autumn

Hello all, I just have a question. How important is it to take all the scriptures literaly or historicaly? I mean, can one chant Hare Krishna and become God conscious if they have doubts about wether the scriptures are really literal or not? How important is it to believe in them as historically accurate? Or is it more important to understand the essential truths and ideas they represent? I have a very hard time accepting the time line of history presented by various modern Krsna organizations, which they try to base on the vedic books. Also I have a hard time seeing the sastra as more than simply personal interpretations of humans in writting, for the purpose of pointing people toward some essential truth, according to the time/place/circumstance of the authors, (even if those authors may have been spiritually advanced humans at that.) How important is "belief", or is it more important to practice chanting and experience the "proof in the pudding"? Thanks alot.

I think I've really been a buddhist for quite a while and didn't fully realize it, if that makes sense. Anyway, I have studied the Buddhas teachings in some capacity on and off for maybe 12 years (as well as the teachings of other traditions), but didn't really think about putting them into practice untill maybe about two years ago when I started doing vipasanna meditaion. I get most of my inspiration from the Theravada tradition and especially the Thai forest traditions. I have a great respect for all the Buddhist traditions though, as well as all the religious paths of the world. There is not really a sangha or temple where I live so I try to do the best I can on my own for now, and talk to people via the internet sometimes and read books. I'm just a layman so I really don't have much in the way of intense practice... Hope that satisfies your curiosity.

Dear Soham, This is an interesting word, and I agree with you, it seems to have been misuderstood not just in the west but in the east as well. From what I understand this term "shunya" really doesn't mean empty or void as is sometimes translated. I think a better definition might be "devoid" as in "my heart is devoid of love", or "the room is devoid of occupants" etc. Recently I read a very helpful book on this topic called "Heartwood of the Bodhi Tree: The Buddha's Teaching on Voidness" by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu. This book is dedicated entirely to defining this word Shunya in light of the Buddha's teachings. If you can find it, I think you might like it. In this book Acariya Buddhadasa Bhikkhu explains that what the Buddha explains when he uses the word Shunya is that all forms are devoid of self. The body exists, and the mind exist but they are devoid of self. None of these elements are self. Just another way of explaining the no-self idea anatta. So if i say this body is shunyata, or empty or void, what I'm really saying is it is devoid of self (or true self). I'm not saying it is nothing, but just temporary and devoid of self. It is just a mass of ever changing and fluxuating elements. Or one might say a liberated being has realized shunyata, which means thier heart is devoid of greed hatred and delusion, and they have become free from ego and selfishness. They are devoid (shunya)of selfishness. Thats all. In later schools this word gets taken out of context and turned into some kind of abstract metaphysical idea. But as Buddhadasa Bhikkhu explains in the book, this was really not the intended meaning. Hopes this helps a bit.

I have been wanting to post up something explaining the Dependent Origination idea. Sorry it took me so long. I found a very good explaination of it in a book I was reading and thought I would post it because it does a better jod of explaining Dependent Origination (or The Chain Of Dependent Causation as the author calls it) than I could. Here it goes: _________ paticcha-samuppada-from "Buddha" by Karen Armstrong. "One of the most frequent subjects of Buddhist meditation was what was called the Chain of Dependent Causation (Paticcha-samupada)... The Chain traces the life cycle of a sentient being through twelve conditioned and conditioning links, illustrating the transitory nature of our lives and showing how each person is perpetually becoming something else. On [1] ignorance depends {2} kamma [karma]; on kamma depends [3] consciousness; on consciousness depends [4] name and form; on name and from depends [5] the sense organs; on these sense organs depends [6] contact; on contact depends [7] sensation; on sensation depends [8] desire; on desire depends [9] attachment; on attachment depends [10] existence; on existence depends [11] birth; on birth depends [12] dukkha; old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief and despair. This chain became central to Buddhist teaching, but is not easy to understand. Those who find it daunting can find comfort from the fact that the Buddha once rebuked a bhikku who claimed to find it easy. It should be regarded as a metaphor, which seeks to explain how a person can be reborn when, as the Buddha was...to conclude, there was no Self to persist from one life to another. What was it that was born again? Is there a law which links rebirth with dukkha? The terms used in the Chain are rather obscure. “Name and form,” for example, was simply a Pali idiom for a “person”; “consciousness” (vinnana) is not the totality of a person’s thoguths and feelings, but a sort of ethereal substance, the last idea or impulse of a dying human being, which has been conditioned by all the kamma [karma] of his or her life. This “consciousness” becomes the germ of a new “name and form” in the womb of its mother. The personality of this embryo is conditioned by the quality of the dying “consciousness’ of its predecessor. Once the fetus is linked with this “consciousness” , a new life cycle can begin, these making “contact” with the external world. This sensual contact gives rise to “sensations” or feelings, which lead to “desire”, the most powerful cause of dukkha. Desire leads to attachments which prevent our liberation and enlightenment, and which doom us to a new “existence,” a new birth and further sorrow, sickness, grief and death. ...Was this final, dying “consciousness” that passes into a new “name and form” an eternal, constant entity? Would the same person live again and again? Yes and no. The Buddha did not believe the “consciousness” was the kind of permanent, eternal Self sought out by yogins, but saw it as a last flickering energy, like a flame that leaps from one wick to another. A flame is never constant; a fire which is lit at nightfall both is and is not the fire that is still burning at daybreak. There are no fixed entities in the Chain. Each link depends upon another and leads directly to something else..." _________

dairy replacement: Milk - Vitasoy soymilk (yum!) soy milk is yummy, theres all kinds of "milk" out now, rice milk, almond milk, all kinds... Butter - Non hydrogenated oil margarine or something like. do they make non-hydrogenated? I've never seen it, but if they do I'm gettin some! Cheese - ? Not much experience here, any recommendation? I find most soy or non-dairy cheese to be quite nasty to tell you the truth. And you know, alot of it still has some small amount of dairy in it... Yoghurt - Is there a vegan alternative? This is my personal favorite dairy. I think non-dairy yoghurt is a non-food...never heard of a good alternative for that one. Cream - ? well if you mean ice cream, theres some pretty tasty non-dairy versions out there. But regular cream? nope!

I've been thinking about this vegan thing. I definately see the point of not harming or killing animals and think this is a good ideal to follow, but I don't see the point in becoming fully vegan and not eating any dairy products ever... To me its seems logical to not buy dairy products from companies that abuse, torture, and kill thier animals because than you are not supporting them in a financial way, but I don't see the point in avoiding the dairy products from animals that are well treated and not abused... I guess some people consider dairy products unhealthy all together, but that is a whole different topic... My question then is: Why go vegan totally? Why not just avoid milk products from abused animals and companies that abuse animals?

mud:"Does it really matter anyway? Philisophically there is this idea that one cannot live in this world without harming other living entities." Hey there Mr. Mud, Just saw your thread and had a thought. It seems like the point about harming other beings is not really in the facts of whether or not we are actually successful in never harming living beings either knowingly or uknowingly. I think it is logical to say that we can't avoid it no matter how careful we are. But if we just say "it's a lost cause, why bother trying!", than it seems we incur the karma of laziness, or apathy. I'm a big believer in the idea of intentions, so it seems to me that the the best way to proceed in life is to try as hard as possible to not harm any living beings, but be detached from the fact that no matter how hard we try, some harm to some living beings is inevitable. I think we get an "A for effort". Work hard with compassion to be non-violent, and be deteched from the results of our actions...seems the best option. Otherwise there seems to be only a couple of other ways to go about it, which are unskillful; ie. total apathy, or a complete over sensitive paranoid extreme kind of life where you have to strain your water before you drink it, wear a mask over your face so you don't breath in microbes etc, never drive, and just sit and do nothing all day... on that note, I am also considering this issue now in my life. I am considering at least not spending any money on food that I know comes from abused animals...I may even go vegan too. We'll see. For now though, I don't feel comfortable contibuting money to the industry of animal abuse...its a start at least...! Peace, Autumn.

Dear Raguraman, I have been thinking about your questions and thought I might begin the discussion and try to put in my two cents worth. I am far from any kind of expert on the subject so don't consider this too authoritative. I'm hoping that what I write can be something basic that other more studied people on here might be able to add to. These answers might not be very complete, but they are a start...maybe. Ragu: "Buddhism says that there is one eternal entity that is beyond existence(as that which can identify itself separately from other entities or entities we experience in this universe) and non-existence(as being annihilated)." I would say that Buddhism says that simply there is a deathless element that is present. The Buddha seems to have avoided using the word eternal. Infact he seems to avoid using very many words at all to describe this deathless element or the Nirvana-element. He seems to stress the pint that too much conseptualization or defining would simply miss the mark and cause people to hold incomplete or faulty understandings of the Deathless state. If I consider the word eternal, my materially conditioned mind conceptualizes a state that goes on for ever and ever, but if the Deathless state is "outside" or devoid of time, how can we say it goes on for ever and ever...you see what I'm saying? Something that is beyond time and space and conceptions and limited language can't really be articulated using these limited concepts, so why bother? That, to me, seems to be the Buddhist view point on it. The idea being: don't talk about it, just realize it. Ragu: "Buddha is in this state and HE can appear simultaneously in two or more places if necessity exists(may be disseminate knowledge again)." This is not really accurate, at least in the Theravada school which I have more of an orientation from. Maybe some of the Mahayanists around might be able to explain thier concept of the different bodies of the Buddha...I am not familiar. But in the Theravada school, they say that we can not say the Buddha is existing in any kind of state we can comprehend. He is sometimes called the "One Well Gone". This is an interesting idea. It almost comes off as a kind of void-ism or nihilism, but it just means that the enlightened being achieves a state that can't be understood or talked about...inconcievable. He doesn't exist in any state we can understand. Ragu: "1. What is the difference between ATma concept and Buddhist concept of eternal entity(associated with Nirvana)? If you do not understand Atma concept fully I will be willing to elaborate it to you." This concept of Atma we talked about a bit before. The Buddha did not use this term atma (defined as "self"). The state of Nirvana is a fully self-less state. But it seems to akin to the Brahman concept talked about by Sankhara... (insert elaboration here.) Ragu" "2. What is bound by desires in us human beings and what is born again and again according to Buddhism ?" This brings up the concept in Buddhism know as dependant origination which can be quite detailed but I can try to put it in a nut shell. Buddhism does not accept the concept of the eternal jiva traveling from one body to the next. in fact nothing really travels from one body to the next. To understand rebirth, we have to see what is happening right now in our experience. The Buddha says that all we consider to be self is just a constant flow of rising and ceasing conditions caused by a previous condition. Like a condle lighting another candle. The so we are constantly being born and dying minute by minute. At death, this stream (the mind stream) of dependant events continues. When this stream is extinguished, this is Nirvana. This self is "extinguished" and what remains is the undefineable Deathless element which is devoid of self-ness. (This is an incomplete explaination I agree. I'm hoping some expert will pop in here and elaborate...) Ragu: "3. What happens when we sleep where there is no consciousness or sense I'ness or any 'ness? How is Nirvana different from this state ?" The answer to this one is relativley simple. When we are asleep, we are just that; asleep. Unaware. In vedic terminology, we are in ignorance or tamo-guna. Nirvana is the complete opposite; fully awake, full and pure awareness...etc. Ragu: "4. How is the state of matter different from Nirvana(except the property of transformation of matter) ?" Matter is just a constantly changing mass of dependant elements, constantly changing, in flux. Nirvana is unconditioned pure "such-ness" or being...no birth or death, free from delusion, lust, greed, hatred, etc... Ragu: "5. Consciousness(Chit) as I understand is pure awareness which is the foundation of mind and intelligence which in turn is the foundation of all feelings. So Chit can be a pointer to something that possesses it. Is there any concept like this in Buddhism ?" This concept assumes that chit is an energy emenating from someone who posses it. The Buddha might say, but where is that person or being? Can you see him or experience him? I think the idea is that the Pure Awareness, unconditioned is the Nirvana element, and devoid of personhood or self...the foundation or Ultimate Ground of existence Ragu: "Now feelings, thoughts etc. are understood to be phenomenon, according to Buddhism where does it rise from ?" They arise from each other. One thing cause another. I will bring in my list of the stages of dependant origination and explain this more another time. But the idea is that feelinfs and thoughts etc are all conditioned by other "elements" which were conditioned by thier previous cause and on and on without begining... The problem, the Buddha might say, is that we think these temporary, conditioned elements to be our "self" or arising from a "self", ie. ignorance...thus cause us to crave and desire to manipulate and posses or negate these elements thus causing dukkha, or unsatisfactoriness, suffering. Ragu: "6. What happens to unenlightened beings when they die, with regard to psychic body(thoughts, feelings etc) ? Do they recognize themselves as separate entities ?" The unenlighten beings remain in the cylce of birht and death, which means the continue to perpetuate the stream of rising and ceasing conditioned mind states. Do they recognize themselves as seperate beings when they die? Unfortunatelt yes, thats why they keep contiuing on in the cycle. The problem is individule self-identity. The illusion od self. Ragu: "As per my personal experience I am not able to get beyond the state of awareness or the state of witnessing my own thoughts. I would be iterested in Buddhist practises of meditation as well." I don't think I can elaborate on this question too much...I am not really realized in the subtler areas of meditation. There are many different techniques for meditation according to many different schools of Buddhism. I like mindfulness of breath meditation... but if you wanted an explaination on how it works (its quite simple) I would refer you to literature written about it by adepts. I hope these answers to your questions can at least be a begining to a good discussion on this topic. I know my answers are incomplete. I lack a lot of time to write more in-depth...hopefuly others can add thier thoughts.

oh heck, i forgot to log in on that last one about Rigpa...

why did I pick the scull? oh...I don't know. To remind myself that all things are temporary...maybe, something like that.

guest writes: "just because someone has studied something for a long time has nothing to do with having actual self realization." -I agree. and that is one of the points the Buddha makes as well. The point is not to study and talk, but to practice and realize. guest: "You say you were a vaisnava for a long time yet obviously you never really grasped its essence or believed in it really or else you wouldnt have become a buddhist which is the exact opposite of vaisnavism." -I'm certainly willing to hear about the essance of Vaishnavism from you. Please elaborate if you would. It what ways are buddhism and Vaishnavism "exact opposites"? guest: "I think buddhism and all of its "I" philosophy..." -I think we were discussing how Buddhism (and Vaishnavism) teach a kind of no-"I" idea, so I'm not sure what you mean... guest: "as opposed to vaisnavism which focuses on something greater than ourselves and it requires some real faith and devotion." -I'd like to hear your definition of "real faith and devotion", and it's process. Please elaborate. But I think we should have this discussion over on Bodhicitta's thread, because thats where this started and was meant to be. So lets move it over there. Thanks.

Really we're just talking about different ways to define terms/words. Words are subjective, and relative and can be used in a variety of different ways. The point seems to be to extract the essence and to realize or experience that essential teaching which goes beyond or can not be contained with words and language. So why are certain words used to describe or point in certain directions? Probobly it has alot to do with time place and circumstance. When we use words like "eternal", "self", "soul", "deathless" etc, each one of us comes up with a different idea of what exactly we mean when we use or hear these terms. This is true in all languages. In sanskrit the word atma (atta in pali...)is used in a variety of different ways. And it also gets translated in a variety of different ways. So whats the point? Buddhism and Hinduism both agree on a certain simple ideas; body is not eternal, not my "self", mind is constantly changing from moment to moment therefore not me, not self. Both say that the truth does not end with body or mind, but that there is an Absolute reality beyond the confines of body, mind, time etc. Vaishnavism accept as doctrine that beyond body and mind there is the soul or the jivatma which is the true nature, or true eternal identity or the "living entity". In essance Vaishnavism/Hinduism says that if one can discover/uncover/realize/be situated in, pure awareness of this "original nature", one becomes "self-less", devoid of selfishness, free from desire to serve one's self, compassionate for all other beings, and liberated, "free". One looses all possesivness. One does not even consider one's "self" as belonging to one's "self". They are free from the desire to aquire anything, or to own anything etc. No conception of I, Me, and Mine. Buddhism says beyond the body and mind there is the deathless element. Buddhism also uses phrases like; "our Original Nature", "Original Mind", etc. I think the Buddha said there is no "atma" because it is the tendancy of many materialistc people when they hear this word "self" to instantly become attached to the idea of ownership, possesivness, grasping, attachment, and subtle or gross I, Me, and Mine attitudes. So for the sake of PRACTICE, this idea of no-self (anatma, anatta) is talked about. We can witness the nature of self-ness in this world as constantly changing, temporary. In the liberated state one has no self-concept what so ever, in other words they are liberated from selfishness. They foreget themselves, so to speak. Buddhism does not use the terms "self" to describe this liberated state because in ESSENCE, one is self-less, free from the possesive/controller, self concept. Really, in my mind its just an argument over semantics. If one wants to call that which is beyond or transcendental to body and mind atma, paramatma, self, soul, the deathless, brahman or swiss cheese really is of no relevant consequence, privided they are practicing spirituality in such a way as to become truly free from selfishness. To me this is the main point. PRACTICE. Investigate these things and realize them. I think that those liberated beings who have experienced these truths have grasped the inconcievability of these truths by the limited mind, so to simply point people in the write direction they revert to the limited languages of the cultures they are living in. For us, our job seems to extract the essance, and practice to see what happens. If I become motivated towards selflessness by the concept that I have an eternal self, and I can witness progress from my spiritual endeavors, that whats the harm? If I feel more motivated by the no-self concept, and I practice to become selfless because of it, whats the harm? Peace, Autumn.

Yes I would like to have this discussion on your thread. Actually I posted my reply as a seperate thread by accident somehow, but I meant it to be a part of your thread from the begining. Sorry about that. I'll post over there to continue this discussion, but I will have to do it a little later when I get a bit more time. (hopefully today). Peace, Autumn

Dear Boddhicitta, I have studied Buddhism and Vaishnavism both and I find your question to be one of the most interesting one's raised by Buddhism. Vaishnavism insists that an atma exists. I will use the definition of atma as self, because I feel that this is the definition the Buddha seemed to use. Apart from doctinal ideas, if we observe whether or not there is a self, it is my experience that everything the Vaishnavas have explained as proof of a self is also temporary. They say consciousness is proof. But my personal experience after investigation (which is on going), consciousness is temporary, or at least what we consider consciousness in a conventional sense (the Buddhist decribe different kinds of consciousness). To use the Buddhist argument: eye consciousness goes away if sight is lost, audio consciousness goes away when hearing is lost, mental consciousness goes away too, like durring dreamless sleep, etc etc.. Some say that just the feeling of "I-ness" proves the existence of a self, but I have also observed that this feeling of "I-ness" is temporary as well. Self is a temporary construct. Some say that Buddhism teaches nihilism because of it's doctrine of no-self, but this is not the fact. Buddhism breaks the existing elements down into three basic catagories, material elements (body: earth, water, fire, air, etc), immaterial elements (mind: feelings, perceptions, impressions, volitions, etc), and it also admits the existence of the amatta-dhatu (pali) or the deathless element. The closest thing comparable in Himduism to this deathless element is what they call Brahman. The deathless element is completely devoid of the sense of "I-ness" (ahankara) or "my-ness" (mamankara). The deathless element is also sometimes called the cooling element(nibbana-dhatu[nirvana]) because it cools the fire of selfishness or the view of a permanent self ("I-ness" and "my-ness"). Other words used by Buddhist to describe this deathless element are, Original Mind, Bare Awareness, and "The One Who knows, or even The Knowing. Vaishnavism also teaches that upon liberation (any of the different kinds of liberation they talk about) one looses thier selfishness or self centeredness. Even in the pure Bhakti traditions, it is taught that upon attainment of one's worshipable deity (Krsna, etc) one looses all sense of self in devotion. Thus also, in essense Vaishnavas are agreeing with the no-self concept. I feel that this teaching of no-self used by the Buddha was not meant to be taken as a doctrine but a tool of practice, to be used for alleviating the fire of selfishness and self centeredness. Whether or not there is the existence of what the Vaishnavas call atma or not is not the point, unless one is satisfied leaving there spiritual practice on a stricly doctinal/theoretical level. One of the main points of all religious systems is to become selfless. Thats the essence. I like the idea of Buddhism; that to simply hold beliefs is not progressive. If I say, "The holy book says there is an eternal self", really, what benefit am I getting? Real belief is based on experience. Logic and philosophy and not enough to realize the Deathless element. Simply holding a set of doctrines and beliefs is not enough. So I say, people should believe what ever they want, but they can only know the Truth by practice. If we give up our attachment to this concept of self, or simply notice its ever changing nature, we can get a glimpse of the Deathless, and give up all blind beliefs.