HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kish@athos.rutgers.edu (Bill Kish)
Subject: Re: Soul Questions Jim/Kish (part 2)
Organization: ----
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:09:19 GMT


jdavis:
+ I celebrate death and impermanence as the ordained
+ characteristic of external life, but not as the foundation of
+ Life, of reality.  

There is no inner core of "reality".  You should learn to regard all dharmas
as dreams.  If you want to talk of indestructable vajra nature, you have to 
shed I/me/mine.  You speak of an internal/external dichotomy, and yet such a 
dualistic fixation is precisely what I/me/mine hinges on.  This is an 
impediment to the limitless existence you seem to crave so strongly.

jdavis:
+ And knowing a little of how communication
+ works, I can not imagine that Buddha or Christ place much value
+ on what remains of their teaching.  I do not think that the
+ Eastern concept of impermanence is correctly understood, just as
+ I do not believe that Christian concept of salvation is correctly
+ understood. 

This passage, besides being wildly conjectural, is besides the point.  We 
have a tradition of oral and written teachings which can be traced back 
roughly 2500 years which is referred as Buddhism.  While your descriptions 
of "soul" seem to have some similarity with the focused, unified mind which 
generally precedes full awakening, statements about internal/external 
dichotomies and preferences for causes over effects are obviously based on 
dualistic notions, and I doubt whether any of the countless strains of thought 
which can be referred to as Buddhism would sanction this.  Not that this is a 
big deal in and of itself, but you should be aware that there is a difference 
between what you are talking about and the teachings which are at least 
provisionally attributed to Sakyamuni.
	Let me conclude with a comment on your Alice Bailey quote:

jdavis (from Alice Bailey):
+ Therefore be full of joy, O pilgrim on the Way towards
+ enlightened Being, for gain and loss are one; darkness and light
+ reveal the True; love and desire eternally invoke the Life.
+ Naught disappears but pain.  Nothing remains but bliss--the bliss
+ of knowledge true, of contact real, of light divine, the Way to
+ God."

I like this quote, especially the part about loss and gain being one. I put
it to you that you have misunderstood this if you prefer causes to effects.
If you read this as implying some kind of soul evolution, you aren't looking 
hard enough.  She says "nothing remains but bliss".  "Nothing remains" implies 
a process of unlearning, a process by which death and impermanence are 
recognized as vehicles by which the internal/external dualistic fixation you 
indulge in above can be dissolved.  The bliss that remains is not a soul, nor 
anything else that should be misconstrued as "I persist".  Shunryu Suzuki says 
what we call "I" is just a swinging door that moves when you breathe in and 
moves when you breathe out - there is no reason to make anything more out of 
it.

-Bill

Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
From: jrk@information-systems.east-anglia.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway)
Subject: Re: Enlightened Beings
Organization: ----
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:24:50 GMT

In <1992Sep3.083541.21990@qiclab.scn.rain.com>, fstawit@.lerc.nasa.gov (Tawit Chitsomboon) writes:
>It's considered polite in Thailand to ask 'Do you have any suffering?'
>It really translates as 'Are you enlightened?']

What is the polite reply?  If I say "no", I'm bragging (and unlikely to be
telling the truth :-)); if I say "yes", is it polite to go into detail?
Or is it like the English "How do you do", the correct answer to which is
"How do you do"?

--
Richard Kennaway     SYS, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Internet:  jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk               uucp:  ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk


Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
From: farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris)
Subject: Re: Why meditate?
Organization: ----
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:33:20 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.055216.1991@qiclab.scn.rain.com>,
fstawit@icomp01.lerc.nasa.gov (Tawit Chitsomboon) writes (in response
to me):

> Meditation can be painful, nuetral, or happy. The most dangerous form
> ,IMO, is a happy meditation. This is because you'll attach to the
> happiness and refuse to move ahead. This is infact, one of the greatest
> traps in Vipassana (insight) meditation in the buddhist tradition.
> 
> A proper attitude should be to reflect upon the happiness, see the
> impermanent processes of happiness and finally let go of it. The same
> reflection should be used for the case of painful and neutral meditation.
> 

Point taken.  However, what I said still holds true.  Even if you are
in the presence of an enlightened master, what indication do you
really have that you are progressing in your meditation.  That some
guy you think is enlightened tells you so?  Only you can measure your
progress. If you are progressing in your practise, your life is
enhanced, and you experience more joy in your life.  You are also more
sensitive to everything in your consciousness, as meditation works as
an amplifier of your consciousness.  Every difficulty in practise and
life becomes an opportunity to develop deeper understanding.  When
experiencing joy and bliss, this is an opportunity to push a little
harder and understand where this joy and bliss originate.  Happiness
is an attitude.  Meditation gives the power to maintain this attitude.
Meditation gives the power to maintain a sense of humor when
experiencing difficulties in meditation and life.  In my post, I said
that the measure of progress, at least for me, is whether I am
happi_er_ .  Not happy. Happier.  There must be upwards progress.  If
I am at the same level of happiness that I was at yesterday, then
yeah, I'm happy, but I'm not progressing in my practise.  And what is
the ultimate ecstasy, other than union with Eternity.  Anyway, this is
all IMHO.
Seeing you through rose tinted glasses, getting rosier all the time,
			-Lorenzo
-- 

"No self, no problem!"			Lorenzo Farris
					farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu

Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
From: mcfarlan@corona.math.washington.edu (Thomas J. McFarlane)
Subject: Re: No Soul
Organization: ----
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 00:22:27 GMT

Roger Adams <RADAMS@cerritos.edu> makes the following comments on this passage
from the Pali canon:
>> 
>>      Verily, there is a realm, where there is neither the solid
>                          ^^^^^
>This is a positive existence.
>
>>      nor the fluid, neither heat nor motion, neither this world
>>      nor any other world, neither sun nor moon.  This I call neither
>>      arising nor passing away, neither standing still, nor being
>>      born, nor dying.  There is neither foothold, nor development,
>>      nor any basis.  This is the end of suffering...
>> 
>>      There is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed.  If these
>             ^^
>And this is an entity. An entity does not have to be born or created or 
>formed or originated to be an entity.
>
>>      were not this Unborn, this Unoriginated, this Uncreated, this
>>      Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the
>>      created, the formed, would not be possible.  But since there is
>>      an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, therefore is escape
>>      possible from the world of the born, the originated, the created,
>>      the formed.
>>                          -The Buddha (Udana, VIII)
>
>I think the above quote attributed to Buddha already reified it in that
>he speaks of an unborn or uncreated and uses the words "there is" this
>                                                              ^^
>unborn, uncreated. As soon as you use this verb "is", you reify in the sense
>of referring to something that _exists_, but certainly not anything physical or
>temporal which may be the usual meaning of "reify" (ie. making something 
>concrete or tangible). The Vedantic concept of an unborn, uncreated, unformed,
>unoriginated Self is not contradictory to what you mention above.

This quote does not, in itself, reify anything.  If anything is reified, it
is reified in the mind of the reader when clinging to the conceptions of
"Unborn," "Uncreated," and so on.  As the Buddha said in the Diamond Sutra,

     While the Tathagata, in his teaching, constantly makes use
     of conceptions and ideas about them, disciples should keep
     in mind the unreality of all such conceptions and ideas.
     They should recall that the Tathagata, in making use of them
     in explaining the Dharma always uses them in the resemblance
     of a raft that is of use only to cross a river.  As the raft
     is of no further use after the river is crossed, it should be
     discarded.  So these arbitrary conceptions of things and about
     things should be wholly given up as one attains enlightenment.

Or, as Nagarjuna said in the Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra,

     Whether any teaching is true or not depends solely on whether
     one is non-clinging or clinging in regard to it.

A non-clinging mind will find the Truth revealed.  A clinging mind will
find it obscured.

Tom McFarlane


Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
From: farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris)
Subject: Re: Meditation and smoking
Summary: smoking doesn't help
Organization: ----
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:32:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.054146.1009@qiclab.scn.rain.com>, RAHLFS@BEATE.RZ.FH-ULM.DE (RZ D. Rahlfs) writes:
> Who is/has been a smoker and meditates? Is smoking an impediment for
> good meditation?
> 
> --
> RAHLFS@BEATE.RZ.FH-ULM.DE (RZ D. Rahlfs)


I am a light smoker, and I meditate for about 90 minutes a day.  The 
problem with smoking is that it will drain you of psychic energy, in
proportion to how much you smoke.  You will have to figure out just
how much of an effect smoking has on your energy level, just by
becoming more sensitive to your own body.  The more energy you have,
the easier you will find it to meditate.  I have been able to feel
the effects of smoking on myself, and have cut down to less than
two cigarettes a day.  But feel it out for yourself, and let your own
body tell you what is appropriate.
		-Lorenzo
farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu

Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
From: srini@ireq-num.hydro.qc.ca (Srinivasan K.)
Subject: Birth and Death
Organization: ----
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:19:14 GMT

The concept of birth and death is intimately related to the words
used in ancient languages.
In Tamil,   Death = iRa(ppu)
            Birth = piRa(ppu).
These words imply re-birth, and the cycle of birth and deaths.
The fact that the word for 'birth' is derived from that of 'death'
and not vice versa is itself note worthy.

The word birth could itself have been originated from 'piRa ppu'.

K. Srinivasan  srini@ireq-num.hydro.qc.ca


Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
From: pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Subject: Re: No Soul
Organization: ----
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 03:20:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.190749.12714@cco.caltech.edu> Roger Adams <RADAMS@cerritos.edu> writes:
>
>> that is one question i would like you to answer. how does the existence of a
>> soul bring liberation? 
>
>The soul needs no liberation. Its the existence of ego (ahamkara) that causes
>suffering and cannot possibly lead to liberation. Again, I feel that there is
>confusion between ego and soul (Self) whenever any of these discussions take
>place between Buddhists and non Buddhists. I feel that many Buddhists are 
>taking the "Atman" of Vedanta to mean ego or deluded self and that somehow this
>pathetically deluded, limited, fearful, whimpering little self will live
>forever. Nonsense. The ego is illusionary and is not immortal. Any discussion
>of a soul in Vedanta should be seen in the light of ultimate vedantic truth
>of a non-dual, no beginning and no end, entity that may be called Self or God
>and all else such as individual souls are relative truth in comparison.
>
>> is a soul capable of stopping the  flood of confusion we drown in every day 
>> here in the West?  it seems the answer is a resounding NO!

we can agree that Gautama primarily taught a yoga, a means for deliverance.
this method is founded on Dependent Origination - that the Self(*),
though _like_ an illusion, is indeed subject to the laws of
Dependent Origination. that it is possible, through _knowledge_,
to understand the process of life and death and to realize that
it is impermanent and a dependent arising. but it appears that
He is saying that to reach Nirvana is also a dependent arising.
It is dependent on understanding Dependent Origination!
Lets say the World Soul theory (Purusha) is correct,
that this supermind directs the evolutionary process of rebirth.
But non-duality would say that the Self and Purusha are One.
Say you cant really say that Self is such and such and Purusha
is someother such and such. Similarly the Brahma and I are one.
You cant say Self is such and such and Brahma is some other such
and such. it doesnt work that way. so the Buddha is correct in
saying that liberation is dependent on the knowledge of The
Way of Liberation which is embodied in the Buddhist Path(s)
because there is no *OTHER* such and such to say otherwise
(ie no *independent* God and Soul).

(*)The Self in Buddhist terminology is the matter/mind complex which
make up an individual. i believe it contains subtle components
which are *similar* to your Atman and Brahma theories, but
all are subject to the laws of Dependent Origination.

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org

Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
From: jrk@information-systems.east-anglia.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway)
Subject: Visuddhimagga
Organization: ----
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:25:17 GMT

In <1992Sep4.054333.1286@qiclab.scn.rain.com>, pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
writes:
>this is an over simplification but i want to encourage people
>to read Visuddhimaga.

Where can I find this?  I looked it up in Books in Print and ordered an
English translation from a bookshop, but it turned out to be out of print. 
Can anyone supply publication details?

--
Richard Kennaway     SYS, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Internet:  jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk               uucp:  ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk


Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
From: Roger Adams <RADAMS@cerritos.edu>
Subject: Re: No Soul
Organization: Cerritos College, Norwalk CA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:07:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.032803.2023@cco.caltech.edu>, 
pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo) writes:

> In article <1992Sep9.061804.22742@cco.caltech.edu> 
RADAMS@cerritos.edu (Roger Adams) writes:

>>Now what I would like to ask you at this
>>point is: does conservative Buddhism reject the idea that an "entity" of
>>any sort, regardless of what the attributes are, exists? If the conservative
>>Buddhist view is "no, there is no such thing as an entity of any sort, 
>>nothing at all exists" then there is no point arguing about the following
>>attributes (1 thru 6) that you came up with since you don't think that
>>any "entity" exists - regardless if its in a body or not or if its separate
>>from the senses or not or if its permanent or not etc. - anyhow.

> 
> what do you mean by "conservative" Buddhist?

I should have put the term "conservative Buddhist" in quotes because this
term was used by Mr. Wong. I think he implied in his post that some Buddhists
think that the concept of no-soul came after Buddha (he mentioned a couple
of translators of Buddhist texts that thought so). I would therefore hazard
a guess that a "conservative Buddhist" is one who cannot possibly accept
that an entity can exist that has no beginning or no end and moreover cannot
accept that an entity of any sort can exist. I would then take it that there
may be other Buddhists who are not so hard-line on this and perhaps don't
make any conclusions at all on the subject and just enjoy their practices :-).

> that is one question i would like you to answer. how does the existence of a
> soul bring liberation? 

The soul needs no liberation. Its the existence of ego (ahamkara) that causes
suffering and cannot possibly lead to liberation. Again, I feel that there is
confusion between ego and soul (Self) whenever any of these discussions take
place between Buddhists and non Buddhists. I feel that many Buddhists are 
taking the "Atman" of Vedanta to mean ego or deluded self and that somehow this
pathetically deluded, limited, fearful, whimpering little self will live
forever. Nonsense. The ego is illusionary and is not immortal. Any discussion
of a soul in Vedanta should be seen in the light of ultimate vedantic truth
of a non-dual, no beginning and no end, entity that may be called Self or God
and all else such as individual souls are relative truth in comparison.

> is a soul capable of stopping the  flood of confusion we drown in every day 
> here in the West?  it seems the answer is a resounding NO!
> 
 See above. The soul is not confused, the ego is.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	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 :-)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga
Organization: ----
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 01:02:31 GMT

The English version i have has an English title: The Path of Purification.
It was translated by Bhikkhu Nanamoli, born in England 1905,
entered the Island Hermitage in 1949, died 1960.
It is published by Buddhist Publication Society
and is still in print (i got it a month ago).
An earlier translation by someone else is probably
what was thought to be out of print.

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org

Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
From: fstawit@icomp01.lerc.nasa.gov (Tawit Chitsomboon)
Subject: Re: Why meditate?
Organization: ----
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:35:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.183320.3176@cco.caltech.edu> 
farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris) writes:

>In article <1992Sep4.055216.1991@qiclab.scn.rain.com>,
>fstawit@icomp01.lerc.nasa.gov (Tawit Chitsomboon) writes 
>
>> Meditation can be painful, nuetral, or happy. The most dangerous form
>> ,IMO, is a happy meditation. This is because you'll attach to the
>> happiness and refuse to move ahead. This is infact, one of the greatest
>> traps in Vipassana (insight) meditation in the buddhist tradition.
>
>.....................X
>.................................................  In my post, I said
>that the measure of progress, at least for me, is whether I am
>happi_er_ .  Not happy. Happier.  There must be upwards progress.  If
>I am at the same level of happiness that I was at yesterday, then
>yeah, I'm happy, but I'm not progressing in my practise.  


OK, I agree. The problem then boils down to: How do you define
happiness?

>And what is
>the ultimate ecstasy, other than union with Eternity.  Anyway, this is
>all IMHO.

That is the most joy, the ultimate, of all theistic religions.
For buddhists, the ultimate happiness is to transcend both
happinesses and sufferings, i.e., non-attach in all senses of
the word. There could be no bigger difference in Buddhism and
Hinduism (for that matter all theistic religions) other than this
point regarding happiness. Again, I'm not saying that which one
is right. Here, I'm just trying to point out the differences.

-Tawit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Tension and compression are both stressful.
Suffering and happiness are both stressful.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
From: darsie@eecs.ucdavis.edu (Richard Darsie)
Subject: Re: Would like info on Kundalini
Organization: ----
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:38:22 GMT

The following was sent to me by e-mail; the author is unable to post
and so I am posting for him.

Richard

*********************************************************************

>From: lutzeb@cs.tu-berlin.de (Dirk Lutzebaeck)
Subject: Re: Would like info on Kundalini
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern

Yopi Bhajan is the present master in teaching kundalini yoga.  He
established the 3HO organisation (healthy, happy, holy) in the early
70ies, I think. He lives in California now (i have to look up the
exact address if you want to). They have ashrams all over the world
and sell quite a lot of self published books about kundalini yoga. I'm
practicing kunalini yoga for a half year now in Berlin and I am
absolutely pleased about the way of teaching and the spirits behind
kundalini yoga.

Another very interesting person about kundalini is Gopi Krishna
(1902-1984). He practiced meditation at 17 years of age on until he
was 34, because then he had a tremendous enlightment experience, i.e.
the rise of the kundalini. He struggled the next years in his life
with kundalini until he managed it after a long slow process. He then
became a heavy promoter (i don't know if this is the right word) about
telling people about the importance of kundalini and how it can change
the whole spirit of mankind in a spiritual way. He founded the
"Kundalini Research Center" in India (I forgot the city) and at age of
63 he began to write down his life experience with kundalini in a
book. In Germany it is called "Kundalini", published by Scherz Verlag
(I have to look up the original english publisher when I come home). I
read it and can highly recommend it. He wrote some more books about
kundalini but with more political/ethical content then exercise
contents. In fact he never practiced pure kundalini yoga as teached by
Yogi Bhajan, I think.

- Does anybody know more about the "Kundalini Research Center" in India?

- Are there any kundalini yoga practicioners out there? I would like to
  get in contact with you to share experiences!

Sat Nam

--
Dirk Lutzebaeck       | Email: lutzeb@cs.tu-berlin.de |  (**( )
TU Berlin, Sekr. 6-10 | Tel:   +49-30-314-25586       | (**( . ) I don't think,
Fraenklinstr. 28/29   | FAX:   +49-30-314-73622       | (*.*)  ) so I am.
D-1000 Berlin 10      | Room:  FR6079                 |  (*)  )


Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern