Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!data.nas.nasa.gov!news
From: dogen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (John Chq)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Awakening From the Dream of Experience
Summary: What's a Buddha to do in this crazy world?
Message-ID: <1991Jun5.164811.15382@nas.nasa.gov>
Date: 5 Jun 91 16:48:11 GMT
References: <1991Jun4.013633.19919@nas.nasa.gov> <1991Jun4.204544.16206@nas.nasa.gov>
Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov
Organization: Northwestern University
Lines: 138
Approved: prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov

In article <1991Jun4.204544.16206@nas.nasa.gov> cognos!cognos!uunet.uu.net!garym@uunet.UU.NET (Gary Murphy) writes:
>
>I enjoy these postings and I, too, find this man's humour infectious.
>Like a 'Spiritual Lenny Bruce', if I may be so bold to make an analogy
>(I do hope he doesn't take offense!).
>
>When we go to see a comic, we find funny those things from our own
>experience which we either overlook or dare not say publicly.  We
>enjoy Tim Leary as we side with his albeit-impractical reachings,
>we enjoy Lenny Bruce for his clinging to an ideal in the face of
>rampant illogical otherwiseness.  I enjoy Sri Da Avabhasa in the
>same way I enjoy the riddles of Taliesin or the poems of e.e.cummings;
>they paint the world I see in words I do not have.
>
>Where I am a little disappointed, and this applies to all of the
>above personages, is the lack of practical advice.  GIVEN we are all
>different portals to the One I, what does that mean to our here and
>now? 
Actually, the here and now is 1) the only "time" we have, and 2) it is only
here/now that we experience "truth" (as if I know!)


 How are these teachings to be practically applied and what, if
>anything, would we gain (sorry, considering the 'given', that should
>be 'what do I gain').
Teachings are really not meant to give one a blueprint for action, rather
they purport to 'point to truth'.  In principle, when there is realization
correct action "occurs" in the sense that the actor and action are not
"two"-- they are not "one" either.  
As far as being applied practically, what do you mean by this? Do you want
a definite set of rules?  If so, then I think you should reexamine your
presuppositions of life, conduct, etc. My position thus far is that any
ideal of what is good, virtuous, and so on actually destroys any
examination into life.  Usually (if not always) ideals create boundaries
between 'those who know and those who don't' and, if history is any
indication, can lead to some pretty inhuman behavior.  I'm not condoning
ethical relativity, or do as you please mind sets; but any inquirey into
these matters requires at least some awareness of our own prejudices (moral
ones too) before we begin talking of shoulds and should nots (maybe we'll
see that 'shoulds' are not conducive to virtue?) 


  It's like Jesus saying the First Commandment
>is the most important because all others follow from it, but I KNOW
>from my travels that the meaning supposedly implied is open to VERY
>wide interpretation: Nazism _is_ based on a Tibetan doctrine!
>
I thought it had Indian roots; i.e., the swastica, except Hitler drew it in
reverse.  I'm really not well read on this topic, so maybe others on the
net could comment.
>How does an 'enlightened point of view' approach the world we live
>in?  Does it imply saving the whales or does it imply not caring 
>about such 'transient' things as sentient beings and their sufferings?
>Do we build orphanages? Wildlife sanctuaries? Nuclear Power Plants?
>Or do we bask in a kind of spiritual masterbation proclaiming ourselves
>as complete in ourselves without need for the obvious diversity we
>have been given?
>
I think some of our "difficulties" with eastern thought, especially with
ethics, stems from a literalistic reading of the literature.  What I mean
is we tend to apply what we read to a situation (like "One Mind" as it
applies to saving the whales) and when this results in a vague answer to a
problem, we conclude that there is really no practical use in this. 
You use the word care. What does this mean, "to care?" Before judging
whether or not some worldview is "caring" try to see what it means to care.
Are you a caring person if you spend your energies on some cause then come
home and yell at your spouse?  Are you a caring person if you get nervously
concerned with the health of a loved one, for example?  I'm not bashing
social causes here, but please realize that one gets a sense of 'teamwork',
or 'teamspirit' when involved in a cause, and the us/them mentality that
follows.  Nor am I advocating an uncaring attitude toward other people.
How many times has a denial of the situation made it worse?  If your little
sister is dying of terminal cancer, are you going to gash your teeth, pull
your hair, and ask why!? why!? why!??  Would it not be better to "be with"
her during the final days and offer a sense of peace that emanates from an
attitude of non-resistence?
I apologize for the morbid tone (it really is not if you begin to
understand--i.e., experience via meditation, contemplation, listening to a
teacher-- the nature of mindfulness), but I think spiritual masturbation,
as you put it, and social causes are the same beast.  Its all right to go
through a period of experimentation but in the end I think both paths lead
to a temporary relief from our 'self', be it in the meditative absorptions
of one mind, or throwing one's self into a 'greater' cause.
What is actually important is to face our existence in all its splendor and
horror, and come to realize that the perception 'splendor' and 'horror' are
the self's attempt to label and thus protect itself from what it perceives
to be an external world.

>I'm playing a bit of "Devil's Advocate" here and I know it.  There are
>no solid answers to what I ask, but I wonder, given my ignorance of
>the vast subject area covered by this group, what the general approach
>of each of the eastern views would take.  Zen councils us to be at
>rest at the mountaintop _and_ ceaselessly active in the market but so
>far as I know, it doesn't stipulate the ethics of our business.
>
Yes you are correct there are no solid answers.  But may I suggest that the
important point here is not what zen says--given the thousands of
practitioners and teachers of zen, there are thousands of different
interpretations-- but rather why you are making "mountains" and "markets".
Our minds tend to objectify a situation(s) and try to find an answer(s) to
a problem.  Does this process of objectification, articulation, and
solution actually have anything to do with life as we experience it? I
don't mean to deny thinking; we need it to learn a trade, fix the car, etc.
But we usually carry this technical aspect of our mind over to our
existence. But why do we assume that the presupposed duality in technical
thought is the given reality in life?

All this probably seems abstract and inapplicable; it does not answer the
question of how we should conduct "business".  So, I ask you are you faced
with this situation right now?  While you are reading this, what is going
on in your head?  Are you aware of the subtle preconceptions, emotional
reactions, the like or dislike of my words?  Can you put it all down, like
so much used toilet paper? 

>Can I summarize? Given this enlightment which sees things as they are,
>what happens next?
>
Do you understand this "enlightenment"?  And if you do, where does this
idea of "next" come from?  If I may suggest; all this (especially my
response) is a bunch of shit.  Just drop, drop, drop it all.  Don't make
"enlightenment" don't make "next". Let it be.  Any speculation about zen,
etc, will only be a preconcieved notion, a projection of your own past
knowledge. 

>--
> Gary Murphy - Cognos Incorporated  | "You think you're human.
>       P.O.Box 9707 Ottawa K1G 3N3  |  But what if you've made a mistake,
>              (613) 738-1338 x5537  |  As humans sometimes do,
> garym%cognos.uucp@ccs.carleton.ca  |  And you is an Angel, instead?"
>                uucp: cognos!garym  |                     -- Sun Ra
>


-- 
*******************************************************************************
-- John Cha
"The present is always more interesting than the future or the past"
*******************************************************************************