[K-list] Is the cave necessary ? Was: celibacy

[Guest guest]

Hi Amanda and David and list,

 

08:57 AM 7/30/99 -0700, A. Erhart wrote:

>>Jill, it's very interesting you should mention just that.

>

>I have just read about a female Buddhist nun born

>in Britain (Unfortunately, I don't remember her name.

>Ppl on this list may have read her book, it's called

>"I give you my life".) who determined to reach

>enlightenment in one life time and in a female body

>spent 12 years in a cave in the Tibetan mountains

>to meditate and reach enlightenment.

>

>I must admit being a little surprised at this method.

>I do not see, from having read about ascetics and

>mystics of different traditions, that there necessarily

>is a relationship between as you say progress and rigor

>of means. I have thought much about this.

 

So have I, this is has been a critical question for me ongoing since K

awakening. First, I should clarify when I mentioned Gandhi's asceticism I

didn't mean going off in a cave, but instead was thinking of the rules and

rigor with which every action and decision was made. I mean in the larger

sense, his strict and rigorous adherence to the scriptural dictates of his

faith (coming mostly from the Gita). For him this was not the cave at all,

but a life completely dedicated to selfless service, very much active and

in the world.

 

After K activity began for me, I immediately was drawn to Gandhi, and his

life and words made great sense, in terms of the compelling central

question at that time about how to integrate transcendence with living in

the world. On the other hand, and creating the ongoing question or dilemma,

was the outlook of the TM movement. I had practiced TM for 18 years before

k awakening. The view of this group is that life should be lived fully and

in balance of all spheres--moderation, no extremes. This also makes sense,

but what of service, of sacrifice? What is the right relationship between

enjoyment and service? Daily little questions crop up--which view to apply

here? Are they mutually exclusive?

>The Dalai Lama has said that ppl in the West, because

>of our technology and background expect fast results,

>want immediate enlightenment. I can definitely see his

>point, yet I can also see how a very strict regimen

>(from an unenlightened person's point of view of course)

>of spiritual exercises actually could be negative

>for spiritual development, i.e. agree with Buddha's

>views that ascetic exercises were as much about

>attachment as the life of a hedonist.

 

Yeah, I saw a strange book a while ago of lurid beautifully colored photos

of Indian saddhus who went to extremes of tapas, spiritual "payment", like

crawling around one temple on their hands and knees endlessly for years.

Scary painful extremes. I guess all religions have examples of this.

Self flagellation, that sort of thing.

>Patanjali also says something along the same lines,

>that "yoga is not for one who always sleep or never

>rests" or something like that. But Patanjali also says

>that it is the ppl who do not perform spiritual exercises which are the real

> renunciators, because

>they renunciate spiritual perfection of the Self for

>worldly goods.

 

There is also something in the Gita about this, I can't remember what

chapter--that it is wrong to hurt oneself in the name of spiritual

austerities--that the path is "not for those who sleep too much, or sleep

too little", who starve themselves or are gluttons, etc.

>

>And then you have the view as david presented

>that for an enlightened

>being, nothing would be extreme.

 

Yeah, once you're there, you don't need to think about what's the faster

route.

>I must say that for the moment I am very unsure of

>what to think. Maybe it is preferred not to think at

>all.

 

Yeah, maybe it is best to go take a walk.

>

>I just have a suspicion grace plays some part in all

>this. And that ppl have highly fluctuating definitions

>of what they consider "extreme" or not.

>I myself would have considered 4 hours of meditation

>extreme some time ago. Maybe the bottom line goes down

>to that one has to do what one feels right, personally

>?

 

Here's another question into the mix: do you think active kundalini changes

the realationship between following a faith, or tradition, and doing what

feels right, personally?

>Just a few shared thoughts on a rainy afternoon.>

 

Thanks, Amanda, I'd be interested in any more thoughts you or others have

on this.

 

Jill