back to the god thing

March 4, 1999

i dont get it.

as a buddhist, its not really a necessary part of my path either.

Now granted, i do do pujas to buddhist deities like Green Tara, Chenrezig,

Dorje Sempa etc. but these are seen as inseperable from one's guru.

when someone speaks of 'i am' i have to wonder, is this outside of

onesself? is this thing permanant, changeless? (i have looked, and in the

entire universe, even indra's heaven is subject to the laws of change and

when the kalpa ends in fire will be gone!)

i have no desire to be reborn into a heaven realm, all that would do is

burn up good karma and then send me into the lower realms. The basis of my

sprituality is the ideal of mahayana buddhism, the bodhisattva. everything

revolves around this. This ideal is basically summed up into the 4 great

vows:

sentient beings are numberless, i vow to save them all

delusions are endless, i vow to sever them all,

Teachings are infinite, i vow to learn them all

Buddha's way is inconcievable, i vow to attain it.

i guess the end q is: why is god necessary for you? what purpose does this

serve? when i hear this list speak of god, i can substitute 'guru' a lot

of the time. Are we really looking at the same mountain?

maitri,

--janpa tsomo

March 4, 1999

Dear Debora,

I'm not sure who you speak to in this thread (probably not me directly),

but please allow me to interject my viewpoints, in the hope that I'm not

being rude in doing so:

At 01:28 PM 3/4/99 -0600, you wrote:

>when someone speaks of 'i am' i have to wonder, is this outside of

>onesself?

Absolutely not. The soul, Atman, is At-One with Brahman (I AM), which is

in turn At-One with EVERYTHING. Brahman is the "light" with which the maya

of this apparent world is seen. Nothing is outside anything. All is One

in Brahman.

>is this thing permanant, changeless?

Yes, Brahman is absolutely permanent and changeless. Nothing affects

Brahman in any way. That which is seen by the light of the sun does not

affect the sun itself.

>(i have looked, and in the

>entire universe, even indra's heaven is subject to the laws of change and

>when the kalpa ends in fire will be gone!)

This may be an essential difference between Vedantism and Buddhism.

Vedanta sees only that which is permanent and changeless as real (if I'm

wrong here or fail to mention something important, somebody please feel

free to correct me :-)

>i have no desire to be reborn into a heaven realm,

Brahman (I AM) is not a heaven realm, in fact not a realm at all. Brahman

is pure, unchanging, everlasting, ultimate Consciousness, Ultimate Reality,

utterly beyond the conception of the mind and the senses. Brahman defies

all description. Brahman is not "God," as "God" can be conceived by the

human mind. Brahman is closer to the idea of "infinity" in that it cannot

be conceived of by either the senses or the mind.

>sentient beings are numberless, i vow to save them all

>delusions are endless, i vow to sever them all,

>Teachings are infinite, i vow to learn them all

>Buddha's way is inconcievable, i vow to attain it.

I have read a few of Buddha's teachings, and they are quite beautiful and

true.

>i guess the end q is: why is god necessary for you? what purpose does this

>serve? when i hear this list speak of god, i can substitute 'guru' a lot

>of the time.

In Vedantism, there is a sort of "personal God" known as Iswara. This

"God" is actually no god at all, but the combination of the unreal (maya)

and the real (Brahman). Iswara is said to be the creator of this present

universe, as Brahman cannot create (the changeless cannot create the

changing). It is perceived only when one is looking at Brahman in an

impure way. When Nirvikalpa Samadhi is achieved, the conception of Iswara

fades and is subsumed, and is seen as the falsehood it is. "God" is in

reality no different than a piece of fish. :-)

>Are we really looking at the same mountain?

I think we are, but maybe some of us look from one side and think we see

one mountain, and some of us look from another and the mountain looks like

a different one. But it is the same mountain.

With Love,

Tim

-----

The CORE of Reality awaits you at:

http://www.serv.net/~fewtch/ND/index.html

March 4, 1999

A fantasic post. This too is how I feel. Speaking only for myself I say

'Yes' we are looking at the same mountain. Where we seem to differ is in

what we choose to call the mountain. This mountain, that

mountain....same mountain.

"sentient beings are numberless, i vow to save them all

delusions are endless, i vow to sever them all,

Teachings are infinite, i vow to learn them all

Buddha's way is inconcievable, i vow to attain it."

This too is my goal. It is my definition of the 'being' of God. God to

me is not personified. It can not be. It is an experience. We seek by

not seeking yet it is 'this that' that moves us forward.

Regards.

Tim Harris

March 4, 1999

Janpa;

Earlier query re differences between hindu and buddhist tantra. I believe

that methodology--sadhana, techniques--are, in fact, quite similar. I have

read texts from Tibetan Buddhist tantra as well as those of Hindu tantra.

The aim, depending on which school one examines, does differ. Nearly all

Buddhist tantra retains the assertion that nature, or mutable reality is an

illusion. Using the body, awakening subtle energies, etc., comprise

practices that serve to release tension and raise awareness to the level of

the Source, Nirvana or the Unmanifest.

Some Hindu schools of tantra would agree with this objective. Vaishnava

traditions, Vedanta and other schools may use tantric disciplines, i.e.,

awakening vital energies, working with the chakras, et cetera, but also

toward the end of attaining Purusha, or Brahman. Of course, the Buddhist

teaching regarding Nirvana, etc., are not equivalent to most Hindu teaching

regarding the nature of Brahman or the Cosmic Self.

Other schools, such as the nondual Shaivism of Kashmir, and various Shakti

traditions, maintain the ideal that Reality is One, and that the separation

of manifest and unmanifest is due only to 'ignorance.' Once ignorance is

removed, again using similar, if not identical means as the above

traditions, the resulting 'enlightenment' is characterized by the

dissolution of any differentiation of manifest and unmanifest.

There are a number of fascinating questions regarding the above that I

would love to have the time and means to research, contemplate and write

about. There is a large amount of relatively uncharted terrain regarding

our contemporary understanding of tantra, and indeed, what we call to mind

when we speak of liberation, enlightenment, awakening and the like.

Regarding post #2

Perhaps we are on similar wavelengths, Janpa. Or maybe on the same lists.

I, too, have questions regarding this whole "mountain" business. Do we all

climb the same mountain when we set of in search of...what, peace,

enlightenment, occult knowledge, compassion, the capacity to love. (I am

certain many list-eners may agree that our goals-so to speak-and ideals

change over time. Become more refined with wisdom, perhaps?)

I enjoy referring to the nondual ideal. I believe that all of reality is

One. Recognizing one's Self, I believe, embodies a 'natural' form of love

and morality. As One lives 'recognizingly'--in the light of an

all-encompassing identity of Self, One discovers that it becomes 'natural'

to feel compassion, empathy and the desire to serve. However, the nondual

Person, according to some tantric traditions, including Kashmir Shaivism,

also speaks of a Person being 'beyond' morality or immorality.

I believe that Nondual centered behavior may manifest quite differently

than dualistic behavior. With the recognition of Self, including the

dissolution of the sense of time, difference and alienation, behavior

cannot help, I believe, but emanate from this Source and may be quite

unusual, at times, or disconcerting to those whose behavior arrives from a

more familiar temporal, differentiated context.

I believe that nonduality may have a profound impact on humanity's capacity

to act, to choose, to behave. For me, this is the end or purpose of

Awakening or Enlightenment. The freedom to behave from the Ground of a

nondual Personality.

Madhya

March 4, 1999

> "Debora A. Orf" <dorf01

>

> i dont get it.

>

> as a buddhist, its not really a necessary part of my path either.

>

> Now granted, i do do pujas to buddhist deities like Green Tara, Chenrezig,

> Dorje Sempa etc. but these are seen as inseperable from one's guru.

>

> when someone speaks of 'i am' i have to wonder, is this outside of

> onesself? is this thing permanant, changeless? (i have looked, and in the

> entire universe, even indra's heaven is subject to the laws of change and

> when the kalpa ends in fire will be gone!)

If +knowing who you are+ would be dependent on religion, systems of

meditations etc., what would be the value? It is possible to "realize" one's

true nature without any cultural or religious background.

> i have no desire to be reborn into a heaven realm, all that would do is

> burn up good karma and then send me into the lower realms. The basis of my

> sprituality is the ideal of mahayana buddhism, the bodhisattva. everything

> revolves around this. This ideal is basically summed up into the 4 great

> vows:

> sentient beings are numberless, i vow to save them all

> delusions are endless, i vow to sever them all,

> Teachings are infinite, i vow to learn them all

> Buddha's way is inconcievable, i vow to attain it.

How does this vow relate to independent arising?

When one is free from all desires, there will be no more rebirth

> i guess the end q is: why is god necessary for you? what purpose does this

> serve? when i hear this list speak of god, i can substitute 'guru' a lot

> of the time. Are we really looking at the same mountain?

>

> maitri,

>

> --janpa tsomo

Strictly speaking, God isn't necessary, but neither is Buddha ("when you

meet a Buddha on your path, kill him"), Lao-tse or Krishna. Nor is an

external guru; realizing +who you are+ is natural and is one's birth-right.

The mountain is always the same and when "arrived" there, all paths (and

their "milestones") are recognized.

Jan

all followers want to be realizers but how many realizers were

followers?

March 4, 1999

>Strictly speaking, God isn't necessary, but neither is Buddha ("when you

>meet a Buddha on your path, kill him"), Lao-tse or Krishna. Nor is an

>external guru; realizing +who you are+ is natural and is one's birth-right.

>The mountain is always the same and when "arrived" there, all paths (and

>their "milestones") are recognized.

>

>From the perspective of diversity, I would like to suggest that, while God

may not be necessary for some 'ascents' up the mountain, She or He may

certainly be necessary for others. Among persons, living and dead, who

have "reached the mountain peak" are both theists and non-theists.

Speaking absolutely, there is at least as good an argument for theism as

for non-theism. One might be hard-pressed to assert that only one

interpretation for Absolute exists.

Equally, for some persons, the role of the teacher or guru is the means for

their reaching the mountain's peak.

There are those, of course, who need no teacher. That is also reasonable.

If one chooses the mountain metaphor, one must admit that many paths exist

to the 'top' of the mountain.

However, there the mountain metaphor may lose its fertility. For, many

historical and contemporary realized persons point out that the journey

never ends, that there exists no single peak.

>From both an experiential and a philosophical perspective, manifold

difficulties arise when one attempts to "absolutize the absolute." That a

great many similarities and patterns of experience occur is accurate, I

believe. But there are also many differences. There may be a danger in

asserting that the absolute is absolutely the same for all persons. We

only have the human perspective from which to draw for our wisdom

concerning that which we name, God/Goddess, Self, Nondual, Absolute and so

forth. And, of course, not all paths to realization necessarily mean

"self-realization." For some interpretations of Enlightenment, one's

merging with the community of Aspiration, one's surrender to Community, may

be paramount and inclusive to the experience of "Awakeness."

We may be unwise if we attempt to claim that all possible experiences of

the absolute correspond to a kind of "plenum" where all who stand within

this "plenum" experience It equally. The philosophical father of

phenomenology, Edmund Husserl, got himself into trouble claiming that a

universal 'ground' for all reality existed. He believed that it was

possible to claim that if all subjectivity were eradicated, if all human

beings could somehow see beyond the "things themselves" to the real essence

of reality, that we would all see precisely the same thing, we would have

the same perceptive experience.

Husserl's attempt to discover this Absolute Ground failed. He could not

argue successfully that it could ever be possible to "get out " of manifest

reality in order to perceive the absolute form of reality.

I believe this may also be true of our Experience of the Absolute with

regard to Self-realization.

Of course, I do believe that it is possible to "realize" the absolute. But

this cannot be accomplished "absolutely," if the reader understands my

meaning. What I am really saying, in plain terms, is that I do not believe

that "The Absolute" can be codifed into a formula that asserts that all

persons realizing the Absolute will be having precisely the Same

Experience. It is not possible to escape consciousness, to get out of

consciousness, in order to experience a consciousness that somehow lies

"beyond" that consciousness. Patterns and similiarities will always exist,

I believe. Enough to point our attention to the marvelous and astonishing

state of Being that one's experience of the Absolute can be.

In presenting these comments, please allow me to honor the many experiences

of our readers. It is not my intent to merely present controversy for its

own sake. Neither do I wish to "prove" anyone's experience right or wrong.

My motivation is to honor diversity, and to suggest that there may yet be

fertile ground for our continuing discovery of both Self and How We Talk

About Self.

Grace to us all,

Madhya

>------

>Come check out our brand new web site!

>

>Onelist: Making the Internet intimate

March 5, 1999

At 08:40 PM 3/4/99 -0800, you wrote:

>If one chooses the mountain metaphor, one must admit that many paths exist

>to the 'top' of the mountain.

>

>However, there the mountain metaphor may lose its fertility. For, many

>historical and contemporary realized persons point out that the journey

>never ends, that there exists no single peak.

I agree. Perhaps "The Absolute" could better be compared to a "Mountain

Range" with many peaks.

Actually, though, there really is no metaphor that can describe the

absolute, due to the fact that any attempt to describe the Absolute in

words is likely to be Absolutely confusing :-)... The Absolute can only be

experienced, through the soul, not through the mind, the senses, etc.

I view the soul as "connected" to the mind, the senses, etc... but even so,

in trying to describe the Absolute, it is FAR easier to say what it is NOT

than what it IS. In other words, a "line can be drawn around It" in

attempting to describe an experience of It, but direct description? I

don't think it can be done, or has ever been done. Describe for me the

'number' infinity... how high a number might that be? :-)

>There may be a danger in asserting that the absolute is absolutely the

same >or all persons. We only have the human perspective from which to

draw for our >wisdom concerning that which we name, God/Goddess, Self,

Nondual, Absolute and >so forth.

Agreed, 100%.

>Husserl's attempt to discover this Absolute Ground failed. He could not

>argue successfully that it could ever be possible to "get out " of manifest

>reality in order to perceive the absolute form of reality.

Of course not, argument is an action of the mind and body and senses, which

The Absolute is Absolutely beyond :-) To attempt to "encapsulate" The

Absolute within the tiny mechanism of thought is to fail entirely.

>I believe this may also be true of our Experience of the Absolute with

>regard to Self-realization.

Agreed again. I do not know why I post if it is only to agree :-)

>Of course, I do believe that it is possible to "realize" the absolute. But

>this cannot be accomplished "absolutely," if the reader understands my

>meaning. What I am really saying, in plain terms, is that I do not believe

>that "The Absolute" can be codifed into a formula that asserts that all

>persons realizing the Absolute will be having precisely the Same

>Experience.

Agreed again. But consider this - maybe the actual experience IS precisely

the same, but the *perception* of the experience within the confines of

thought, emotion and description is entirely different. In other words,

say a tree exists. Ten people who see it will describe it ten different

ways. But they have all "seen" the same tree.

<snip>

Much Love,

Tim

-----

The CORE of Reality awaits you at:

http://www.serv.net/~fewtch/ND/index.html

March 5, 1999

I have another "take" on this.

Let's think of a simple object, say, a jar. 20 people asked to describe

the jar will give 20 similar, but slightly different descriptions.

Now take a more complex object, say, a city. Those same 20 people will

give far more DISSIMILAR descriptions of what they saw while being in this

city, although they may have all taken the same "tour."

Now, take the Absolute, which might be described as "All That Is, Was, And

Ever Will Be." What do you think might happen, in asking 20 people to

describe their Perceptions of it? :-)

With Love,

Tim

-----

The CORE of Reality awaits you at:

http://www.serv.net/~fewtch/ND/index.html

March 5, 1999

Wow.

Regards.

Tim Harris

madhya nandi wrote:

>

> >From the perspective of diversity, I would like to suggest that, while God

> may not be necessary for some 'ascents' up the mountain, She or He may

> certainly be necessary for others. Among persons, living and dead, who

> have "reached the mountain peak" are both theists and non-theists.

> Speaking absolutely, there is at least as good an argument for theism as

> for non-theism. One might be hard-pressed to assert that only one

> interpretation for Absolute exists.

>

> Equally, for some persons, the role of the teacher or guru is the means for

> their reaching the mountain's peak.

>

> There are those, of course, who need no teacher. That is also reasonable.

>

> If one chooses the mountain metaphor, one must admit that many paths exist

> to the 'top' of the mountain.

>

> However, there the mountain metaphor may lose its fertility. For, many

> historical and contemporary realized persons point out that the journey

> never ends, that there exists no single peak.

>

> >From both an experiential and a philosophical perspective, manifold

> difficulties arise when one attempts to "absolutize the absolute." That a

> great many similarities and patterns of experience occur is accurate, I

> believe. But there are also many differences. There may be a danger in

> asserting that the absolute is absolutely the same for all persons. We

> only have the human perspective from which to draw for our wisdom

> concerning that which we name, God/Goddess, Self, Nondual, Absolute and so

> forth. And, of course, not all paths to realization necessarily mean

> "self-realization." For some interpretations of Enlightenment, one's

> merging with the community of Aspiration, one's surrender to Community, may

> be paramount and inclusive to the experience of "Awakeness."

>

> We may be unwise if we attempt to claim that all possible experiences of

> the absolute correspond to a kind of "plenum" where all who stand within

> this "plenum" experience It equally. The philosophical father of

> phenomenology, Edmund Husserl, got himself into trouble claiming that a

> universal 'ground' for all reality existed. He believed that it was

> possible to claim that if all subjectivity were eradicated, if all human

> beings could somehow see beyond the "things themselves" to the real essence

> of reality, that we would all see precisely the same thing, we would have

> the same perceptive experience.

>

> Husserl's attempt to discover this Absolute Ground failed. He could not

> argue successfully that it could ever be possible to "get out " of manifest

> reality in order to perceive the absolute form of reality.

>

> I believe this may also be true of our Experience of the Absolute with

> regard to Self-realization.

>

> Of course, I do believe that it is possible to "realize" the absolute. But

> this cannot be accomplished "absolutely," if the reader understands my

> meaning. What I am really saying, in plain terms, is that I do not believe

> that "The Absolute" can be codifed into a formula that asserts that all

> persons realizing the Absolute will be having precisely the Same

> Experience. It is not possible to escape consciousness, to get out of

> consciousness, in order to experience a consciousness that somehow lies

> "beyond" that consciousness. Patterns and similiarities will always exist,

> I believe. Enough to point our attention to the marvelous and astonishing

> state of Being that one's experience of the Absolute can be.

>

> In presenting these comments, please allow me to honor the many experiences

> of our readers. It is not my intent to merely present controversy for its

> own sake. Neither do I wish to "prove" anyone's experience right or wrong.

> My motivation is to honor diversity, and to suggest that there may yet be

> fertile ground for our continuing discovery of both Self and How We Talk

> About Self.

>

> Grace to us all,

>

> Madhya

>

March 5, 1999

Tim;

Appreciate your comments. But just for the fun of it, if ten people view

the same tree but differ in their perceptions, how does one know that they

are actually viewing the 'same' tree?

Madhya

March 5, 1999

>

> Now, take the Absolute, which might be described as "All That Is, Was, And

> Ever Will Be." What do you think might happen, in asking 20 people to

> describe their Perceptions of it? :-)

>

> With Love,

>

> Tim

'Absolute' chaos. Nice spin Tim.

Regards.

Tim Harris

March 5, 1999

Good question, Madhya. I guess it could only be known in a few ways:

(1) If all ten people were "there" at the same time (and thus saw "each

other" as well)

(2) If all ten people described the surroundings in an almost identical

fashion

(3) If all ten people were carrying a "global positioning device" that

recorded exact physical location

So obviously there are ways (at least looking at it from a more "shallow"

perspective, not considering the possibility that perhaps all ten people

were high on LSD and hallucinating something similar ;-)... but your

question has merit and bears consideration.

One thing I don't think anyone will deny; that The Absolute *IS*, despite

our Perception (or lack of Perception!) of It. Perhaps that's all that's

really important, when it "comes down to it."

If The Absolute is directly Perceived "through the soul," then perhaps it

is in the process of translating that perception to a thought and/or

feeling-based format that the "differences" arise.

With Love,

Tim

At 10:24 PM 3/4/99 -0800, you wrote:

>madhya nandi <madhya

>

>Tim;

>

>Appreciate your comments. But just for the fun of it, if ten people view

>the same tree but differ in their perceptions, how does one know that they

>are actually viewing the 'same' tree?

>

>Madhya

-----

The CORE of Reality awaits you at:

http://www.serv.net/~fewtch/ND/index.html -

Poetry, Writings, even Live Chat on spiritual topics.

March 5, 1999

> madhya nandi <madhya

>

> >Strictly speaking, God isn't necessary, but neither is Buddha ("when you

> >meet a Buddha on your path, kill him"), Lao-tse or Krishna. Nor is an

> >external guru; realizing +who you are+ is natural and is one's

> birth-right.

> >The mountain is always the same and when "arrived" there, all paths (and

> >their "milestones") are recognized.

> >

>

> >From the perspective of diversity, I would like to suggest that,

> while God

> may not be necessary for some 'ascents' up the mountain, She or He may

> certainly be necessary for others. Among persons, living and dead, who

> have "reached the mountain peak" are both theists and non-theists.

> Speaking absolutely, there is at least as good an argument for theism as

> for non-theism. One might be hard-pressed to assert that only one

> interpretation for Absolute exists.

Sadhana merely has to reflect one's ego-structure. The classical example is

concentration. Try walking in a procession with a bowl full of water on the

head with the task that not a single drop can be lost. When the procession

is over, there is no knowing of the procession as the attention was with the

bowl all the time. Some can concentrate naturally and don't need the

procession nor the bowl of water. Don't forget religions etc. were founded

after realization of some kind and never before. These constructs serve a

purpose both for the sake of argument as well as to point in the right

direction. There is an undeniable dependence on culture.

> Equally, for some persons, the role of the teacher or guru is the

> means for

> their reaching the mountain's peak.

There is a nice yoga story about a boy named Namadev who sincerely believed

a dog was Krishna, having taken the form of the dog to test him. He treated

the dog as Krishna and attained. Sadhana has to reflect ego-structure; both

father and mother are engraved in it but an animal or a statue can do just

as well.

> There are those, of course, who need no teacher. That is also reasonable.

They were the ones who proverbially visited Lord Yama (the God of Death) and

he always grants the boon of spontaneous enlightenment (as opposed to

gradual awakening).

>

> If one chooses the mountain metaphor, one must admit that many paths exist

> to the 'top' of the mountain.

>

> However, there the mountain metaphor may lose its fertility. For, many

> historical and contemporary realized persons point out that the journey

> never ends, that there exists no single peak.

Seek and you will find.... The Rosicrucians are the ones where the entire

process of transformation is described with simple clarity and there is an

end; it is the end of transfiguration. The Buddha attained (and commented)

it, so did Hermes Trismegistus. That 99.99% will not "get" there while the

body is alive is a different matter altogether; it isn't even important.