Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wuarchive!uunet!stanford.edu!eos!data.nas.nasa.gov!news
From: dogen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (John Chq)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Spirituality as an Ordeal
Summary: The Path and the Pain
Message-ID: <1991Jun25.194506.14869@nas.nasa.gov>
Date: 25 Jun 91 19:45:06 GMT
References: <1991Jun24.231537.14825@nas.nasa.gov>
Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov
Organization: Northwestern University
Lines: 58
Approved: prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov

In article <1991Jun24.231537.14825@nas.nasa.gov> johnw@farside.eng.ready.com (John Wheeler) writes:
>
>In Article: 170 of soc.religion.eastern Mr. YEE writes:
>
>"The spiritual process is something else totally. It is an ordeal that 
>will break your heart, your mind and your ego...."
>
>
>I think this statement is based on a rather unclear view of the matter. Since
>the goal of sprituality has as its aim the awakening to the source of
>happiness and freedom, it follows that each step towards the goal must
>itself be an experience of happiness and freedom. Mr. YEE seems to have
>overlooked this in his evaluation of the spiritual path.
 
 Even though the goal might be happiness and freedom, the path can (not
always) be rocky. It is quite naive to think that once you "follow
the right path"  all of your experiences will be happier and happier.  Much
of awakening--I obviously cannot speak of all awakening--is the letting go
of previously held beliefs, i.e., prejudices, which for the most part we
cling to tenaciously.   

If this is so, to experience spiritual practice as being an ordeal,
>struggle, battle, etc., could only be a sign that one has veered off into
>a mistaken, unfruitful approach, in my opinion. 

Or rather, the other way around.  I'm not saying that one has to be in a
constant state of agony, but many times an insight can be too intense for
an individual to grasp fully; and this could lead to the proverbial "dark
night of the soul".  

>The notion that the spiritual process "breaks" the ego, is somewhat
>humorous. Philosophies such as Buddhism and Vedanta, point out that the 
>"ego" is the mistaken idea that one is a separate, limited, individual 
>entity. The ego being an illusory notion, it is in fact non-existent. That 
>which does not exist, by definition cannot be broken. 

Now lets be fair.  Even though the ego is "not real'(according to these
philosophies), unless one is fully enlightened (whatever the hell that
means) we still suffer the pains of holding on to this illusory entity.  I
think Mr. Yee was speaking about the experiences of the non-awakened
struggling on a spiritual path, and was NOT advocating a metaphysical
stance of the "ego".  Its so easy to say the ego does not exist, but to
have a true insight into it is a totally different matter.

>Perhaps Mr. YEE was being facetious and humoring us?>

John, sometimes I think, seriously, YOU are trying to humor us.

BTW, for the UMPTEENTH time who is your teacher?  I'd like to read
something by him (not for flaming).  I'll take a totally wild guess; Zen
Master Rama?  No, it couldn't be.

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