Re: [Meditation Society of America] Re: Dealing With Life Meditations/Eglaelin
- --- Andy <endofthedream@...> wrote:
> I really have no idea regarding this. Sure, IThis was the essence of Buddhist philosophy. The
> know what the causation means, but I don't see
> how one rises above it.
reason for pursuit of enlightenment was so that
one could escape from the wheel of suffering.
This is known as rising above the chain of
"THE CHAIN OF CAUSATION. If ignorance ceases,
wrong desire ceases and so do selfish efforts,
craving, grasping, sorrow and suffering. The
chain of causation also works the other way, in
which ignorance can give rise in turn to all
these other unwanted actions and states."
Of course, in agreement with you, this is only a
concept. However, the actions used to take
perform this action (the eight fold path) is much
more important than the actual concept.
>Pleasure as a reason for existence is a flawed
> I am here because there
> is pleasure in this. And, more pointedly, I am
> here because you want me to be here.
concept. Pleasure is a thing of the moment and
many things that cause pleasure now will cause
suffering later. Instead of living for pleasure
why not live for happiness.
"According to my experiences, the principal
characteristic of genuine happiness is peace:
inner peace. By this I do not mean some kind of
feeling of being �spaced out.� Nor am I speaking
of an absence of feeling. On the contrary, the
peace I am describing is rooted in concern for
others and involves a high degree of sensitivity
and feeling." The Dalai Lama, Ethics For A New
> Are you asking me what I do for a living?Yes. I was curious what kind of employement you
>...mythological creation from the historyMyths are the language of the sub-conscious. The
> of spirituality...If that is what you mean by a
>bodhissatva, then yes, there are bodhissatvas.
existence of these kinds of people/creations are
there for a purpose. They inspire us to raise
ourselves above the normal mentality that focuses
>Why is the most important question there is.
> For the most part I find myself steering clear
> of "why" questions (unless they are about
> practical items like, "why should I use a
> wrench for this job rather than a hammer").
> The usual answer to all other types of "why"
> questions is simply another story.
Without "why" science is impossible. Without
"why" psychology is impossible. Without asking
yourself "why" spiritual change is impossible.
Here is where you say change is impossible but
change is possible. I know I have changed.
Without the concept that I could change I would
have followed in the footsteps of my father.
> There are no enlightened beings. PersonalRefer to my previous message about mythology
> enlightment is a contradiction in terms,
> another aspect of spiritual mythology.
being the language of the sub-conscious. The
concept of those who raise themselves to a higher
standard(level) is religion wide. The fact is
that some people feel called to a higher
existence. Whether that existence is valid
according to you is a matter of opinion. This
does not invalidate the concept.
> I never said that there was no change. ToApparent as a term invalidates the word change.
> quote what I previously wrote, "There is only
> apparent change."
One of the definitions of apparent indicates that
5 : manifest to the senses or mind as real or
true on the basis of evidence that may or may not
be factually valid. Does this not mean that
change is only an illusion.
> Why am I here at all? I'm not sure what youActually you answered that question already.
> mean by "here." Can you elaborate please.
> I "choose" to help things get better. I chooseBecause I see a different meaning behind
> to help the hungry. I choose to help my friends
> stop hating and being afraid. I choose to
> support the efforts for peace.
> All of the above is because you believe you
> exist as an independent entity, and that such
> an entity has free will/choice, one that can -
> eventually perhaps - become "enlightened."
> Check out all the spiritual mythologies that
> you refer to in your posts. The one
> commonality amongst them is that there is no
> separation: that the entire universe is a
> single, UNcaused presence. This is true for
> all the world's spiritual traditions. If you
> accept these traditions, then why are you
> avoiding their most fundamental, basic premise?
connected than they represent. That is what
performing a spiritual search means. To find
meaning in the works of others that you can
relate to an integrate into your own. Several of
the worlds main spiritual traditions insist that
the universe does have a cause.
My definition of connection: the fact that
everyones actions affect the reality of others.
My actions spread out in a chain from my into the
world. My ethical conduct affects the world
around me. Just as yours does. Eventually the
waves of interaction meet like the waves in a
>When it comes to physical representations Taoism
> One example: from both buddhist and hindu
> teachings comes the concept of the Net of Indra
> (which, today, is referred to as the
> holographic universe by some quantum
> physicists). The Net of Indra is a poetic way
> of asserting that everything is tied to
> everything else, and that everything is a
> reflection of everything else, and that
> everything is, in fact, One. The Net of Indra
> appears in many traditional texts; the
> following is from the The Avatamsaka Sutra
> (from the Hua-Yen school of Buddhism).
has the best. Everything is one in the Tao and
yet maintains its individual natures. That is
why Taoist have such a wide range of
methodologies. Each seeks after union with the
Tao but recognizes that each individual has
different tendencies. The Tao is one and yet
encompasses the ten thousand distinct and
individual things. Taoism has embraced many
concepts from Hinduism and Buddhism. This is why
I can embrace their concepts of enlightened
individuals (Immortals in Taoism). It is not
necessary, just because everything is connected,
to insist that there are no individuals.
> Now let me ask you a couple of questions.You do have a choice. Millions of people have
> Do you have a job? Yes.
> Do you have a family? Yes.
> Do you interact with others? Yes.
> If so why? Because I have no say in the
> matter. The desire to interact occurs
> (sometimes). When it is not strong enough, no
> interaction happens. When its pull is
> compelling enough, then there is interaction.
> It is how I am wired, it is my conditioning.
> It's very simple. Only our thoughts make What
> Is appear to be complicated.
made that choice. You do not have to interact at
all. Nothing forces interaction not even your
conditioning. Why do you interact with some
people and not others? You choose among the
people that come into your perceptions who you
will associate with. In that very real fact you
do have a choice.
To sum up my arguments.
1. The concept of escaping the chain of causation
is a motivation for living an ethical life. Not
the only motivation but a motivation.
2. Pleasure as a motivation for living has many
flaws. Pleasure is non-essential. There are many
times in life when we must eschew pleasure to
achieve our goals.
3. The basis for inner peace is a consideration
for the happiness of self and others. It also
requires a sensitivity to the state of other
4. Why is the beginning of Wisdom.
5. The need for those who dedicate themselves to
raising themselves and others to higher ethical
conduct is essential.
6. It is not necessary for a concept of oneness
to invalidate the existence of the individual.
The statement, "We are All One," indicates that
we all have the same need for happiness. Not
necessarily that the individual is irrelevant. I
prefer to look at this from the point of IDIC.
Infinite Diversity Infinite Combination.
Everything is essential for existence.
A statement I would add for the above is looking
at the universe in this way allows for the
appreciation of the uniqueness of each item.
Peace On Your Path,
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
> If you like the study of the mind, Eglaelin, You might try GeorgPatanjali.
> Feuerstein's translation and commentary on "Yoga Sutra" by
> It is the basis of Raja Yoga. It is very systematic and wellformed.
>devi: i have it on order from the library, i've already read about
> Bobby G.
four or five commentaries, most from indian scholors, i'm actually
thinking about offering study groups in my area..