Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!data.nas.nasa.gov!news
From: johnw@farside.eng.ready.com (John Wheeler)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Conditioning
Message-ID: <1991May15.215547.28486@nas.nasa.gov>
Date: 15 May 91 21:55:47 GMT
Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov
Organization: Ready Systems
Lines: 109
Approved: prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov

Printed with permission: 

>
>Hi John,
>It [conditioning] is not a matter of personal belief. That may be fanciful. 
>First what is the meaning of the word condtioned. (to me). When I say that my
>thinking is conditioned it really means that it is based on memory. This memory
>may be a personel experience ( of sensation e.i. sex etc.) or an idea read
>or heard. So thought ( of any kind e.i. bhuddist, hindu or christian) is
>conditioned.( meaning that it's origin lies in memory). Also the self
>is conditioning. ( they are identical, not that self is conditioned
>as a chair is brown). So the aim of life is ( as defined in various indian
>philosophies) the breaking of this conditioning or the conditioned chain
>of existence as put by the bhuddha( 12 fold chain of conditioned existence)
>Nirvana or Moksha is unconditioned, is beyond thought. From that unconditioned
>can arise thought which is not based on memory. Almost all sanskrit slokas
>talk about the unconditioned which is not bound by time ( abhuta) beyond
>thought ( achintania) agam ( which can not be reached{ by thought})
>ans so on ...... It is all quite simple and concise if one does not use
>thought to understand it. I dont know why so many articles bla bla bla??
>s. kumar
>You can post this if you so like
>

Thanks for your response. From the thread of your argument I presume you
are fan of J. Krishnamurti? He was an interesting fellow no doubt, but
his description of life, the mind, and how to attain freedom, etc. was
actually quite idiosyncratic and considerably different from some of his
more illustrious and (if I may say so) more enlightened Indian predecessors.

I might mention Shankara and Buddha as the most notable of the ancients, and
as for a contemporary I would propose the greatest and most famous of all
gurus of the modern day India: Sri Ramana Maharshi.

It is quite clear that the Vedantic sages have said with one voice that
it is ignorance that is the cause of sorrow, not conditioning. What is
the remedy? Self-Knowledge, knowledge of the ever-free, ever-blissful
atman, or real nature of man.

Krishnamurti's opinion that thought enslaves us, and that we are bound
by memory, etc. was a peculiar notion of his. I do not think he had
a clear understanding of the true nature of man, and consequently concocted
all kinds of wild theories about suffering, conditioning, etc. Also his
life long emphasis on sorrow, the futility of "this miserable world", etc.,
show that he was not a man established in the bliss and freedom of
enlightenment. If you compare this with the life of Ramana Maharshi, the
difference is obvious. Ramana did not ever advocate that beings are bound,
limited, conditioned. Quite the reverse. His whole life he constantly
stated that we are inherently free, and always have been.

To focus on thought, memory, and quitening the mind as Krishnamurti does
just shows that he conceived freedom to be at the level of the mind. Ramana
Maharshi would have said, "Leave the mind alone, realize the Self."

As far as Buddha was concerned (and I do not claim to be an expert in
Buddhist philosophy), I believe he said that the root of suffering
was the concept of separately existing self or ego entity. My main source
of authority for this is the Diamond Sutra where he is quoted as
saying:

"No Bodhisattva who is a real Bhodisattva cherishes the idea
 of an ego-entity, a personality, a being, or a separated
 individuality."

Also a key element of his teaching was that the five "skandas" (or the totality
of elements which comprise objective experience) do not constitute an
'I' or a self. The realization of this fact, and, as a result, the 
relinquishment of all concepts based on the belief in an ego, was (I believe)
the "cause" of his awakening. Strange as it may seem, I do not think
this conflicts with Vedanta philosophy at all. Vedantic sages also
proclaim the non-existence of an ego or separate self. Compare this fragment
of dialogue of Ramana Maharshi:

"How do I get free of the ego?," someone asked.

"Find out if it exists. Enquire: what is this ego. You
will find that the ego does not exist. That is the best way
to 'get free' of the ego." 

Vedantic sages say the path to freedom lies through realizing the true
self. Buddhist sages say the path to freedom lies in relinquishing the
false self. Are they really that different? At the level of direct experience
what seems to happening in both cases is that freedom, happiness, and
joy arise in direct proportion to the degree one relinquishes the allegiance
to the belief in an ego.

One final note. You say the holy texts say that reality is unconditioned,
beyond thought, timeless. I would agree. But does this mean that in order
to realize it you have to "uncondition" thought or still the mind? Can't you
see that this is illogical? You are essentially saying that you have to
mold the mind into a facsimile of the absolute in order to realize truth.
According to teachings I am familiar with, the mind is only the flow of
thoughts, which are in themselves transient, ephemeral, and (from the highest
angle) unreal. Why should one have to uncondition that which has no substance
in order to find freedom? Could it be that beings only imagine they are
in bondage and have been quite free the whole time? Enlightenment would seem 
to be awakening to this fact. 

The idea that the mind enslaves us, and that it must be quietened,
controlled, unconditioned, or otherwise modified would seem to be one of the
most deletorious notions in the realm of spiritual philosophy?
Buddha called the attempts to attain freedom by quitening the mind,
or manipulating the content of thought a "Dharma disease", i.e. a false
understanding of the import of his teachings.


Take care,

johnw