Re: Buddhism

[Guest guest]

Morning Mike and All,

Mike, yes, the analogy on forgiveness was simplified but

not everyone is ready for the entire theologies and understandings.

One must begin somewhere. I would rather give someone a small

understanding on forgiveness, that actually effects change and

healing than a huge understanding which does nothing.

Nicolas asked some rather deep questions as we drove out to

the countryside on Saturday. He'd asked for a Bible for Christmas

which I bought him ... a rather beautiful one, deep red leather

with gold leaf, amazingly inexpensive at Costco.

He asked about the Devil and I explained that when we lie it

is not the Devil that makes us do it, but rather our own fears.

And, I explained about peoples of colors and peoples of different

religions, I used the analogy of an apple being called different

names in different languages and that God was much the same.

He liked that - it's important as some of the other side of the

family are vehement born-agains instilling all that b.s. in Nic.

And, then he asked, " what is Buddhism? " And, I was stumped.

Anyone have an explanation for a nine year old? With a Cancer

Sun trine Pluto in Scorp, you don't have to worry you'll get too

deep. I don't. I am careful though about how long these conversations

go on as he has a limited attention span, we talked for about 45-minutes,

which frankly, was long enough for me.

[Guest guest]

How's about:

This is the teaching of the Buddhas:

" Doing nothing that brings about obscuration and

defilement

And bringing to perfection everything that is positive and

meritorious,

Thoroughly tame this mind of yours. "

or

Everything springs from a cause

And what this cause is has been explained by The One

Who Courses in Thusness.

Also what happens when this cause is removed.

This is the teaching of the Great Renunciate.

These are the two briefest descriptions of what Buddhism is about.

However, they're pretty cryptic.

Perhaps it'll help if I say concerning the first that it's not a bad idea

to avoid all actions one would be ashamed of, and it's a very good

one to try and create happiness and well-being around one. The

problem with the latter is that it's quite complex and requires an

enormous sensitivity to what it is that helps those around one

flourish. One's own mind is unruly and as difficult to control as a

baby monkey, so one should slowly and gently tame it until it

becomes a friend and helpful companion.

As to the second, the cause of samsara - running round in circles -

is getting lost in the appearances, and the cause of nirvana -

transcendent peace - is getting lost in the void. In other words

getting lost in either an over- or under-estimation of the

appearances that arise to and within one's awareness.

When you can drop both of these, and yet still remain fully engaged

in the pursuit of the well-being of all that exists, you don't have to

look for enlightenment elsewhere.

Something like that, anyway.

Happy Nerw Year.

m

[Guest guest]

Dear Mike,

The truth in a nutshell?

To me the first is as taught even in the West. Since most individuals don't

do too well in controlling their " unruly minds " the result is often spotty,

and sometimes not good.

" But this:

As to the second, the cause of samsara - running round in circles -

is getting lost in the appearances, and the cause of nirvana -

transcendent peace - is getting lost in the void. In other words

getting lost in either an over- or under-estimation of the

appearances that arise to and within one's awareness.

When you can drop both of these, and yet still remain fully engaged

in the pursuit of the well-being of all that exists, you don't have to

look for enlightenment elsewhere.

This is to me, a pretty heavy dose. How does one ever know if it is a matter

of either over or under estimation of appearances.? Getting 'lost in the

void' is one thing,' but also still being engaged is something else. How

does one ever discern whether it is " appearance " ?

I find, personally, the idea of the void would paralyze any desire to return

to the " real' (?) world of appearances. I understand that is what Buddhas

did as a sacrifice for mankind, but like climbing on the cross, a decision

not able to be made by ordinary mortals in general. It would seem to me only

the rare Buddhist would ever be able to approach this ideal. It would be

even harder than the " work " Jung considers necessary.

In the West, Union with the one, is also the goal of spirituality, and

cannot be accomplished purely by man without grace. Does grace come into any

discussion in Buddhism, I would think not since my understanding is that to

the Buddhist there is no G-d, per se??? The Self? Is there a spirit from

whom/which grace can come so to speak? Anything that is transcendent? (as in

'transcendent peace' as quoted above)

What I am asking is the " All " more than the sum of all mortals? I have heard

different answers to this in the past, and still do not know what the lord

Buddha would say? Or even , Mike?

lone, Toni

[Guest guest]

> Dear Mike,

>

> The truth in a nutshell?

*No. Someone asked for a brief explication of Buddhism. These are two of its

briefest formulations.

As will all truth (e=mc2, for example), you need to have some understanding of

the

initial terms.

How stupid do you think I am?

> To me the first is as taught even in the West. Since most individuals don't

> do too well in controlling their " unruly minds " the result is often spotty,

> and sometimes not good.

*Ah HA.

> But this:

> As to the second, the cause of samsara - running round in circles -

> is getting lost in the appearances, and the cause of nirvana -

> transcendent peace - is getting lost in the void. In other words

> getting lost in either an over- or under-estimation of the

> appearances that arise to and within one's awareness.

> When you can drop both of these, and yet still remain fully engaged

> in the pursuit of the well-being of all that exists, you don't have to

> look for enlightenment elsewhere.

>

> This is to me, a pretty heavy dose.

*Good.

> How does one ever know if it is a matter

> of either over or under estimation of appearances.?

*You see only trees but no wood, over-estimation. You see only wood but miss the

trees, under-estimation.

Getting 'lost in the

> void' is one thing,' but also still being engaged is something else.

*Exactly. That's precisely what my sentence says.

> How

> does one ever discern whether it is " appearance " ?

*If it appears to your awareness, it is an appearance. If it doesn't, you don't

have to

worry about it.

> I find, personally, the idea of the void would paralyze any desire to return

> to the " real' (?) world of appearances.

*In that case you're still misreading both these terms. There is no 'void' as

some

'other' and 'absolute' state over and against 'thingness'. Things are void only

inasmuch as they do not actually correspond to the ideas we subconciously hold

about them at any given instant or for one reason or another. This is no wise

impedes their being the things they actually are for the fleeting instant of

their

presence in and to our awareness.

> I understand that is what Buddhas

> did as a sacrifice for mankind

*Not at all. Quite the contrary. had the Buddha disappeared into some form of

suspended animation, there would be no trace of any teaching by him. As it is,

there

are said to be 84000 basic Buddhist texts before we even begin to count the

commentaries and so-called esoterica? Where on earth did all that come from?

What buddhas actually do is wake up to the extraordinary freedom that exists

beyond the relativity of names and terms, hopes, fears, and general confusions

that

make up most of our so-called 'reality'.

They then work with this freedom for the benefit of others.

Doesn't sound much like brain-death to me.

> not able to be made by ordinary mortals in general. It would seem to me only

> the rare Buddhist would ever be able to approach this ideal. It would be

> even harder than the " work " Jung considers necessary.

*The Buddhist teachings seem not to agree with you.

True, it's hard not to let oneself get sucked in because one's forgotten there

*is* any

other way of going about things, but it's a long way from impossible.

By the same token, are there millions of enlightened Buddhist scampering about

all

over the planet? Hardly!

So you(re both wrong and right.

Buddhahood, however, is regarded as perfectly easy for any human being to attain

within a more-or-less conceivable time-span, given the correct training and

instruction.

> In the West, Union with the one, is also the goal of spirituality, and

> cannot be accomplished purely by man without grace. Does grace come into any

> discussion in Buddhism, I would think not since my understanding is that to

> the Buddhist there is no G-d, per se.

*This is not a question of union with 'The One'. It's more the idea of slowly

coming to

the rather remarkable realisation that you always were 'The One' but you seem to

have forgotten it and lost your way. A Prodigal Son sort of thing (and *that*

tale, you

may be surprised to know, was borrowed from the Buddhist Sutras).

As to gods, Buddhism doesn't deny their existence or even their capacities. It

simply

points out that they're as bound up in ignorance - their version of 'reality' -

as the rest

of us. That any help or blessing they can give us, no matter how real or

powerful, is

still only ultimately a case of the blind leading the blind.

> The Self? Is there a spirit from

> whom/which grace can come so to speak? Anything that is transcendent? (as in

> 'transcendent peace' as quoted above)

*Buddhists don't recognise an 'absolute' Self. They consider the idea a

'misplaced

concretism' - a precipitate conclusions (and after all, 'conclusions are only

where

people stop considering things', as the saying goes). Is there a transcendent

spirit?

Not as such. But, you may rest assured, very real and tangible 'blessings' do

stem

from the kindliness of one's teachers and from the nature of the goal itself.

> What I am asking is the " All " more than the sum of all mortals? I have heard

> different answers to this in the past, and still do not know what the lord

> Buddha would say? Or even Mike?

*I can possibly give you an answer to both of these.

According to the Avatamsaka Sutra, there is an infinite number of universes,

each

more or less like ours with all its gods, demons, living beings and animals and

spirits

of various natures throughout the three times and ten directions. All of these,

from

the beginningless beginnings of time and on throughout the endlessness of

eternity,

are a mere blink in the vision of enlightened awareness, which predates,

contains

and will exist long after all these appearances and displays have dissolved back

into

their ultimate nuture which is that of infinite openness and potentiality...

Mike might say, seems pretty clear to me, but then again, you know what *he's*

like!!! I wouldn't pay him much attention.

> lone, Toni

*This is an inter-stirring Sreudian Flip, wouldn'tcha say?

My love to you.

And a happy new year.

m