Atman/Anatman - Buddha and Kali dharma

June 14, 2009

Namaste,

I recently joined this group after having been forwarded some interesting posts

by a colleague. As an introductory post, I would like to address a theme that is

most pressing in my current worldview, namely the problem of reconciling the

preservational aspect of Atman with what appears to be the dominance of a dark

embrace between Anatman theory and the Aghori path throughout most of the world.

I don't think this is as simple as recongnizing that Shaivic and Vishnaivic

energies are held in constant balance, because the focus of the argument seems

more oriented toward an almost unconscious Kali worship among parts of the world

in which Buddhism is planting or has planted roots.

For some time I have struggled with the unsettling suspicion that Buddhism is a

terrible trap for the mind to stumble upon. Ever since I heard a clip of U.G.

Krishnamurti saying that Buddhism introduced the concept of conversion into the

world, and perhaps before, I have been plagued by this suspicion. It appears

that Anatman theory merely creates a a playground for various forms of absurdity

which manifest themselves as a culture's obsession with sex and death, which

result in the economy of many parts of the world being driven by war and

prostitution.

Now the Aghori path is what is is for most people: a path of self-destruction

which is also a form of Goddess worship. But I would maintain that such naive

practitioners of this path have used, consciously or unconsciously, the

prevalent Anatman-related theories as excuses to perpetuate the endless cycle of

imperialism, heroin-trafficking and prostitution that generally drives world

economy. Because of this fatal misunderstanding of Shaivic energies, along with

the corresponding fascination with the lingo of Anatman theory, most of the

world has become a wasteland of dispersed energy, prematurely sacrificed to Kali

without a shred of taste or sophistication.

It is here that I suppose one could get into some kind of nirvikalpa/savikalpa

samadhi debate regarding whether the Buddha, by renouncing his family, actually

created the disintegration of focus which is symbolic of the state of the world,

in that Atman theory, represented by Hinduism is left holding down the homestead

while Anatman theory actually creates suffering by attempting to remove it

through meditation. I would submit that the current state of world dharma locked

in some kind of identity crisis over who is supposed to be holding Kali's left

leg and who the right. This is the essential problem, Shiva just lay there.

Thanks,

Jeff Berger

June 24, 2009

Namaste Jeff, Welcome to the group! It is interesting that each one of us comes with a different world view based on all the literature and thinking one has been exposed to and the life experiences. It seems to me like you have a unique background. Though I always insist that direct experience is far more important than theoretical discussions, it is useful to discuss sometimes. My background is mainly in vedanta and sanatana dharma and not in Buddhism. I will comment on your post based on MY understanding of what your background is and what you are saying. Your mail is quite loaded and I will respond only to some salient points in a freewheeling manner. * * * My world view is slightly different. Aatman is that which is in ALL beings and things as the non-dual and permanent reality. But we do not perceive Aatman and perceive only the objects of the dual world, which are impermanent. However, the impermanent objects of this dual world too are made of Aatman and non-different from Aatman. They do not consist of "anaatman" (non-aatman), but aatman only. Let me give an analogy. A ripple in the pond is also part of pond and not non-pond. While the pond is stationary and permanent, the ripple is moving and transient. It will vanish after a while and merge in the stationary pond. Some ripples die away too fast and some take a very long time. Some transform from one structure to another before they vanish. But each ripple vanishes eventually and the pond remains in the place where there was a ripple once. As a matter of fact, even when the ripple existed, one can still view it as the pond and not as a ripple. Aatman or Brahman described by Veda and Upanishad is like the pond. All beings of the dual world that are perceivable to us are like the ripples in the pond. They arise, they move, they get transformed into different shapes, they interact with each other and get disturbed by each other and eventually they slow down and vanish. * * * Thus, we do not talk in terms of aatman and anaatman (non-aatman). We consider everything as aatman. However, some parts of imperishable aatman seem perishable because of our way of looking, when our perspective is limited by duality. The preservational and destructive aspects are both part of duality and non-dual aatman is free from all such considerations. Nothing is created or preserved or destroyed in aatman. But, when one looks from a perspective that is limited by duality, it seems like there are objects being created, preserved and destroyed. * * * One gets liberation or moksha when one's perspective is not limited by the duality. Even when stuck in a ripple that feels like a violent whirlpool, if one can think "I am the pond" and act like it, then one is liberated. If a ripple is going to come hit the ripple one is in and disturb one's stability, if one can still think "I am the pond" and act like it, then one is liberated. Of course, I am talking in terms of the analogy I introduced earlier. When one is not liberated and one's perspective is clouded by duality, one experiences happiness, sadness, love, lust, hatred, anger, jealosy etc and various emotions. When one is liberated and one's perspective is not limited by duality, one is filled with great bliss. This was the goal of Buddha as well as Vedic rishis. * * * Though rishis declared that everything is Aatman and inability to recognize it is due to one's perspective being limited by duality, they did not leave it at that. They did not say "this duality is nonsense or delusion or magic or anaatman. Just get over it", because getting over it is not easy. For one stuck in a whirlpool in a pond and panicking, the mere preaching "ignore the whirlpool and think of the pond" is useless. They prescribed various paths that are appropriate for people of various backgrounds to slowly get over duality. In fact, for people who do not want to get over duality and want to remain in it, manipulate it to their [temporary] advantage and enjoy it also, they prescribed various paths. The respect rishis showed to both non-dual Aatman AND the field of duality is perhaps unique to sanatana dharma and perhaps missing in Buddhism. * * * Aghora is not meant to be a path of addition to sex or drugs or pain. It is the path of seeing Aatman even in depraving conditions. If an aghori's focus of mind wavers from the chosen deity and becomes aware of the body or its sense inputs, then he has failed badly. Only a sadhaka with a very high level of purity already is capable of testing himself/herself in depraving conditions and see if they disturb the mental focus on god. As Svoboda correctly points out at the beginning of his book on Aghora, the sadhakas who are pure enough to succeed in Aghora practices usually are not attracted to Aghora and those who find the practices attractive are usually not pure enough to succeed in them. However, we cannot equate goddess worship to aghora. Aghora is a set of extreme practices. Goddess worship has a wide range of practices in India. Some worship the goddess without any "self-destruction" or even self-deprivation and pursue rank materialism along with goddess worship. Some worship goddess with varying levels of self-deprivation aimed at slowly limiting the influence of sense inputs and considerations of sense pleasures/pains on the ability of the mind to focus on the Divine. Sanatana dharma has a wide variety of practices that are appropriate for people of various level of spiritual evolution and various degrees of internal purity. * * * But, given the wide variety of teachings and practices available, people sometimes lap up the wrong teachings for them. For example, one person may claim "I am Brahman, I am imperishable aatman, I am Buddha and I have to do no sadhana". A pretension or a mere academic statement is not a substitute for an internal *realization*. If a terrible strife befalls, like a slow and painful death or a debilitating disease or terrible injury, one may start saying "I am in great pain". Well, if one is Brahman, there is no pain or pleasure. One should realize that teachings relating to non-duality are inapplicable to most people and they need to do some sadhana to wade the field duality and reach non-duality. In this light, we must appreciate the respectful treatment of duality by rishis (who themselves had overcome it completely) and their teaching of many tools to slowly wade it. Best regards,NarasimhaDo a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homamDo Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpanaSpirituality: Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.netFree Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.orgSri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org , "jberger001" <jberger001 wrote:> Namaste,> > I recently joined this group after having been forwarded some interesting posts by a colleague. As an introductory post, I would like to address a theme that is most pressing in my current worldview, namely the problem of reconciling the preservational aspect of Atman with what appears to be the dominance of a dark embrace between Anatman theory and the Aghori path throughout most of the world. I don't think this is as simple as recongnizing that Shaivic and Vishnaivic energies are held in constant balance, because the focus of the argument seems more oriented toward an almost unconscious Kali worship among parts of the world in which Buddhism is planting or has planted roots. > > For some time I have struggled with the unsettling suspicion that Buddhism is a terrible trap for the mind to stumble upon. Ever since I heard a clip of U.G. Krishnamurti saying that Buddhism introduced the concept of conversion into the world, and perhaps before, I have been plagued by this suspicion. It appears that Anatman theory merely creates a a playground for various forms of absurdity which manifest themselves as a culture's obsession with sex and death, which result in the economy of many parts of the world being driven by war and prostitution. > > Now the Aghori path is what is is for most people: a path of self-destruction which is also a form of Goddess worship. But I would maintain that such naive practitioners of this path have used, consciously or unconsciously, the prevalent Anatman-related theories as excuses to perpetuate the endless cycle of imperialism, heroin-trafficking and prostitution that generally drives world economy. Because of this fatal misunderstanding of Shaivic energies, along with the corresponding fascination with the lingo of Anatman theory, most of the world has become a wasteland of dispersed energy, prematurely sacrificed to Kali without a shred of taste or sophistication. > > It is here that I suppose one could get into some kind of nirvikalpa/savikalpa samadhi debate regarding whether the Buddha, by renouncing his family, actually created the disintegration of focus which is symbolic of the state of the world, in that Atman theory, represented by Hinduism is left holding down the homestead while Anatman theory actually creates suffering by attempting to remove it through meditation. I would submit that the current state of world dharma locked in some kind of identity crisis over who is supposed to be holding Kali's left leg and who the right. This is the essential problem, Shiva just lay there.> > Thanks,> Jeff Berger

June 28, 2009

Namaste Narasimha,

Thanks for your thorough reply to what was a quite unfocused original post.Granted, I employed a non-standard usage of the term Aatman, which may be traced to my having seen a documentary on the Kumbh Mela festival called "Shortcut to Nirvana" wherein the Dalai Lama, in one of his speeches, was making a distinction between Aatman and Anaatman theory, relating to the former to Hinduism and the latter to his own practice. His message was one of unity, maintaining that Hinduism and Buddhism should peacefully coexist and collaborate. Tibetan Buddhism and Hinduism have many similarities, which I will not get into now, but in my post I was trying to work towards an understanding of how the cycle of war/urbanization/chaotic vice may be effected by world religion. Obviously, this is a very ambitious topic for a message board, but one worthy of exploration in some context.

Just as Christianity must answer for the crusades, there are some things for which both Hinduism and Buddhism must answer, first on the practical plane of world suffering, and secondly on the theoretical plane of abstract causality. Himmler's having carried around a copy of the Bhagavad Gita, Oppenheimer's affinity with the same, and the Nazi interest in the religion of Tibet and Buddhism ... these are all things which are not commonly delved into by academics or mainstream historians due to the their decidedly mystical bent, and their suggestion of a particular brand of amorality which is rarely assimilated into Western thought, let alone media. The confusion over the relationship between the practical causes of world suffering and the religious texts and themes which seem to crop up in their midst is such a vast and daunting object of study, that there is no easy means of approach to it. The concept of karmic rnanubhanda provides a seemingly

convenient handle, but it would be exhausting to apply this thoroughly to an understanding of the afore-mentioned cycle of suffering.

When looking at the vast field of what may be called, for lack of a better term, death cult affinities, throughout the world, it seems logical to consider what role various world religions play in the negative conditioning patterns which govern global consciousness. But the idea which seems to me most compelling is that this all is a result of imbalance between Shaivic and Shaktic energies. And I was suggesting that the very notion of Buddhism, itself, stemming from the legend of the Buddha leaving his home, is based on an unbalanced foundation. Of course, this would also be tantamount to suggesting that Buddha was not a Vishnu incarnation. But all such speculation is perhaps irrelevant, in that many buddhists, not to mention Hindus, would not admit of such a relation in the first place. It is not unreasonable to consider that all suffering is the direct result of the misuse of shakti, caused by the overreaching of the ego. A purely

balanced management of sexual energy, which tantra prescribes, would seem to cure the problem, as long as it could be maintained. I was also, in my original post, implying that the perpetuators of the cyclic intoxication/sex/death habit were all worshippers of Kali, but poor worshippers, and poor managers of shakti, because they burn out fast, and leave a trail of more suffering behind them. Kali is the highest goddess they can conceive of, the Destroyer, so they sacrifice to her. You mention that they are not Aghoris. I would say that it is a question of semantics, in that everyone is an Aghori, just some are more successful at it than others.

Any religion or practice which does not offer a life-affirming balance between Shaivic and Shaktic energies will conjure some goddess to be its symbol. In the collective unconscious we have already been given the paradisiacal symbols of the Garden of Eden, the embrace of Radha/Krishna and the mountain-top reveries of Shiva/Parvati. To descend from these visions into any other view appears pathological, and asking for trouble. This was the essence of my post.

Thanks,

Jeff Berger

--- On Wed, 6/24/09, Narasimha Rao <pvr wrote:

Narasimha Rao <pvr Re: Atman/Anatman - Buddha and Kali dharma Date: Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 4:51 PM

Namaste Jeff, Welcome to the group! It is interesting that each one of us comes with a different world view based on all the literature and thinking one has been exposed to and the life experiences. It seems to me like you have a unique background. Though I always insist that direct experience is far more important than theoretical discussions, it is useful to discuss sometimes. My background is mainly in vedanta and sanatana dharma and not in Buddhism. I will comment on your post based on MY understanding of what your background is and what you are saying. Your mail is quite loaded and I will respond only to some salient points in a freewheeling manner. * * * My world view is slightly different. Aatman is that which is in ALL beings and things as the non-dual and

permanent reality. But we do not perceive Aatman and perceive only the objects of the dual world, which are impermanent. However, the impermanent objects of this dual world too are made of Aatman and non-different from Aatman. They do not consist of "anaatman" (non-aatman) , but aatman only. Let me give an analogy. A ripple in the pond is also part of pond and not non-pond. While the pond is stationary and permanent, the ripple is moving and transient. It will vanish after a while and merge in the stationary pond. Some ripples die away too fast and some take a very long time. Some transform from one structure to another before they vanish. But each ripple vanishes eventually and the pond remains in the place where there was a ripple once. As a matter of fact, even when the ripple existed, one can still view it as the pond and not as a ripple. Aatman or Brahman described by Veda and Upanishad is like the pond. All beings of the

dual world that are perceivable to us are like the ripples in the pond. They arise, they move, they get transformed into different shapes, they interact with each other and get disturbed by each other and eventually they slow down and vanish. * * * Thus, we do not talk in terms of aatman and anaatman (non-aatman) . We consider everything as aatman. However, some parts of imperishable aatman seem perishable because of our way of looking, when our perspective is limited by duality. The preservational and destructive aspects are both part of duality and non-dual aatman is free from all such considerations. Nothing is created or preserved or destroyed in aatman. But, when one looks from a perspective that is limited by duality, it seems like there are objects being created, preserved and

destroyed. * * * One gets liberation or moksha when one's perspective is not limited by the duality. Even when stuck in a ripple that feels like a violent whirlpool, if one can think "I am the pond" and act like it, then one is liberated. If a ripple is going to come hit the ripple one is in and disturb one's stability, if one can still think "I am the pond" and act like it, then one is liberated. Of course, I am talking in terms of the analogy I introduced earlier. When one is not liberated and one's perspective is clouded by duality, one experiences happiness, sadness, love, lust, hatred, anger, jealosy etc and various emotions. When one is liberated and one's perspective is not limited by duality, one is filled with great bliss. This was the goal of Buddha as well as Vedic

rishis. * * * Though rishis declared that everything is Aatman and inability to recognize it is due to one's perspective being limited by duality, they did not leave it at that. They did not say "this duality is nonsense or delusion or magic or anaatman. Just get over it", because getting over it is not easy. For one stuck in a whirlpool in a pond and panicking, the mere preaching "ignore the whirlpool and think of the pond" is useless. They prescribed various paths that are appropriate for people of various backgrounds to slowly get over duality. In fact, for people who do not want to get over duality and want to remain in it, manipulate it to their [temporary] advantage and enjoy it also, they prescribed various paths. The respect rishis showed to both non-dual Aatman AND the field of duality is perhaps unique to

sanatana dharma and perhaps missing in Buddhism. * * * Aghora is not meant to be a path of addition to sex or drugs or pain. It is the path of seeing Aatman even in depraving conditions. If an aghori's focus of mind wavers from the chosen deity and becomes aware of the body or its sense inputs, then he has failed badly. Only a sadhaka with a very high level of purity already is capable of testing himself/herself in depraving conditions and see if they disturb the mental focus on god. As Svoboda correctly points out at the beginning of his book on Aghora, the sadhakas who are pure enough to succeed in Aghora practices usually are not attracted to Aghora and those who find the practices attractive are usually not pure enough to succeed in them. However, we cannot equate goddess worship to aghora. Aghora is a set of extreme practices.

Goddess worship has a wide range of practices in India. Some worship the goddess without any "self-destruction" or even self-deprivation and pursue rank materialism along with goddess worship. Some worship goddess with varying levels of self-deprivation aimed at slowly limiting the influence of sense inputs and considerations of sense pleasures/pains on the ability of the mind to focus on the Divine. Sanatana dharma has a wide variety of practices that are appropriate for people of various level of spiritual evolution and various degrees of internal purity. * * * But, given the wide variety of teachings and practices available, people sometimes lap up the wrong teachings for them. For example, one person may claim "I am Brahman, I am imperishable aatman, I am Buddha and I have to do no sadhana". A pretension or a mere academic statement is not a

substitute for an internal *realization* . If a terrible strife befalls, like a slow and painful death or a debilitating disease or terrible injury, one may start saying "I am in great pain". Well, if one is Brahman, there is no pain or pleasure. One should realize that teachings relating to non-duality are inapplicable to most people and they need to do some sadhana to wade the field duality and reach non-duality. In this light, we must appreciate the respectful treatment of duality by rishis (who themselves had overcome it completely) and their teaching of many tools to slowly wade it. Best regards,Narasimha------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ homamDo Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ tarpanaSpirituality: http://groups. / group/vedic- wisdomFree Jyotish lessons (MP3):

http://vedicastro. home.comcast. netFree Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAst rologer.orgSri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagan nath.org------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- , "jberger001" <jberger001@. ..> wrote:> Namaste,> > I recently joined this group after having been forwarded some interesting posts by a colleague. As an introductory post, I would like to address a theme that is most pressing in my current worldview, namely the problem of reconciling the preservational aspect of Atman with what appears to be the dominance of a dark embrace between Anatman theory and the Aghori path throughout most of the world. I don't think this is as simple as recongnizing that Shaivic and Vishnaivic energies are held in constant balance, because the focus of the argument seems more oriented toward an almost

unconscious Kali worship among parts of the world in which Buddhism is planting or has planted roots. > > For some time I have struggled with the unsettling suspicion that Buddhism is a terrible trap for the mind to stumble upon. Ever since I heard a clip of U.G. Krishnamurti saying that Buddhism introduced the concept of conversion into the world, and perhaps before, I have been plagued by this suspicion. It appears that Anatman theory merely creates a a playground for various forms of absurdity which manifest themselves as a culture's obsession with sex and death, which result in the economy of many parts of the world being driven by war and prostitution. > > Now the Aghori path is what is is for most people: a path of self-destruction which is also a form of Goddess worship. But I would maintain that such naive practitioners of this path have used, consciously or unconsciously, the prevalent Anatman-related theories as

excuses to perpetuate the endless cycle of imperialism, heroin-trafficking and prostitution that generally drives world economy. Because of this fatal misunderstanding of Shaivic energies, along with the corresponding fascination with the lingo of Anatman theory, most of the world has become a wasteland of dispersed energy, prematurely sacrificed to Kali without a shred of taste or sophistication. > > It is here that I suppose one could get into some kind of nirvikalpa/savikalp a samadhi debate regarding whether the Buddha, by renouncing his family, actually created the disintegration of focus which is symbolic of the state of the world, in that Atman theory, represented by Hinduism is left holding down the homestead while Anatman theory actually creates suffering by attempting to remove it through meditation. I would submit that the current state of world dharma locked in some kind of identity crisis over who is supposed to be holding

Kali's left leg and who the right. This is the essential problem, Shiva just lay there.> > Thanks,> Jeff Berger