johnw@farside.eng.ready.com (John Wheeler) (05/16/91)
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
radams@cerritos.edu (05/16/91)
In response to another poster johnw (johnw@farside.eng.r) writes: >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. > >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." > > johnw I agree with most of what you say, in fact, I consider this post to be a very enlightening comparison between Krishnamurti (who has always interested me and bothered me at the same time) and some great Indian masters such as Sri Ramana Maharshi who I have also read alot of. You put the finger on (IMHO) the shortcomings of Krishnamurti's teachings. However, I must say that I think that K was a great man and I don't think he was far from self-realization and may have had some glimpes of it in his life. His idea of being keenly attentive to everything (the flame of attention) and his ideas on meditation were not far from the mindfulness techniques of other systems and the idea of just being awake and attentive that vedanta might encourage. But after reading K, I would often be somewhat troubled in trying to synthesise what he says with the great masters of India past and present, but after reading Ramana Maharshi, I always feel inspired and ready to continue with my own path (Self-Realization Fellowship) even though its not, on the superficial level, the same as the atma-vichara advocated by Maharshi. So I think the higher the realization of someone, the more inspiring the effect on one who is exposed to that someone (and the less troubled you are too!). Roger Adams radams@cerritos.edu To those in whom love dwells, Cerritos College the whole world is one family. 11110 Alondra Blvd A Hindu Proverb Norwalk, California 90650 USA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
simmonds@demon.siemens.com (Tom Simmonds) (05/18/91)
> johnw@farside.eng.ready.com (John Wheeler) >Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern >Subject: Conditioning >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. In general, I agree with you, but there is one thing I'd like to add. In the Lankavatara Sutra, Buddha is quoted as saying that philosophers cannot see reality because they are addicted to concepts, and similar quotes appear in other places. It seems to me that, although quieting the mind may not lead to Nirvana, there is work to be done, for most of us, in disentangling ourselves from attachment to concepts. We tend to view our experiences with mental biases that include ideas about the nature of the universe and our relation to it, ideas about who or what we are, ideas about past history and imaginary extrapolations into the future, desires and expectations, cultural biases, emotional attitudes, etc. Many of our mantal biases are the result of "education" and social conditioning. Such habits can be so thoroughly ingrained that they become automatic to the extent that we are not aware that they are taking place. To the extent that we view ourselves and our experience through our ideas, as through tinted glasses, we limit ourselves and are unable to experience the unlimited freedom of Nirvana. Somewhere in the Zen literature on my bookshelf, I remember reading that trying to quiet the mind by some effort to stop the thoughts is like trying to smooth the surface of a lake by beating down the waves with a shovel. It should not be our goal to quiet our minds; if quieting them means stopping or restricting our thoughts. However, I think it is very important to work on overcoming attachment to ideas. My experience has been that it is a little easier to let go of that attachment to ideas when I spend some time to relax and slow down the flood of thoughts to something less than the usual frantic pace. It seems easier to recognize those habits of thought that I usually don't notice because they are working quietly in the background of a very noisy mind. Before I can let go of an attachment, I have to recognize what it is that I'm supposed to let go of. Letting go of thoughts is not the same as stopping them; it's more like indifferent laissez-faire. -- (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))tom simmonds)))))))))))))))))))) (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ))))))) "True beauty consists in purity of heart." - Mahatma Gandhi ))))))))