want the benefits, then she will pray to whoever give her something. And it happened that probably she prayed to Jesus or Buddha and didn't get any help, so she prayed to Ching Hai. When she gets help, she keeps praying again. People are like that; they like profit. Yeah! (Applause.) You know, the truth is that any living master will respond to our prayer. But then when that Master passed away, people continue to pray because they learned that from their parents, from their ancestors. They continue to pray and they forgot the difference between a living master and the past masters. So they continue to pray to the past masters and sometimes they blame that they don't help them. But, actually, when you pray to any master that means you pray to God anyhow. Do you know what I mean? Because the master is connected with God, you just pray to God. What is there inside except God? You think you pray to Ching Hai? Who is Ching Hai? When you think of her, who is she? What is that? Only God resides in her body; nothing else there! So you pray to her and she is connected with God, then it's the God that you pray to, understand? (Applause) Get Enlightenment And Know All The Answers ------------------------------------------ MC.. He would like to know if it is so wrong that he separates his parents for a good cause, because one of his parents does not allow the other one to practice meditation. And he would like to know if his action is related to karma? And if he practices this meditation, will that correct the wrong action of separating them? M. Never mind, you should let time take its course. And whatever concern your parents, you don't worry. You don't worry because the time will come when things will change. If you try to force the issue before time is right, you incur some trouble and sometimes you incur, of course, the karma. Q. Master said that water in the cup is the same with water in the ocean, but because of our egos which separates water of the cup from the ocean. Is it right that meditation means making a hole at bottom of the cup to have the water merge with the ocean? M. Initiation means that. Yes! Open the connected hole and so the water can come in and out all the time. So the water in the cup is the water in the ocean, and the water in the ocean is the water in the cup. Yes. Everyday when you meditate, it's just like water flowing in and out all the time, making it fresh so that the water in the cup does not become rotten. Q. How should one meditate? M. You meditate the way you want. If you don't know, you come for initiation and we help you, okay? Actually you should not ask me any question at all! Because it doesn't matter how many answers you have, what's the use? The best way is that we get enlightenment and know all the answers, or we get to the state where we don't care for any answers at all. And then we set ourselves free, forever, from any inquisitiveness, from every desire to know things. That is the time when we know everything. Whatever we need to know we will know right away, and whatever we don't need to know we still know it, but inside, we don't use it. Understand? Q. My husband has a terrible skin disease, for eight years already. I love him very much and I have tried many ways, doctors, medicines, religion, meditation and hope to cure his disease. M. All kinds of meditation as well? MC..Yeah, meditation too. M. He meditate, himself? MC.. Yeah. M. Or the wife? MC. It doesn't say. But it's getting worse and worse everyday. Now every time I look at him, my tears fall. And even worse, I began to dream about other man when I am so sad. Am I bad and disloyal? How can I cure my mind and my sadness? M. No! You are not bad. Just the situation is bad. She forgot to mention that if her husband meditates or she meditates. Her husband should meditate and pray for himself. Q. Is God a person, a being, a supernatural entity or what? M. All that, all that and more. Now, everyone when we have sickness, we should try to first accept it; secondly, try to find a way to cure it. There must be some way to cure things. Above all, we have to pray to the Supreme Power to help us. We pray, but pray deeply. Sometimes the diseases are caused by past karma, past reaction, past retribution, that we have done something wrong or harmed somebody else's appearance, therefore now we have to reap this result. But after sometimes, if the karma wears off, then it begins to get better. There are many ways to cure skin disease. I have seen many people with a lot of very bad looking skin, but they still have a cure for it. So maybe you didn't search enough. You have to ask for many more ways to do it, or tell your husband to pray himself, or meditate. I cannot guarantee you that initiation will cure your disease, or your husband's disease, because I don't want to attract people to come to our group just because of the physical condition. That is not enough to liberate you, because we are still clinging to the material instead of wanting God, the giver of all things. Once we truly want God, He will give. If we only want things, you know what I mean? Sometimes He gives, sometimes He doesn't. That's the trouble. In India there was a story about a king who liked to give all his things to his subjects. So he arrayed all his treasure around and told everyone to come and take whatever they like. And people took diamond, took gold or took treasure, took antique cups and all that, and then everybody was happy and went home. One girl only, she didn't want nothing. She just walked straight up to the king and she said, "Are you also a gift? (Laughter) I only want this gift." So, of course, the king was very surprised and happy that somebody wanted him for his sake, not the things that he gave. Of course, the king married her and then everything belonged to her, no? (Laughter) Yes. (Applause) The story is like that. Do you know the story? And there is another story to prove it. The Story Of Shiva ------------------ There was a story about Shiva. Do you know Shiva? The god Shiva, is he here, by the way? (Master turns and looks behind Her.) Yeah, yeah, that's it, with a half moon and the tridad. Shiva was one of the past masters. He was supposed to be the god of destruction. He destroyed negativity, actually, not people. Some people misunderstand so they worry that he'd destroy them so always keep blackmailing him with all kinds of fruit and cakes. (Master laughs) So in the past he meditated very deeply in the Himalayas. He never woke up from the meditation, never ever. Nothing stirred him. This is a legend from India. I don't know if it is true. I just tell you the power of God. He meditated all the time in the Himalayas, deep in the meditation, never stirred. But some of the gods in heaven were afraid that he didn't have a wife, so he would not pass down other generation, the holy seed or something like that, the sacred bloodline, so they worried very much, because he was so holy and they wanted to have another generation of this kind. So they sent out a beautiful, beautiful fairy. Her name was Parvati. She was very beautiful and her figure was enough to make all the men fell down. But she couldn't stir him. She tried all her best to kind of dance around him or make all kinds of things, but he never stirred out of meditation. So finally she was fed up, so she went to the other side of the mountain, a little bit longer way, selected a mountain range and she sat there and meditated. She said, "Now, all this is nonsense! I meditate on God and I get liberation and eternal bliss. That's better than to chase a man who is like a stone, and have no feeling, nothing!" (Laughter) "And me, so beautiful like this and he never stirs!" She was fed up, angry and frustrated, so she went to the other mountain, Mountain Kailash, which is the most famous and holy mountain according to Indian belief. It is very high and it has also a very beautiful lake in the vicinity, called Mansarouar. So she stayed there and meditated, and after sometime she attained the blissful state. So Shiva, suddenly, during his deep meditation, he felt something stirring him. There was some very strong, powerful feminine energy. It was kind of disturbing him. Not disturb, also disturb but made him feel good and still excited somehow. So he opened his third eye, had a look and said, "Wow! There's a beauty over there." So that was how the romance started. You know the rest. So that's the power of meditation, the power of God. It even makes the god stir. Do you know what I mean? It made the most ascetic yogi excited. (Master laughs.) Well, if you want to get a husband, it maybe a good advice. (Laughter.) Actually, when you don't want it, you get it. Parvati was trying her best to charm him but she did not succeed because she tried with the ego, with the limited power of possessiveness and mundane thinking. But when she became holy, her attraction became different. Why? Because his vibration was very holy, his standard was very high. If she used her mundane vibration and energy to attract him, how could he come down? You know what I mean? You have to be at least equal in order to attract the opponent. Actually it's like that. Many people have no attraction before, then suddenly after initiation and meditate for sometime, they begin to attract people. You know, not necessarily physically, just attract them. They just love them and they just want to be near them. It is because of your vibration, your loving God energy. You cannot conceal it. It just radiates out and then attracts people like magnet, because the souls in themselves are also Godlike. So they just feel attracted to you, the same that people are attracted to the masters, but that is by no means a crutch. It is just a self attracted to a higher self. So after sometimes they just realize that both of them are one. Therefore, who is there to get the crutch? Who is there to rely on whom? So actually that is also the answer to that question about master and religion are crutch. It depends. Okay? So, have lunch! (Applause)