HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fstawit@convx1.lerc.nasa.gov (Tawit Chitsomboon)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: On Surrendering
Date: 10 Jan 93 17:45:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: qiclab.1993Jan12.211729.9002
Organization: ----

Although i remain a staunch atheist buddhist, i find the concept
of divinity helpful if taken with a bag of salt :) One thing i
don't quite understand is the concept and the practice of
surrendering (to God); Could someone please explain.

As constantly suggested by Roger Adams, i read Paramahansan's
Autobiography of a Yogi. It is obvious in the book that
PH didn't realize God by surrendering; but rather by a direct
transmission of God from his master, Sri Yuketeshwar, to him
by a strong touching at the chest and the forehead (correct me
if i'm wrong.) Is this all it takes to be realized? At any rate,
it's a far cry from surrendering, much less self-effort.
Or, is surrendering and self-effort don't mix?
Is surrendering anti-intellectual?

My brand of buddhism strongly advocate self effort. But it must
be 'the right effort' in accordance with the middle way doctrine,
i.e., don't surrender too much and don't conquer too much.
(By 'surrender' here i mean non-engagement in a deep concentrative
meditation.) In other words, one should be stabilized in the
middle ground of 'contemplative' meditation.

Perhaps, the late Ven. Dool Atulo (a forest monk
in NE Thailand) put it best, "No matter how hard you think, you
don't know. Only when you stop thinking, will you know. But you
must use your very thought, in order to know." I guess he meant
that we should try to be an impartial reporter rather than a judge,
much less an attorney :) The crux of the problem is:
How to train yourself to be impartial? 
Any preconception of Self (atman) or not-Self (anatta)
will not do you any good. Of course, if the final conclusion
is not 'anatta' then it won't do you any good either :-)

-tawit
---------------------------------------
Religions are spiritual medicines that cure mainly through Placebos.
---------------------------------------
From: farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Happiness
Date: 10 Jan 93 16:23:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: qiclab.1993Jan12.211213.8406
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1inj20INNoja@gap.caltech.edu>, abulsari@aton.abo.fi (Abhay Bulsari VT) writes:
:What is happiness ?
:
:Happiness is a state of mind in absence of desires.
:
:When is this possible, in practice ?
:When there is no fear, anxiety, boredom, desires, wants
:or unfulfilled needs. A feeling of all round satisfaction.
:

I only agree with this definition insofar as happiness is a state of
mind. I do not experience it as an absence of anything. Rather, it is
very full. :-) 

I do think that overconcern with these things you mention can distract
one from happiness, however.

				-Lorenzo
-- 
Happiness is just a                     ******************************
remembrance away.                       *  Lorenzo Farris            *
                                        *  farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu *
                                        ******************************
From: Roger Adams <RADAMS@cerritos.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: revelations or lack thereof...
Date: 6 Jan 1993 12:59:10 -0800
Organization: Cerritos College, Norwalk CA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gap.caltech.edu

In article <1id8qsINNdqk@gap.caltech.edu>, 
asanders@adobe.com (Alan Sanders) writes:

> Some people see the "immaculate conception" story as a metaphor
> for the transformation of the human into the divine. 

I see no reason to see the "immaculate conception" story as a metaphor only. I
think it was an immaculate conception in the literal sense also. I suppose the
story of Jesus walking on water is considered by some to be a metaphor for
"mind over matter" but he did walk on water. The story of Jesus resurrecting
his body is considered by some to be only a metaphor  for life after death -
ie. the soul surviving in astral form after the body is dead, but he really did
resurrect his body. A master has full control over the dream elements of the
physical plane.

> see the Bible as a book of hidden knowledge that could not be
> openly transmitted during Biblical times. Effective metaphors
> may have a number of valid interpretations in addition to their
> literal meanings. 

I agree.

> | ...contrast with Buddhism, where Siddhartha Guatama is supposed 
> | to have been a plain old ordinary guy like you and me.
> 
> A wealthy prince who renounces *everything* to go out into the
> wilderness in search of Truth is hardly an "ordinary guy"!
> 

Exactly. He was not the least bit ordinary. I think Buddhism and Christianity
have made opposite mistakes regarding their founders. At least some sects of
Christianity (if not most) consider Christ to be the only Son of God or even
the only incarnation of God and all other divine incarnations are  considered 
prophets or even heathens. Buddhism, at least in some forms, seems to go to the
other extreme of stripping any aura of divinity from Buddha and imply he was
just one of the guys who somehow got wised up. I contend from my studies of 
Yoga, that one who is fully awakened fully manifests divinity and is therefore
worthy to be seen as divine. Even though we are all actually divine, most of us
are not manifesting this divinity fully (or not even partially in some cases).



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	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        		          293 Dwapara :-)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: 880478s@axe.acadiau.ca (CHARLES LEONARD STRICKLAND)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Karma Dzong/ Buddhism Tibetan in the West
Date: 6 Jan 1993 14:45:58 -0800
Organization: ----
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gap.caltech.edu

Would very much appreciate obtaining some information pertaininng to the 
Dharma practice of the members of the Buddhist sangha Karma Dzong. The 
sangha as some folks may well be aware has faced many challenges and rumours 
to its credibility since its formation by the late Chogyam Trungpa 
Rinpoche. Since the death of Chogyam Trungpa in the mid/early eighties this 
sangha has faced even greater challenges. 

Recently I was afforded the opportunity to meet and befriend various members 
and friends of this sangha and have become keenly interested in possibly 
having further involvement, but am wary due to the various stories of which 
I have heard over the years. Any info would be most pleased.

		Thanks/In Peace
From: prh2s@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Patrick Ray Harrison)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Our desires and our way of life....
Date: 7 Jan 93 21:00:23 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia
NNTP-Posting-Host: gap.caltech.edu

In <ligp7tINN8ia@gap.caltech.edu> tt@wag.caltech.edu (Toshi Takeuchi)
writes:

> The main concept that I have been struggling with is perfectly
> captured by one of my favorite quotes:
>>	You are what your deep driving desire is.  As your desire
>>	is, so is your will.  As your will is, so is your deed.  As
>>	your deed is, so is your destiny.

I am a new reader in this group, but I would like to share my feelings
about the verse Toshi quotes and the issues he raises in his post.

The very Upanishad you cite, Toshi, offers further riches pertinent
to the matter you raise.  As Yajnavalkya instructs his wife Maitreyi,
he says:
	Verily, not for the sake of wealth, my dear, is wealth loved,
	but it is loved for the sake of the self.
					(Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.5)

Perhaps, as we struggle with the desires our consumerist society fuels
within us, it is best that we seek not to reject, but rather to consume
--in a different way, I mean.  In realizing the Self, we realize the
All, and its inclusiveness takes whatever is presented to it and then
moves on, to the uttermost extent of our cognitive, and finally of our
spiritual, being.  From one perspective, we appear to need to reject 
that social conditioning that would lock us into a perpetual cycle of
fulfilling (and often failing to fulfill) petty desires (what one might
call, indeed, the wheel of rebirth).  Yet from another perspective, we
may find it useful to consider our desire as, at least initially, a
valuable kind of inertia.  Let desire go, let it grow, let it take
whatever presents itself, and it will finally cry out for ultimate
fulfillment.  The joy comes when one finds that ultimate fulfillment
lies in the Self itself, in the realization of "That thou art."  Wealth
is then loved not for its own sake, but "for the sake of the self" that
includes and yet transcends it. 

Of course I'm not advocating hedonism as the path to self-realization.
I merely offer a suggestion that the verse "You are what your deep
driving desire is" could mean that our deep driving desire is good,
is our true Self, and that this desire cannot be satisfied with the
meager offerings of a consumerist society.  We crave more for we are
more.

Patrick
From: farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: revelations or lack thereof...
Date: 6 Jan 1993 23:35:29 -0800
Organization: ----
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gap.caltech.edu


In article <1ifs8cINN23q@gap.caltech.edu>, billc@devnull.mpd.tandem.com (Bill Carter) writes:
}
}   Buddhism appears somewhat unique in that even on the surface,
}   there is no claim that Guatama had some special divinity apart
}   from ordinary people like us.  Unusual willpower and determination,
}   perhaps, but he is not said to have been influenced by anything
}   supernatural or born with any special advantage that the ordinary
}   man does not have.  I think this is pretty neat.
}
}   Other religions make no such claim about their central figures.
}   Recklessly controversial, I proposed that Hinduism is among them.
}   So far no one seems to be disputing that.
}

I understand certain parts of Hinduism correctly, any being who
becomes God-realized is effectively an incarnation of divinity. This
puts Hinduism back in the same ball park with Buddhism.

I think this might be approached a little bit differently. For
example, the various Buddhist sutras are supposed to be direct quotes
of the Buddha, a living man, while the Vedas are divinely inspired, as
is the Old Testament of the Bible.

I think it would clarify the discussion a bit if you defined what you
mean by 'revealed'. Do you mean that the 'founder' was a divine
incarnation, or that the sacred scriptures are divinely inspired, or
what? One could argue that the Buddha, upon his enlightenment, was
privy to divine knowledge, thus making Buddhism revealed, in a certain
sense. 

			Yours in quibbling,
				Lorenzo
-- 
Happiness is just a                     ******************************
remembrance away.                       *  Lorenzo Farris            *
                                        *  farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu *
                                        ******************************
From: Ritesh.Bansal@cs.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Pleasure from travelling, an example of its baselessness
Date: 11 Jan 93 07:15:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: qiclab.1993Jan12.211856.9297
Organization: ----

> Excerpts from netnews.soc.religion.eastern: 9-Jan-93 Pleasure from
> travelling, a.. Abhay Bulsari VT@aton.ab (1597)

> Now that I feel that pleasure is a figment of the mind, arising 
> out of conditioning, and a baseless concept, we look at one
> example which I studied in February 1992 in some detail while
> travelling. I have travelled quite often in the last two years
> and people consider travelling as pleasant. It is not always so
> for me. So I analysed the possible reasons for the pleasure
> coming from travelling.

> What exactly does one enjoy in travelling ?

............
> With regards,

> Abhay

I would try to answer your question in a Vipassana Tradition.  

I dont find any pleasure in traveling or sightseeing.  I dont get any
more joy gazing up at Mt.  Rushmore than I would get looking at a
picture or videotape of it.  On the contrary I find it a exhausting,
both mentally and physically,  in short a pain.  

The point I am trying to make is that  enjoyment of traveling is surely
a conditioning.  Because we have been conditioned from childhood that
traveling is a "fun thing" and as everybody does it so should we.  So
whenever somebody travels or goes sightseeing his `sanya' says this is a
pleasant expierence and he feels a flow of pleasent vibrations
throughout or on some part of the body.  As he travels more and more his
`sankhara' gets deeper and deeper with a result that he starts craving
for more travel.  I think that people who have never traveled once in
their lives and have not been exposed to this conditioing would not find
traveling particularly exciting.  


Ritesh
Hacker 
Raspberry Institute, School of Cucumber Science, Cranberry Melon
University.
______________________________________________________________
"The spear in the others heart is the spear in your own,
	you are he" ---------  Attributed to Surak.
From: pingali@gaia.cs.umass.edu (Sridhar Pingali)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: revelations or lack thereof...
Date: 10 Jan 93 17:30:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: qiclab.1993Jan12.211618.8817
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1iniu2INNoiq@gap.caltech.edu> abulsari@aton.abo.fi (Abhay Bulsari VT) writes:
>
>I have tried to ask this earlier as well, but I still don't
>have an answer. What is full enlightenment ? I feel that
>enlightenment is a matter of degrees and types. I can't 
>understand what the absolute enlightenment is.
>
>Abhay

This answer might not help either, but when has that stopped
us :-)?

A characteristic of the fully enlightened mind is that it
never falls into the feeling "I am". Only a Buddha can fathom
a Buddha-mind, but there can be a taste of Arhatship based on
the experience of anatta (non-self).

The answer to the question of suffering can be quite subtle and
unexpected. It is not that prior to enlightenment, there is a
suffering self that ceases to exist afterwards, but that there
is the continuous Buddha-knowing that there has *never* been a
self to begin with. This knowing is not self either. As the
Buddha indicated, he attained to supreme, incomparable 
enlightenement precisely because he gained nothing from it.
Prior to full enlightenment, Buddha-knowing is not continuous.
There can be the deepening into a mature and wise being based
on insight into anatta, but maturity and wisdom are changing
and unsatisfactory.

"The insightful knowing of impermanence leads to the dropping
of the conceit 'I am'. The absence of the conceit 'I am' is
an experience of nibbana here and now" - the Buddha paraphrased.

This may seem confusing, but it really is stunningly simple.

May all beings be happy!

Peace,
Sridhar

--
"The winds of circumstance blow across emptiness. Who can they harm?"
From: pjm@isis.cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Pleasure from travelling, an example of its baselessness
Date: 9 Jan 1993 16:36:42 -0800
Organization: ----
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gap.caltech.edu

In article <1injkgINNojp@gap.caltech.edu> abulsari@aton.abo.fi (Abhay Bulsari VT) writes:
>
>People go to places where there is hardly any  sight seeing to be done,
>yet feel great about their trip. The pleasure only results from
>cheating your mind. 
>
>I will be glad to be corrected.
>
>Two homework exercises for me and any other takers : 
>
>1, Why do we cheat our mind ?
>
>2, Why does eating provide pleasure ?
>
>

although your questions are primarily psychological,
i'm emphasizing philosophy now so will take a philosophical
approach. it is very helpful to analyze the nature of
Concealer Truths. The Common View of reality is based
on an incomplete philosophy which recognizes the inherent
existence of objects and posits that these inherently
existent objects are Real and that validly cognized attributes
associated with them are True. for example, when
we see a beautiful object of desire, the beauty is
artifically magnified by the action of Concealer Truths.
there are many practices to help break down this view.
for example, many monks "pre-digest" their food.
if i take a beautiful sandwhich and mush it up before
i eat it, it certainly diminishes the pleasure of eating
but the nutrition is the same. so, IMHO, we cheat our mind
by operating it with Wrong View. Wrong View is primariy inherited
from our environment. We are taught to cheat our mind.
The concept of Concealer Truth summarizes the principle
behind most mundane Wrong Views. The pleasure of eating or
sex is a Concealer Truth because it can only operate when
the nature of Ultimate Truth has not been realized and/or is
not active in our consciousness. A Buddha congnizes Concealer
Truths and Ultimate Truths simultaneously so it not possible
for mundane desire or pleasure to arise in a Buddha.

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
From: fstawit@convx1.lerc.nasa.gov (Tawit Chitsomboon)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: revelations or lack thereof...y
Date: 10 Jan 93 16:56:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: qiclab.1993Jan12.211555.8727
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <1ikm5sINN6bm@gap.caltech.edu> RADAMS@cerritos.edu 
(Roger Adams) writes:
>...................
>Yoga says that Buddha was divine as are the rest of us but he fully manifested
>this divinity in his enlightenment therefore all the rest of us can take
>heart and likewise become enlightened and fully manifest the divinity.
>
>It is the same thing. I see no disagreement. 
>

You are entitled to think so :-)

I would like to apologize (about my last post) for i appeared to be
unmindful of my bad choices of words (i can always claim that English
is not my native tounge :-)

You certainly have a good attitude in trying to embrace all religions
as one. I am still a narrow man and i still view buddhism as
something different from others. But being different doesn't mean that
we have to be enemy. In fact we should be best friends and help enrich
one another's viewpoints. 

Now we are friends; let's get serious about the Yoga's, the Bahai's and
others' claims that the buddha is divine.

Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (a buddhist monk in Thailand) spent much of his life
in the past defending buddhism from these claims. Now he said he doesn't
care anymore. He is now working hard toward reconciliation of all religions 
himself. His disciples often (once a year i guess) organize inter-religious
conferences to promote mutual understandings. 

Even so, BB still stands firm on the buddha's principle. He once wrote
that if God is interpreted as The Law of Nature then we can all be united.
Of course, The Law of Nature must be interpreted through a buddhist's
looking glass which means that it has three essential characteristics.
dukkha (suffering), anijja (impermanence), anatta (without Self).
I'm sure you wouldn't want to take this step toward unification, would you?

Hinduism has been trying to unite (translation: assimilate/dominate)
buddhism for quite sometime since after the reign of Asoka the Great.
One of the trick was to posit that the buddha is a God's avatar or
reincarnation of Visnu (a Hindu god). Buddhism, imo, fought back with
similar dirty trick; their is (at least) one passage in the tirpitaka
saying that a Hindu high god (Bhrama) came down from the highest level
of heaven; bowed respectfully to the buddha; and asked the buddha to
teach him dharma.

Unification is good if things are similar but i'm afraid two things
as diametrically opposite as Self and not-Self can never be united.
So, let's be different while at the same time be friendly and wish
each other well in their progress toward their goals no matter how
illusory and stupid we think the other's goal is.

-tawit

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The more something needs interpretation, the less it is needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jamesp@cs.uwa.edu.au (James Pinakis)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Siddha Yoga
Date: 11 Jan 93 14:49:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: qiclab.1993Jan12.212116.9651
Organization: Dept. Computer Science, University of Western Australia.

About ten years ago I was fairly heavily involved with Siddha Yoga.  This
was in the time when Swami Muktananda was still alive, and although I never
met him I always felt something special for him.  After his death, I travelled
to Ganeshpuri (at the tender age of 17) to meet his successors, but never felt
a close bond to either of them.

I gradually drifted out of regularly attending the Siddha Yoga centre here
(though I still practiced regularly at home), but would go to programmes there
occasionally.  Once, about five years ago, I went to the local centre and
noticed that there were no longer any pictures of (the then) Swami Nityananda
around the place.  I asked some people about this and was told that it was
"his role" to only serve in the transition period and then abdicate his
position.  I kind-of accepted this at the time, but then started hearing
all kinds of bad rumours about "what really happened", including some very bad
articles in an Indian magazine which I chased up in our university's library.

After this I become more discouraged with the whole movement.  Last year when
"Gurumayi" toured Australia (she didn't come to my city), there were even more
bad rumours published in the local press, including some horrible stuff about
Muktananda.  This more-or-less sealed it for me: I felt like I'd been completely
had.  I really felt stupid and cheated.

I know that some people will say that if I truly had faith I wouldn't feel
like this, but I can't help it.  I still believe in the principles espoused
by the group, but I hate all the corporate money-making shit that the
"Foundation" is involved in.  I value my memories of Ganeshpuri very highly
and would sometime like to go back there, but then I wonder "why?" when
I feel about the Guru the way I do.

I'm wondering if there are any other devotees out there who would like to
correspond about this matter.  I'm not completely sure why I still feel the
need to talk about it as my life has changed considerably since then.  Maybe
because my involvement with the group has had a lot of influence on who I am
now.

james
From: fstawit@convx1.lerc.nasa.gov (Tawit Chitsomboon)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Our desires and our way of life
Date: 9 Jan 1993 14:32:11 -0800
Organization: ----
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gap.caltech.edu

In article <1ilc2iINNb7p@gap.caltech.edu> asanders@adobe.com 
(Alan Sanders) writes:
>..................
>....................................................... When Buddha
>declares that desire is the cause of suffering, he is speaking of
>ordinary worldy desires, ego desires, etc. Yet he himself came
>to this realization after taking a solemn vow not to rise from
>his seat until he knew the truth of man's existence. That was a
>pretty strong desire, I'd say! ................................

There are 2 types of desires: that which is driven by defilement
and that which is driven by wisdom (Obviously one needs to set a
ground rule first as to what is defilement and what is wisdom.)

The buddha's desire is the desire to get rid of all desires.
In Thailand, we have a saying: "When a thorn sticks, pick it with
a thorn." (I read here in sre that Zen has a similar saying.)

Enlightened ones are said to be driven purely by wisdom, i.e.,
they perform their lives' chores without any mental attachment
whatsoever. Desire is (seem to me) attachment, including attachment
to non-attachment, ad infinitum.

-tawit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing that no one know nothing about can be talked about as
much as Enlightenment. Ditto God.
-------------------------------------------------------------------