The two Viewpoints of this Manifested World

[Guest guest]

Hi Jagannath

 

> Man can either live in the external world alone or decide to seek out

> the internal world. Many prefer, or rather, are forced to take

> recourse to the middle path. Most of us do that. But it would be a

> fallacy to assume that one would go towards ruin if they followed the

> divine path alone.

 

 

you miss my point

i do not equate spiritual revelation with either division of the

autonomic nervous system which is what the original poster seemed to

conclude

 

many people on this list probably practice yoga

if you examine the meaning of the word hatha, you will see that it

means a few different things, including 'forceful,' referring to the

energy required to both overcome obstructions to practicing it

correctly (i.e. laziness) and the energy that it gives when practiced

regularly

 

sometimes we are required to apply energetic force to a situation -

most of us would probably try defend ourselves and our loved ones if

someone was to try to harm us - further, we know that the people that

survive such scenarios are people that fight back, which is why women

and children are told to kick, bite, punch, scream and hit their

attackers

 

similarly, when people are diagnosed with cancer, research has

consistently shown that those who challenge their doctors, look for

other opinions and remain vigorously engaged and proactive in their

treatment are those that end up surviving

 

the flow of energy within the ida and pingala nadis, as well as the

activities of the nervous system exist for the act of self-preservation

 

in many systems of Indian thought, there is a current of self-denial,

but i believe, a lot of confusion of what this means exactly and how it

should be applied

 

for those of us living in society, we need to access both parts of this

dualism, but with intelligence and humility - this way our actions are

harmonious

 

as the gita indicates, sometimes this harmony requires us to fight,

even "kill"

 

the transcendent path, neither this nor the other (net-neti), is

another matter entirely

in this, one is no longer a "functioning" member of society, who surfs

the net and regularly rakes the muck of medical conspiracies... ;-)

 

 

> The ideal would be to live in the world without allowing the world to

> live within us. As Swami Vivekananda put it, cultivating intense

> dispassion in the midst of intense activity. This state can be

> achieved if one lives solely for the benefit of others without

> bothering about ones selfish interests.

 

selfish interests like what? food and water? family? laughter?

people are also very good at self-deception, and sometimes an

apparently selfless act may in fact have a hidden agenda, even if

subconscious

 

time and time and again humans have witnessed supposed altruism that

ends up serving a secret, selfish agenda - exceptions like Vivekananda

certainly exist, but to my thinking the first step to achieving this

state of grace is to discover what happiness is to each of us - only

when we have arrived at that place of self-love and unconditional

acceptance amidst the turmoil of change and impermanence, can we truly

be selfless

 

> Buddha did not ask anyone to reflect on the world, he stressed on

> change to hint at the impermanence of the world so that mankind would

> turn away and concentrate on going beyond the change. Unfortunately

> his teaching was so effective that all traces of creativity

> disappeared from India which turned predominantly ascetic.

 

i disagree - the buddha certainly did ask us to reflect on the world,

otherwise how would we understand the nature of the four noble truths?

these are not theoretical - they have to be understood within the

context of one's life experience - otherwise, what is the motivating

factor?

 

change is a feature of life, and the buddha stressed this concept so

that his disciples would divest themselves of seeking happiness in

something transitory, which is a cause of pain and suffering

 

the reason why the buddha's teaching has become all but lost on the

subcontinent is a matter of history and speculation, but it certainly

wasn't because Indians became too ascetic - there are many, many

artistic artifacts from the buddhist period, and many advances were

made in traditional indian sciences like medicine as well as music,

literature and architecture

 

one reason for the failure of buddhism is it became an established

hierarchical orthodoxy of self-serving monks essentially living off the

labor of the peasants - buddhist monks essentially became fat, lazy

and corrupt and were easy targets for energetic reformers like Adi

Shankaracharya

 

anyway, i don't see buddhism as separate from hinduism

lord buddha was a hindu, just like jesus was a jew

 

 

best...

 

Caldecott

todd

www.toddcaldecott.com

[Guest guest]

Hi

 

>

> as the gita indicates, sometimes this harmony

> requires us to fight,

> even "kill"

 

Gita indicates us to do our duty, neither for harmony

nor for fighting. The indication is to do your duty

and leave the judgement/outcome/consequence to be...

whether the outcome is harmony or "killing" that is

not for us, just to perform the act with dispassion is

the message.

 

 

 

> > Buddha did not ask anyone to reflect on the world,

> he stressed on

> > change to hint at the impermanence of the world so

> that mankind would

> > turn away and concentrate on going beyond the

> change. Unfortunately

> > his teaching was so effective that all traces of

> creativity

> > disappeared from India which turned predominantly

> ascetic.

>

> i disagree - the buddha certainly did ask us to

> reflect on the world,

> otherwise how would we understand the nature of the

> four noble truths?

> these are not theoretical - they have to be

> understood within the

> context of one's life experience - otherwise, what

> is the motivating

> factor?

>

> change is a feature of life, and the buddha stressed

> this concept so

> that his disciples would divest themselves of

> seeking happiness in

> something transitory, which is a cause of pain and

> suffering

>

> the reason why the buddha's teaching has become all

> but lost on the

> subcontinent is a matter of history and speculation,

> but it certainly

> wasn't because Indians became too ascetic - there

> are many, many

> artistic artifacts from the buddhist period, and

> many advances were

> made in traditional indian sciences like medicine as

> well as music,

> literature and architecture

>

 

"most of india turnes ascetic" is absolutley a bungled

statement. At no point in Indian history did this ever

be true. Buddhism was seceded by a resurgence of

Hindu kings followed by Jainism. One of the founding

concepts of Buddhism was "Shoonyavaad" or

"Nothingness", Hindu and later Jainism (Mahavir) came

around and challenged that concept by asking "Who is

that then knows/observes teh nothingness" that

re-established the "self" over "nothingness".

 

> one reason for the failure of buddhism is it became

> an established

> hierarchical orthodoxy of self-serving monks

> essentially living off the

> labor of the peasants - buddhist monks essentially

> became fat, lazy

> and corrupt and were easy targets for energetic

> reformers like Adi

> Shankaracharya

>

 

There were several reasons for the ousting of

buddhism, including the primary one i stated above.

Other was loss of royal patronage after King Ashoka

nad his Children passed on. The monks weren't

self-realized and there wasn't a path to

self-continuation. Also Buddhism came about in a time

when Hindu priests had become corrupt, the hindu kings

that succeeded Ashoka restored the simplicity of

Hinduism to an extent and also Mahavir introduced the

Jain concepts that were easier to adopt.

 

> anyway, i don't see buddhism as separate from

> hinduism

> lord buddha was a hindu, just like jesus was a jew

 

There is a *significant* difference between Buddha

bein g a Hindu and Jesus a Jew.

 

Buddha never really associated himself as savior of

men. Jesus on the other hand claimed being the Son of

God, etc.

 

But the single largest difference is Buddha was

self-realized and looked for the meaning of life....

for himself. Jesus claimed to be of divine origin.

 

the buddhist principle of "at the end is nothing" is

very different from the hindu emphasis on the Self.

Jesus' principles/life came and continued in judaism

spawning much strife during and since his being.

[Guest guest]

Dear

 

You need not go so deep to define selfish interests. Nowadays many things are

plainly evident. If what is overtly present can be conquered we have already

gone a long way. Another part of what you describe as selfish interests is what

is called "nityakarma". It does not form a part of any karma.

 

Nowadays sannyas no longer means a life of seclusion. Swami Vivekananda and the

Ramakrishna Mission has changed all that. Nowadays you find even staunch advaita

mathas performing service to society. Some very senior monks of the Ramakrishna

Mission have the habit of "surfing the net and pointing out medical

conspiracies". I have already pointed out their efforts in this group, you may

have missed them. The names, Swami Gautamananda, Swami Jitatmananda, Swami

Brahmeshananda, Swami Bhajananda are very well known to health activists in

India. Some of them have also spoken on the issue at the UN assembly. The

Ramakrishna Mission had published a special issue of their magazine "Vedanta

Kesari" on health and some of the articles are extremely illuminating. I have

recently acquired the permission to reproduce the articles on the net.

 

Regarding cancer patients who survive despite modern medicine, two things are

already under discussion. One is their vital strength is very strong (Louis

Armstrong for example) and/or they may have been wrongly diagnosed. It is a

standard practice today to double check as various cancer detection methods have

shown faulty results. I have also pointed this out in this forum in a previous

post. Alternate medicine has got the capability of reviving cancer patients who

have lost hope.

 

The four noble truths of Buddhism were devised as a means to protect oneself

from the illusion that is the world and thus acquire the ability to see beyond

it. They are practised to silence the mind and clear it of gross elements so

that it becomes an instrument to pierce the veil. Buddhism disappeared from

India because many people embraced sannyas without achieving real vairagya.

There was also the craze to utilise the powers acquired through tantra

introduced into Buddhism by Indian monks Padmasambhava and Atish Deepankar

Srigyan. Buddhism became worship of the Buddha, instead of practising the path

he so meticuluously taught. The monks also developed relations with the nuns and

did crazy things in the name of tantra. Buddha himself had predicted this

degeneration when he laid the foundation of the first nunnery headed by his

mother. Foreign invasion and destruction of Buddhist universities took its toll

and then Adi Sankara nailed the coffin.

 

The Buddha neither sought nor taught happiness in any form. He scoffed at the

concept of Satchidananda and emphasised shunyata, emptiness. There was no soul

for him, just a causal continuity. His path emphasized the constant reflection

of dukkha. Many of the present concepts in Buddhism are borrowed from Hinduism

and the colurful Bon religion of the Tibbetans. Zen and Confucian concepts were

also merged into Buddhism. Without such merger Buddhism would have had a very

limited audience. Very few had the intellectual strength to understand what

Buddha preached. He answered many questions with studied silence indicating that

the student had to follow the precepts and find out for himself.

 

Regards,

Jagannath.

[Guest guest]

see my comments on the subject of anatta

 

On 29-Sep-05, at 6:44 AM, ayurveda wrote:

 

> The Buddha neither sought nor taught happiness in any form. He scoffed

> at the concept of Satchidananda and emphasised shunyata, emptiness.

> There was no soul for him, just a causal continuity. His path

> emphasized the constant reflection of dukkha. Many of the present

> concepts in Buddhism are borrowed from Hinduism and the colurful Bon

> religion of the Tibbetans. Zen and Confucian concepts were also merged

> into Buddhism. Without such merger Buddhism would have had a very

> limited audience. Very few had the intellectual strength to understand

> what Buddha preached. He answered many questions with studied silence

> indicating that the student had to follow the precepts and find out

> for himself. Caldecott

todd

www.toddcaldecott.com