From: lyeh@alleg.edu (Hun Lye)
Subject: Re: Spirit in the light o
Organization: Allegheny College
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:52:16 GMT

In article <o5syTB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us  
writes:
> lyeh@alleg.edu (Hun Lye) writes:
> 
> Are you without self? Are you emptiness? Are you not stuck in the state
> you're in? If your statements were not so damaging to the spiritual
> welfare, I should laugh at this useless jibberish.
> 
> What is it that changes from a state of suffering to that of liberation.
> What is it that suffers? What is it that is liberated. Is it emptiness?
> So, then, this emptiness which is devoid of self-nature, is somehow
> experiencing pleasure or pain, right? And then, when it is "liberated"
> it somehow experiences that, right? But all the while it is empty and
> devoid of self-nature, right?
> 
> If I meet you I will break your nose, and then we will see how much this
> empty, non-self knows about who is who and what is what. We will see
> whether you can word-juggle your way into not having a non-nose that is
> not-bleeding.
> 
> And you think WE have missed the point?
> 
> The statements we make about Lord Buddha are straight from the Vedas,
> and they are authoritative.
> 
Excuse my ignorance, but where in the Vedas (remember the four Vedas?) is  
there mention of the Buddha?  Are you talking about the Gita or perhaps  
the shastras or maybe the Puranas?  Or do you insist it's the Vedas?

You have interpreted the Buddhist understanding of "emptiness" through the  
lenses of "nihilism."  But note that the "emptiness" that Buddhists  
understand can only be considered valid if it is not clutched by ideas of  
"eternalism" and "nihilism."  Dependent co-origination (conventional  
truth) and emptiness (ultimate truth) do not contradict each other.   
Emptiness do not cancel out the validity of the Path.  That is why I am as  
suspicious as you might be of those who say that since we are all  
"enlightened" (or is "divine," or is "God") to start with, there is no  
need for practice.  

If you come up and break my nose, of course the pain is going to be there.   
Now, am I contradicting myself?  No.  Simply because conventionally things  
exist.  The doctrine of a "soul" is ontologically based.  However, the  
Buddha's teachings are more on epistemology and soteriology.  It is more  
concerned with what our present state is - which is characterized as  
duhkha, impermanent and non-self.  And the Buddha is concerned with how to  
free ourselves from our present state - our samsara.  He is NOT interested  
in metaphysical questions that deal with the twigs and leaves of the  
problem and not the root.

You think it is just word-juggling that I am indulging with?  Well, I  
cannot stop you from perceiving what you want to perceive.  But the  
understanding of "emptiness" goes much deeper than word-juggling.  It  
requires more analysis and logic and not simply faith.  Am I going to  
argue with you here?  No. Firstly, this is the wrong group to do it and  
the postmaster might shoot you or me down.  Secondly, I am sure you know  
that each system or tradition is much deeper than can be argued over  
through the computer.  I reponded to your first posting NOT to "disprove  
you" and prove my "truth" or for that matter the "Buddha's truth."  I  
responded to bring others' attention that there is more to one side of the  
story. 

> How can the empty words of an empty non-self convince another empty
> non-self of anything?

This is what Nagarjuna meant by how we make traps out of everything and  
get ourselves trapped.  If "emptiness" is gonna trap you, it's because you  
allowed it and even helped it.  If "emptiness" is going to liberate you,  
it's because you allowed it.
 
> So, if it's "great" to be faithful to the scriptural truths, then you're
> going to be faithful to them, right? Or did your non-full, non-self not
> really mean what you non-said?

All I can say here is I am soory for getting you caught-up in this  
word-juggling.  Hope you don't yourself in it! 

 Is the Kalachakra tantra a book? If so, then please explain how,
> although your tradition is "independent of scriptures", you are now
> giving evidence from a book.

If you note my posting properly, you will note that I am NOT saying that I  
trust the Kalacakra Tantra or that it is absolute truth or junk.  I was  
only showing to you and others that there is always another side that can  
quote their authorities.  My point is how can we convince someone that my  
BOOK is better than yours through arguing.  If any BOOK works, it should  
be reflected in those who live the BOOK and not those who shout the BOOK.   
And Jesus is certainly right "By their fruits, ye shall know them."
   
Kalki Dasa, what is better:  "To use practical and helpful ways (which is  
usually very slow) to change people and make them become truly  
Krsna-conscious" or "To say things that will be misunderstood by people  
and turn people away form Krsna-consciousness and perhaps give them  
chances to slander Lord Krsna in our efforts to 'save' them."?  What will  
Krsna want?  

I think when H.D.G. Srila Prabhupada came to the US, he just sat by the  
shoplot window that he had rented and chanted the mahamantra continously  
until some people became curios and approached him and asked for  
instruction.  Isn't that right?  Maybe he is teaching us something there.  

What H.D.G. Srila Prabhupada did was he lived his life the way he  
preached.  And I state here that I do not see much sense in those people  
who accuse him of being a "cult leader" greedy for power and money.  I  
mean, why would an over 70 year-old man travel all the way across the  
world to do what H.D.G. did?  Out of love.  He found his lover and he  
loved Him with his life and soul.  And I admire and respect him for that.   
He inroduced a form of Hinduism that is authentic and real - not the  
watered-down syncretic stuff that we see a lot around us.  His orthodoxy  
and simplicity is what really puts him aprt from the other "gurus' that  
were in America in his era.  I cannot think of many other Gurus from the  
east of tha era doing that.  They came to sell their religion - but Srila  
Prabhupada came to tell the New World the LOVER he had found and to share  
that love.

Sorry for this rambling on and on.  But Kalkidas, I am NOT against you or  
ISKCON.  But I am a bit worried and disturbed by some of the things you  
have said here.  This has something to do with my on-going efforts to  
"undo" what my regular American friends have in mind of the "Hare  
Krishnas" (all the fear and the misconceptions).  But when they start  
reading this group and the postings you have done so far, I think I am  
getting nowhere.  That was why I responded.  This will be my LAST posting  
on this subject here.  If you are not happy or want to go on "emptying  
me," - e-mail me and spare the others!


Regards,
Hun Lye
lyeh@alleg.edu



"It is better to die in the performance of one's Dharma than to prosper in  
another's"