Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!eos!data.nas.nasa.gov!news
From: hms@princeton.edu (Hsing-Mean Sha)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Meditation 2 ways: Different yet the Same
Keywords: Buddhism
Message-ID: <1990Nov18.195707.15515@nas.nasa.gov>
Date: 18 Nov 90 19:57:07 GMT
References: <1990Nov16.020441.13897@nas.nasa.gov> <1990Nov8.012939.14684@nas.nasa.gov>
Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Lines: 71
Approved: prabhuy@amelia.nas.nasa.gov


> One will never gain enlightenment through meditation. Shakyamuni Buddha
> did!, you say. In the Lotus Sutra, when talking about the length of his
> life, he said he had gained enlightenment many lifetimes age, in the 
> distant past. Then he predicted that none of his teachings would lead
> people to enlighenment 2000 years after he died. Meditation is not the
> Buddhist practice in this day and age.

I am a Chinese Buddhist. The most popular way I know for practicing 
Mahayana Buddhism is so-called 'six Paramitas.'  (() is Chinese Mandarin
prenounciation)
1. Dana (Bu4 She1), charity or giving, including the bestowing of
         truth on others.
2. Sila (Che2 Jei4), keeping the disciplins.
3. Ksanti (Jen3 Ju4), patience under suffering and insult.
4. Virya (Jin1 Jin4) zeal and progress.
5. Dhyana (Chan2 Din4) Meditation.
6. Prajna (Je4 Hwei4), wisdom.
Therefore, meditation is one of the important Buddhist practices.  

I cannot remember the prediction you mentioned in Lotus Sutra.
Anyway, this prediction does not make any meaning to me, even thougth 
it is from Shakyamuni, because our strong determinations can 
change everything.   

You said "One will never gain enlightenment through meditation."  I think it
is HARD to gain enlightment ONLY by meditation for us. But, it is possible 
that, depending on his/her Karma, meditation is his/her unique way to
achieve the enlightment.
   
> >  analysing the true nature of things ((i)impernancy or anicca - 
> >  changing nature of things, Nothing is forever. Nature changes, 
> >  flowers,leaves, trees, etc. decay, even solar systems, and galaxies 
> >  gets destroyed. (2) dukkha, Because of this changing nature of things
> >  they bring us dukkha or unhappiness. We feel sorrowful when something
> >  we loved departs from us. It is understaning this existence of 
> >  unhapiness in nature that leads to further understanding of non-self. 
> >  (3) The third perception ,anatta,  is non existence of a soul or self. 
> >  When we see,hear, smell etc. something lovely we see it as ours, or 
> >  ourselves loving it, grasping it.  But when we see everything changes,
> >  uselessness  in grasping lust etc. as good, then it is easy to see 
> >  that there is no self(or soul)).  A buddhist does not develop a negative
> 
> Yes, everything changes. The question is whether it changes for the better
> or the worse. This comes down to your actions. What you are talking about
> sounds like Hinayana (lesser teaching) Buddhism. Part of an individual's
> happiness is getting married, having enough money, etc. You should try to
> understand the true entity of yourself that makes all one's feelings work
> in their most enlightened state. I think you are also confusing no self
> with the greater self. Obviously, you are a self as your actions will
> reflect back on you yourself and not anyone else.

Can you clarify what is "The question is whether it changes for the better
or the worse."   I thik what Bandula said is very basic for both Hinayana
and Mahayana Buddhism.  Actually, if you have read Shurangama Sutra, you 
would know that Avalokitesvara (Kuan-Yin) Bodhisattva cultivate 
realization based on the process of hearing. The first several stages of
the way that Kuan-Yin uses are similar what Bandula wrote. 
In the same Shurangama Sutra, after twenty-five Bodhisattvas explain their
methods of cultivation and spiritual attainment, Bodhisattva Manjushri 
pointed out that Kuan-Yin's method was best suited for the people.
Therefore, I do believe what Bandula wrote is very basic for all branches
of Buddhism, not only Hinayana.
> 
> --
>    Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, Nam-myoho-renge-kyo.
>             Respectfully,
>   	         Keith Evans		kde@heawk1.gsfc.nasa.gov

    Hsing-Mean Sha    in Princeton
    hms@cs.princeton.edu