From: Roger Adams <RADAMS@cerritos.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Effort vs clinging on the spiritual path
Date: 19 Nov 1992 21:36:22 -0800
Organization: Cerritos College, Norwalk CA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

In article <1egkbqINNabr@sandman.caltech.edu>, 
cup.portal.com!Tagi%portal@uunet.uu.net writes:

> Methinks that Roger does not know what is being referred to by a 'lazy path'.
> A lazy path is a path that is not a path (true buddhism!).  It requires no
> effort because it does not require, period.  If you want to get to point A,
> then the path might say: go X direction for Y minutes, then turn left.
> The lazy path is about getting there with the LEAST amount of effort, not
> about arguing that no effort is ever needed in order to accomplish something.
> 

Then we are agreed. However, the term "lazy" is not advised. The story is
often told about the woman who went to a guru who was bathing in the Ganges
and said, "Master, what does it take to know God?", the master then submerged
her under the water and when she saw that the woman could not stay under any
longer, she pulled her up and asked "tell me, what were you thinking when
you were under the water?" the aspirant answered "all I could think of and
desire was air, nothing else". The guru then said, "you have to want God
the same way as you wanted air just now in order to succeed." Having said
this, some paths are easier and quicker than others but I would say that it
is prudence and common sense, rather than laziness, to choose the fastest,
easiest path because laziness will just keep you in delusion. The spiritual
path is not for sloths and idlers because slothfulness and idleness are
functions of ego.

> I think your words here are quite extreme and limited.  What else IS there
> besides the world if the '5 senses'?  

I think you are making my case. The world of the 5 senses is like a pea
in a handbasket compared to the unlimited realms of the many universes
on the various planes of existence and even all that pales to the unmanifest,
spaceless, timeless (see The Autobiography of a Yogi for some descriptions
from Sri Yukteswar of some of the various planes that are beyond the
physical realm).  The point is that ego-consciousness clings strongly to
this physical-sense-realm even to the point of believing that this is it
and nothing else is. With delusion this strong, you can't expect to yawn
your way through it.

> Having said this
> (in some humor), let me add that I like my philosophy nondualist and your
> mention of 'higher' and 'lower', 'senses' and [Nirvana???] lets me get my
> blood boiling! :>
> 

Let's be practical. You are acknowledging there is a "you" and there is a
"me" and we are communicating from "our" workstations etc. - all of this
is dualistic - so why quibble over "higher" and "lower". If I told you
that there was a bee "above" your head, would you say "nonsense, there is no
'above' or 'below' or 'higher' or 'lower', I'm a card-carrying non-dualist!?"
I think you would look up first and save the philosophy for later :-). The
point is that we are steeped in dualities no matter what our philosophy is.
I like non-dual philosophy too, but I know that it points to truth only and
effort is required while we are yet dreaming to awaken to it.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	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 :-)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------