cyee@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au (Chut Ngeow YEE) (06/04/91)
To follow up my previous posting, here is an excerpt from a talk given in 1979,
titled "Awakening From the Dream of Experience".
-------------------------------------------
SRI DA AVABHASA: This process of Divine Radiance is analogous to the process of
dreaming. In dreams you may appear to talk to others standing before you, but
when you awaken, you realize that they were arising entirely in your own
consciousness. From the Enlightened point of view, that is exactly what you
realize about the waking state as well.
We commonly speak to one another while assuming our psychic separation from
each other, but we do not realize that all beings are enlivened by the very
same Consciousness and arise in the same Mind as we do. If we Awaken truly,
we perceive our daily experience in the same way that we might interpret our
dreams from the point of view of the waking state. If you could be awake while
dreaming, you could ask the people in the dream if they are aware that they are
extensions of your own Being, and you would also tacitly understand this to be
true. You might then stop dreaming suddenly and wake up, but you might
continue to dream with a different point of view.
The significance of the Way that I Teach, therefore, is not that you may go to
other worlds in extraordinary dreams, but that you may wake up to Wisdom. You
must enjoy the same understanding of the waking state that you enjoy in
relation to dreams when you awaken. That Wisdom is the great Awakening, not
the ability to go to a higher world or another condition of sublime
experiential existence. Such higher experiences are not the ultimate
attainment, but only transitions in the pattern of arising phenomena, or
dreams. The great Truth is that our relationship to experience, in this and
every present moment, is the same as the relationship that we have to dreams
from the point of view of the waking state......
You are a dreamer who is not aware that he or she is dreaming. I, however,
am a dreamer who is Awake, and who sees you as himself, a modification of his
own being, or the very Being with Whom he is perfectly Identified. Thus, I do
not spend my life trying to escape this world. The attempt to escape or avoid
life is a fearful effort of the ego, the one who does not understand but only
reacts fearfully to his or her condition. therefore, I spend my time talking to
and living among people in the dream in such a fashion that I am always
agitating them to Awaken, as I have, to understand the Condition of this world.
That is what people naturally and spontaneously do when they wake up: They
understand....
Thus, the perfectly Enlightened individual exists in perfect Identity with the
Transcendental Being while alive in the dream. He need not go elsewhere to find
himself, but he presently plays the dream. He is Awake and fully active in the
dream, and he is happy and Life-positive in relation to the events in the
dream. He is interested in the whole affair, and in the characters met there,
and in the fact that they are suffering. The people in the dream, as it
happens, do not speak as if they are the Transcendental Being. Rather, they
speak as un-Enlightened people. If you could talk to the people you meet in
dreams at night, you would presume yourself to be a separate person and you
would presume them to be separate from you, unless you yourself were fully
awake in the dream. If you talked to them, they would proclaim this separation
to be true.
If you met me in your dream, however, I would tell you I am simply arising in
your own Being, and that you are arising as a condition of the same Being that
I am. Even so, to be told that Truth in a dream would not necessarily be
sufficient to Awaken you. This assertion could be perfectly true from my point
of view in the dream, but unless you begin to be present in the dream as one
who is Awake, it is just another communication you hear in the midst of your
dream experience.
Thus, YOUR Awakening is the one that is significant. In this dream, you see
that I am always acting in such a way as to call attention to the fact that our
experience is a dream. This world is only a modification of the Radiant
Conscious Being. I am always fulfilling the role of the Transcendental Person
in relationship to you. This is my dream. I am the Transcendental Person. I am
the primary person in my own dream, even when awake. And when you Awaken, you
will Awaken to and as the very same Being that I Am.
DA AVABHASA
Easy Death
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is one of Da Avabhasa's writings that short-circuited my mind about two
years ago when I first 'by chance' came across his teaching. I have been
fervently reading J. Khrisnamurti for quite a few years then, and I was also
studying Buddhist and a few other schools of teaching simultaneously. In
retrospect I realised that I was unconsciously trying to make a grand synthesis
of the various schools of teachings through J.K. point of view.
When I came across Da Avabhasa I was immediately captured by his incredible
humour, but then the profoundity of his teaching hit me, HARD. It soon became
clear to me that there is no way I can accomodate him within K teaching. When
I said that Da Avabhasa teaching short-circiuted my mind it was literarly so.
I used to enjoy talking to people about various school of teachings (or rather
my misinterpretation of them), but after reading his teaching I found that I
just could not do so anymore. I was no longer sure what anything is all about
anymore and I went through a period of anger and frustration and withdrawal.
But here I am, happyily typing away again, not that I have it all figured out,
but rather I have seen the habit of the mind to be fixated, and the humour and
pain and non-necessity of it. You see, I am not too interestered in getting
into arguments or scholastic discussions, and I am not here to defend anything
either, not even Master Da's teahing. I remembered reading him saying that all
knowledge are ultimately contradictory, and if we try to sum up his teaching
we will find that it is just a big contradiction.
Yee.garym@uunet.UU.NET (Gary Murphy) (06/05/91)
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? 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'). 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!
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'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.
Can I summarize? Given this enlightment which sees things as they are,
what happens next?
--
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 Radogen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (John Chq) (06/05/91)
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" *******************************************************************************
simmonds@demon.siemens.com (Tom Simmonds) (06/05/91)
>cognos!cognos!uunet.uu.net!garym@uunet.UU.NET (Gary Murphy) >Subject: Re: Awakening From the Dream of Experience >I enjoy these postings and I, too, find this man's humour infectious. Me too. >Where I am a little disappointed, and this applies to all of the >above personages, is the lack of practical advice. I agree. >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'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. Quite to the contrary, Zen Buddhism advocates a very strict code of ethics. The practices of charity and compassion are important parts of Buddhist doctrine. Freedom and enlighenment cannot thrive in a world preoccupied with suffering and strife. People care little about Truth when they are starving or when someone is shooting at them. The practices of virtue and charity are essential to achieving peace of mind. The Bodhisattva tradition is taken very seriously. That this world is like a dream matters little. What would you rather have: a sweet dream or a nightmare? Which kind of dream is most conducive to the possibility of enlightenment? -- (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))tom simmonds)))))))))))))))))))) (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ))))))) "True beauty consists in purity of heart." - Mahatma Gandhi ))))))))
gkrishna@brahms.AMD.COM (Gopal Krishna) (06/06/91)
In article <1991Jun4.204544.16206@nas.nasa.gov> cognos!cognos!uunet.uu.net!garym@uunet.UU.NET (Gary Murphy) writes: > __Deleted____ > >Can I summarize? Given this enlightment which sees things as they are, >what happens next? > >-- Which next ? What next ? :-) -Gopal Krishna. uucp: gkrishna@brahms.,amd.com
cak0l@larch.cs.Virginia.EDU (cak0l) (06/07/91)
In article <1991Jun4.204544.16206@nas.nasa.gov> cognos!cognos!uunet.uu.net!garym@uunet.UU.NET (Gary Murphy) writes: >be 'what do I gain'). 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! well, not to quibble, but when i hit this, a very loud hmmm... struck my brain. i know that the swastika is a reversed version of a buddhist holy symbol, but aside from this geometric tie-in to buddhism, i have heard nothing of how hitler grabbed ideas from tibetan buddhism. could you possibly back up this claim? i know hitler assembled his twisted little mind-set from a variety of classic sources (including thule and other norse ideas), but i have heard nothing about him using tibetan ideas to back up his own theology. it would seem to me that anyone basing a kill-doctrine on a buddhist doctrine would be making the same mistake that kevin kline does in a fish called wanda-- (paraphrase) "the principal tenet of buddhism is not 'every man for himself'", says wanda. she also says, "yes they do read nietzsche (of gorillas), they just don't understand it." which is the case, i think, of anything hitler tried to pull in from tibetan buddhism. in short, do you have any sources for this claim? thanks, Christopher Koeritz (cak0l@Virginia.EDU) -------------- hmmm.... ---------- hmmm.... --------------- To conquer oneself is a greater task than conquering others. -- Shakyamuni Buddha
mayne@sun16.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne) (06/07/91)
In article <1991Jun6.173310.20859@nas.nasa.gov> cak0l@larch.cs.Virginia.EDU (cak0l) writes: >In article <1991Jun4.204544.16206@nas.nasa.gov> cognos!cognos!uunet.uu.net!garym@uunet.UU.NET (Gary Murphy) writes: > >>be 'what do I gain'). 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! > >well, not to quibble, but when i hit this, a very loud hmmm... struck my >brain. i know that the swastika is a reversed version of a buddhist >holy symbol, but aside from this geometric tie-in to buddhism, i have >heard nothing of how hitler grabbed ideas from tibetan buddhism. >could you possibly back up this claim? I think that even the geometric tie-in is a coincidence. Simple geometric figures are universal. For example, it is ludcrous to infer cultural connections between widely separated ancient peoples soley because both built pyramids. If you want to claim that the Mayans and Egyptions had some contact you have to do better than that. Similarly the geometric form of a cross was used in pagan religions before the Romans used crosses as methods of execution and the form got associated with Xianity. And if I am not mistaken the Nazi swastika was based on a corruption of the Xian cross icon which has been part of European culture for many centuries. No direct connection to Tibetan Buddhism is indicated. To add one more coincidence, I've seen accounts which claim the swastika was also used by some American Indians, with no likely connection to either the Tibetan, pagan, or Xian usage. The Boy Scouts of America have an honorary fraternity now known as the Order of the Arrow which uses a lot of white men's ideas about American Indian symbols. Supposedly before Hitler came along and gave the swastika a bad name this scout group was the Order of the White Swastika. The name was changed for obvious political reasons. Many years ago Reader's Digest published an article in which a former scout described his experiences of initiation into this order, tangentially mentioning the name change. By the way, some men with the perfectly good given name Adolph, including one of the Marx brothers, changed their names at about the same time. Bill Mayne
asanders@decwrl.dec.com (Alan Sanders) (06/07/91)
| Which kind of dream is most conducive to the possibility of enlightenment?
-Tom Simmonds
Does the dreamer awake because he dreams of awakening?
-Alansimmonds@demon.siemens.com (Tom Simmonds) (06/12/91)
> adobe!!asanders@decwrl.dec.com (Alan Sanders) >Subject: Awakening From the Dream of Experience >| Which kind of dream is most conducive to the possibility of enlightenment? > > -Tom Simmonds > >Does the dreamer awake because he dreams of awakening? > > -Alan That's an interesting question. I'll get back to it in a minute. My point was that, at least for most of us, enlightenment does not come easily. We must work at our practice in order to break through our attachments to ideas and the habits that keep us bound. In order to do that, we have to have the time and the energy for it, and we need a peaceful environment in which we can keep distractions to a minimum. If we had to spend all of our time and effort, with none to spare, just to provide ourselves with the basic necessities and to defend ourselves, we would have no opportunity to seek enlightenment. If we had to struggle constantly, we'd be too busy and preoccupied to sit and meditate. So, we need a world that is orderly and in which such things as healthy food, clean water, clean air, shelter, etc. are readily available. If we have endless wars or if we destroy our environment, whether it's a dream or not, we will be too busy dodging bullets or gasping for air to be concerned about truth. Getting back to whether or not the dreamer awakens by dreaming of awakening, I'm hesitant to try to stretch the analogy too far. I've had dreams where I realized, within the dream, that I was dreaming. On some occasions, I have been able, upon realizing that, to awaken myself deliberately, simply by thinking "I want to wake up now" and making an effort to open my eyes. However, I don't think that enlightenment is anything like that. When I awaken from a dream, I go from one world of objects, events and experiences to another. If what I call my "waking" world is also a dream, does enlightenment mean awakening from that world into yet another one? I don't think so. That's what I mean by stretching the analogy too far - it results in a false conception of an endless regression of "dream-worlds". I suppose somebody could hallucinate him/herself into that kind of situation, and I suspect that some have done so, but that wouldn't be enlightenment. When we say that this world is *like* a dream, what it means is that the objects and events in it have no separate existence or identity apart from the flow of experience. In *that* sense, they are like objects and events in a dream. That doesn't mean that we should imagine that there is some other world to "wake up" to. As for the question you asked, this is my opinion about it: If a "dreamer" thinks s/he is separate from his/her experience, and if s/he "dreams" of awakening, without giving up attachment to the concept of a separate self, and clinging to the idea that there is some other "world" to wake up to, s/he is a long way from enlightenment. The idea of awakening itself can be the very thing that stands in the way of enlightenment. -- (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))tom simmonds)))))))))))))))))))) (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ))))))) "True beauty consists in purity of heart." - Mahatma Gandhi ))))))))
news@decwrl.dec.com (Usenet News) (06/14/91)
| If what I call my "waking" world is also a dream, does enlightenment | mean awakening from that world into yet another one? I don't think so. -Tom Simmonds Me neither. P.D. Ouspensky said about this kind of thinking: "You may be having a higher type of dream, but you are still sleeping in the same bed." | ...The idea of awakening itself can be the very thing that stands in | the way of enlightenment. My point exactly! -Alan