surge@en.ecn.purdue.edu (PhD-in-Training) (11/29/90)
I am a novice to Buddist ideas and there is one question that has been gnawing at me about detachment. I understand (to some extent) that attachment to objects in this world leads to misery or unsatisfaction (the first noble truth) and that detachment from desire is the first step to freedom from this misery and cycle of birth. However, if I imagine myself completely detached emotionally from all things and desiring almost nothing, don't I lose a quality of being alive? Isn't passion an integral part of living? Detachment makes me think of the character Spock from the TV series "Star Trek", something that is more of a machine than human. If one is detached from feeling misery, does one lose touch with all feelings (good or bad)? It seems like one must lose the good feelings in life to rid oneself of the bad. I know that it takes time to understand such matters, but maybe someone can point me in the right direction. Thanks. -- ........................................................................... TIE(TakeItEasy), : I said to the almond tree Surge : "Sister, speak to me of God," Saint Francis : And the almond tree blossomed. of Assisi ........................surge@ecn.purdue.edu...............................
kde@heawk1.gsfc.nasa.gov ( Keith Evans) (11/30/90)
In <1990Nov29.005643.6034@nas.nasa.gov> pur-ee!surge@en.ecn.purdue.edu (PhD-in-Training) writes: >extent) that attachment to objects in this world leads to misery >or unsatisfaction (the first noble truth) and that detachment >from desire is the first step to freedom from this misery and >cycle of birth. However, if I imagine myself completely detached >emotionally from all things and desiring almost nothing, don't I >lose a quality of being alive? Isn't passion an integral part of >living? Detachment makes me think of the character Spock from >the TV series "Star Trek", something that is more of a machine >than human. If one is detached from feeling misery, does one >lose touch with all feelings (good or bad)? It seems like one >must lose the good feelings in life to rid oneself of the bad. The idea of detachment is prevalent in Hinayana (lesser teaching) Buddhism. Being human beings it is really hard to be detached. But if you put attachment to objects as the first and foremost principle of your life, yes it will definietly lead to suffering, because it is like slandering the one Law of Buddhism (slander is the worst thing you could do). The idea is to use one's worldly attachments to gain enlightenment. In Nichiren Shoshu this Law is called Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. By chanting this and basing one's life on this (the ultimate law of cause and effect), then one is actually in the life-condition of Buddhahood. So the more you chant about your desires/problems, then the more often you are in the state of Buddhahood. This also allows you to fulfill your desires/solve your problems. Many religions try to deny worldly attachments. But it doesn't really work (try it). By actually fulfilling all your desires, you soon realize that they are not true happiness and after a while one gains a real understanding of the transience of this life and lives in such a way that one's immutable karma (karma to be recieved in future lives) will be eradicated. -- Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. Respectfully, Keith Evans kde@heawk1.gsfc.nasa.gov
chee1a1@jetson.uh.edu (11/30/90)
pur-ee!surge@en.ecn.purdue.edu (PhD-in-Training), Purdue University Engine asks: >I am a novice to Buddist ideas and there is one question that has >been gnawing at me about detachment. I understand (to some .. >I know that it takes time to understand such matters, but maybe >someone can point me in the right direction. Thanks. After writing about your view of detachment it looks like you arrived at some right grasp of the idea at the end when you said that you know it takes time to understand such matters. It is really true that you yourself has to findout from within whether detachment is good or bad. I'd try to explain as much as I could. However, all the explanations, reasonings logic,philosophy etc. does not have any meaning if ones life experience is not analysed mindfully by oneself. If you try to imagine being detached while still having attachements ------- then you perceive detachment as negative. But you have to analyse and ------- think with relative to your own experience to find out where the attachment really leading a person to. You could look at attachment from different perspectives at different levels. I meant different levels here because the degree of attachment and the things people are attached to differ from one person to another. As an example, for a drug addict attachment to drugs for him is good, he would go after it in spite of the pain he goes through afterwards mentally or physically. For a non-addict who could see the pain an addict goes through can think how the attachement is really making the addict a slave and suffer. At another level for us living in all the comforts etc. we get attached to them and it is hard for us to see how getting rid of these attachments can be more positive. For some the search for the meaning of attachments begin when unexpected happens. Where does the attachment really fits in a life where a person actually has to depart from the niceties and attachments. There are various parabales, stories given to illustrate this. One I quote from memory. A person going in the jungle is being chased by a wild beast (eg. say a tiger). He sees a pit (or a hole) where there are snakes at the bottom. He hang on to a creeper and tries to escape by going into the pit. But he sees a honeycomb hanging around and starts licking it. He enjoys the honey thinking about its good taste while he faces dangers from the beast chasing him, snakes in the pit, and may be the creeper he is hanging from may break. This story is used to illustrate the plight of a person enjoying the attachements to the fullest while getting battered by the unavoidable unsatisfactoriness of life. Sensual pleasures give happiness (or comfort or whatever good name you want to call it). Not only there is a good side to it but also there is a danger or a negative side to it. It is this negative side that makes the detachment the right solution to it. Attachments become negative in the sense if a person neglects everything and gets carried away by the attachements. Therefore, as person develops more and more mentally he starts seeing negative effects of attachement. That is why some people would ultimately go to a homeless state giving up the worldly life completely. This does not mean for those who wants to lead a worldly life there are no happiness. Everyone cannot leave the worldly or homely life. In addition to the everyday realities, if you look at Buddhist teachings, Buddha taught earning to support oneself and a family etc. and not being full debt etc. are happiness for a worldly person. He not only declared it as a happiness (or a sukha) but also showed the ways (such as not being lazy, having good company of friends etc) to make the worldly life a success. [ As far as theory is concerned the second Noble Truth, the attachement is classified into three types (i) attachment related to sensual pleasures etc. (ii) attachement arising for an eternal existence or existence (bhava) (iii) attachement arising due to the view that a person does not exist after death. (ii) and (iii) arises due to the view one holds regarding the existence (life or bhava), and (i) arises due to sensual pleasures. I'll rather stop here without going further into theoretical explanations because too much explanations could be confusing too.] A word about simlarity of detachment and being like a machine. It is true machines do not have emotions. On the other hand emotions could be good or bad. If you refer to emotions as hatred,anger,and greed only, then by developing detachment a person eliminates emotions. On the other hand, if emotions include other good mental characters such as kindness (karuna), metta (or loving kindness), appreciative joy (or muditha), then a person developing detachment does not get rid of all the emotions. In fact a person developing detachment has a better chance of developing these positive qualities (or good emotions if you like to call it that way) of the mind because she/he gives priority non-greed,non-hatred etc.. After further investigation and analysis you could add to your following saying: >........................................................................... >TIE(TakeItEasy), : I said to the almond tree > Surge : "Sister, speak to me of God," Saint Francis > : And the almond tree blossomed. of Assisi >........................surge@ecn.purdue.edu............................... You could further say: I said to the almond tree "Sister, show me Wisdom or enlightenment" The blossoms started withering and started falling at my feet. If your really liked the flowers you cannot ignore the decay of them also. Bandula Jayatilaka
david@star2.cm.utexas.edu (David Sigeti) (12/02/90)
In article <1990Nov29.005643.6034@nas.nasa.gov> pur-ee!surge@en.ecn.purdue.edu (PhD-in-Training) writes: [questions and concerns about attachment] I have a little bit to add to Bandula Jayatilaka's posting (Message-ID: <1990Nov30.015335.29877@nas.nasa.gov>) The point is not so much *detachment* as *non-attachment*. And, even here, the emphasis is on not clinging. The point is not to actively separate yourself from the world but to refrain from clinging to things when you should let them go. If you really want to understand the spirit behind non-attachment, you should probably take up some form of Buddhist mindfulness meditation. The Theravadin, Tibeten, and Zen traditions all start out more or less the same so which one you choose is probably not all that important. In another posting in this newsgroup, Message-ID: <1990Nov27.004141.426@nas.nasa.gov> I mentioned a number of books that can help you get started (if you aren't already). I really think that, in general, it is necessary to be practicing Buddhist meditation in order to understand the doctrines of Buddhism. All the teachings and doctrines are just guides for your practice and to understand them, you almost have to have a practice to relate them to. The reason that practicing meditation is particularly important in understanding non-attachment is that non-attachment is tied up with mindfulness. When you are practicing mindfulness meditation, you don't make much of an effort to suppress thoughts when they threaten to distract you. You just attend to them as they come up and let them go as they fade away. You aren't attached to them but you aren't really detached from them either because you give each thought your attention when it appears. Thus, the practice of mindfulness is not a separation from things but a kind of intimate but non-aggressive involvement where you attend to each thing in turn in the appropriate way. I hope that this helpful. -- David Sigeti david@star2.cm.utexas.edu cmhl265@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu
cak0l@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Christopher A. Koeritz) (12/03/90)
In article <1990Nov29.005643.6034@nas.nasa.gov> pur-ee!surge@en.ecn.purdue.edu (PhD-in-Training) writes: >I am a novice to Buddist ideas and there is one question that has >been gnawing at me about detachment. I understand (to some >extent) that attachment to objects in this world leads to misery >or unsatisfaction (the first noble truth) one of the many causes of suffering is attachment to the impermanent, since these things are bound to decay (whether this life or after it, all compounded things break up. even styrofoam and nuclear waste). indeed, since in terms of atomic motion at least, things are created, abide and are destroyed in the same moment (the waveform nature of reality), what are we really attached to in this object? whoops--mouth runneth away... > and that detachment >from desire is the first step to freedom from this misery and >cycle of birth. some might argue that complete detachment from desire will lead to abandoning the sacred doctrines, since there is usually a desire to study them in those who do study them. however, some "desires" in the conventional sense can never be abandoned until one has attained buddhahood, or even afterwards. these "desires" could include: the wish to attain buddhahood, the desire to help other beings, and so forth. the problem is one of language, as usual. "desire" is a term that applies to pretty much anything in our culture, from hungering, to needing a nicotine fix, to wanting to watch tv, to hankering after a lover (tricky wording, eh?), to the altruistic intention to suffer as many lifetimes as it takes to bring every other being to complete and perfect enlightenment. all of these could be termed desires, but the attachments we must sever are to afflicted desires--desires that keep us enthralled by the wonders of cyclic existence. desires like: wanting to watch tv, wanting to buy glittery plastic toys, etc. (having experienced these simple ones myself, i feel free to talk about them as afflicted, although many toy- or tv-o-philes will debate it vigorously). > However, if I imagine myself completely detached >emotionally from all things and desiring almost nothing, don't I >lose a quality of being alive? yes and no. life is a big whirling tornado that throws us from situation to situation, and our emotions can mimic this. to free us from the mental vortices is an awesome promise of meditation, and i personally feel that it only enhances the experience of living. most of my personal dust devils revolve around petty conflicts with the people i live and work with (not to mention my own ugly auto-arguments), and a distancing of the core of my reactions from inflammatory stimulus-response patterns is always "desired" (that word again). > Isn't passion an integral part of living? (excuse any imperious statements below) yes. don't give it up. just give up the aspects of it that are injurious. anger destroys accumulated merit. lust pulls one into lower transmigrations. but when these mental phenomena are transmuted into their non-afflictive counterparts, they can be used to strengthen the power of the mind and increase the intensity of one's wisdom. don't think i'm a master of this kind of process or anything; the best adepts are able to perform it. i still get furious at traffic lights, but i'm beginning to learn how to apply compassion in those situations (for the designer of the traffic light, who programmed it to know when i'm coming; for the installer of the traffic light, who carried the demonically cute little thing up onto the techno-grid over the intersection; for the people around me who are also sitting in their little polluto-mobiles, thinking dark thoughts about the drivers around them and intersections in general, ad infinitum). >Detachment makes me think of the character Spock from >the TV series "Star Trek", something that is more of a machine >than human. If one is detached from feeling misery, does one >lose touch with all feelings (good or bad)? It seems like one >must lose the good feelings in life to rid oneself of the bad. Oh man, Spock's my hero. this is the real reason for this pseudo-educational escapade. Spock showed feeling on numerous episodes of Star Trek, and a distinctly subtle sense of humor. (He's got to be a Buddhist--what else is he going to be meditating on in those caves under Vulcan?) But he is of course a special case, being half-human and all. there was some controversy around on the net a while ago about whether Spock's principles were true hollywood glitterisms, or if they could work in practice. well, having attempted to practice them most of my pre-college years, i have a claim on being an human vulcan-wanna-be. the results are mixed. secondary school education is a breeze for anyone with the faintest grip on logic, and striving to think logically improves mental acuity. as far as feelings, since i am a human (and not a non-existent green blooded, pointy eared monster), i had feelings. my rationale for the most part was to just bury any illogical feeling. this of course led to a massive mental constipation, and a dizzying level of concretization of things (i was also a scientific-atheist during this period). the burying of anything irrational was not the correct process. when the mental dam finally burst, i had to give up on being a vulcan, and fine some form of self-mind-direction that worked for humans. one of these systems is Buddhism. others i have noticed good things in are Taoism, Discordia, and Gnostic Christianity. But, concluding this massive self-explication, Spock is unfortunately not a real human. Leonard Nimoy is, and apparently suffered incredible side effects from playing Spock (crying jags once or twice, and other symptons of pentemotia). the process of destroying attachment, as best i know it, is to analyze the nature of the attachments and attempt to categorize the good and bad effects of each attachment. strive to discard the bad features, and one gradually purifies the mind. this is the process as i attempt to apply it, but not having the uncommon mode of expression, some of the sutras will explain it to you personally in a way that will be appropriate for your conditions. >I know that it takes time to understand such matters, but maybe >someone can point me in the right direction. Thanks. as you can tell, understanding is an interesting thing. often the thought that one has it is proof he doesn't. i have blathered a bit, and hopefully you can pick any gems out of the main corpus of rough hewn nonsense (my nonsense, Buddha's gems). Good Luck, hope to see you in a Highest Pure Land or nirvana sometime real soon. (when i get there--no boasting involved; all beings have the capacity to become enlightened, and all will be such oneday. even this silly scribbler.) May all virtues increase and the burning of the flames of desire, hatred and ignorance be quenched. Homage to the enlightened ones, and to you who read this. --Chris Koeritz Christopher Koeritz To conquer oneself is a greater task than conquering others. -- Shakyamuni Buddha
hugh@chook.ua.oz.au (Hugh Garsden) (12/10/90)
In article <1990Nov29.005643.6034@nas.nasa.gov>, pur-ee!surge@en.ecn.purdue.edu (PhD-in-Training) writes: |> I am a novice to Buddist ideas and there is one question that has |> been gnawing at me about detachment. I understand (to some |> extent) that attachment to objects in this world leads to misery |> or unsatisfaction (the first noble truth) and that detachment |> from desire is the first step to freedom from this misery and |> cycle of birth. However, if I imagine myself completely detached |> emotionally from all things and desiring almost nothing, don't I |> lose a quality of being alive? If you want to understand detachment, in my opinion about the best example we have in modern times is Gandhi. I recommend you read some books about him, and also anything that he wrote himself. My favourites are - "Gandhi: The Man" E. Easwaran "All Men Are Brothers" Gandhi Being detached does not mean that you don't care, or that you don't love. Because modern man equates love with desire, romance, or sex, he/she also then assumes that loving someone means wanting them. However, truly loving someone, what psychologists call unconditional love, implies the capability to give without receiving. It does not need to be requited. This is simplifying it a bit, a good book on the subject is "Unconditional Love" by John Powell. Also "The Art of Loving" by Erich Fromm. I also recommend "Fear of Freedom" by Erich Fromm, which describes in part why human beings are afraid of unconditional love, why they afraid of detachment. Basically, it is because human beings are afraid of being free, not externally, but internally. This is a very important point, no human being can acheive detachment without first being strong and secure enough within themselves so that they can detach themselves from humanity but at the same time then turn around and give themselves back to humanity, without holding anything back, and without fear. Detachment really implies _giving_ without the need for receiving. And giving, in the spirit of love, compassion, and caring, can make us happier than any amount of getting. Once again Gandhi is a prime example. He was burning with love and joy for all mankind, but at the same time non-attached. He gave his life, he gave everything he had, and was probably the happiest man alive because of it. He was free!! I think the reason most people can't understand detachment is because they can't like or love someone unless they are attached to them. They can't love someone unless they are "in love" with them. The idea of a one-way exchange is inconceivable, mainly because of our current obsession with the market i.e. buying and selling. Your statement that becoming detached means you lose the feeling of being alive indicates you think that desiring is a necessary prerequisite for feeling alive. However, this is simply a particular view which it is possible to change. It is difficult, and I haven't done it myself, but I have no doubt that it can be done. Hope this helps. ----- Hugh Garsden University of Adelaide hugh@cs.adelaide.edu.au
hugh@achilles.adelaide.edu.au (Hugh Garsden) (12/11/90)
[This is my third and final attempt to get this article to the Australian sites. It is amazing that I can get Hugh's other article to propagate but not this one. --Dinesh] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- In article <1990Nov29.005643.6034@nas.nasa.gov>, pur-ee!surge@en.ecn.purdue.edu (PhD-in-Training) writes: |> I am a novice to Buddist ideas and there is one question that has |> been gnawing at me about detachment. I understand (to some |> extent) that attachment to objects in this world leads to misery |> or unsatisfaction (the first noble truth) and that detachment |> from desire is the first step to freedom from this misery and |> cycle of birth. However, if I imagine myself completely detached |> emotionally from all things and desiring almost nothing, don't I |> lose a quality of being alive? If you want to understand detachment, in my opinion about the best example we have in modern times is Gandhi. I recommend you read some books about him, and also anything that he wrote himself. My favourites are - "Gandhi: The Man" E. Easwaran "All Men Are Brothers" Gandhi Being detached does not mean that you don't care, or that you don't love. Because modern man equates love with desire, romance, or sex, he/she also then assumes that loving someone means wanting them. However, truly loving someone, what psychologists call unconditional love, implies the capability to give without receiving. It does not need to be requited. This is simplifying it a bit, a good book on the subject is "Unconditional Love" by John Powell. Also "The Art of Loving" by Erich Fromm. I also recommend "Fear of Freedom" by Erich Fromm, which describes in part why human beings are afraid of unconditional love, why they afraid of detachment. Basically, it is because human beings are afraid of being free, not externally, but internally. This is a very important point, no human being can acheive detachment without first being strong and secure enough within themselves so that they can detach themselves from humanity but at the same time then turn around and give themselves back to humanity, without holding anything back, and without fear. Detachment really implies _giving_ without the need for receiving. And giving, in the spirit of love, compassion, and caring, can make us happier than any amount of getting. Once again Gandhi is a prime example. He was burning with love and joy for all mankind, but at the same time non-attached. He gave his life, he gave everything he had, and was probably the happiest man alive because of it. He was free!! I think the reason most people can't understand detachment is because they can't like or love someone unless they are attached to them. They can't love someone unless they are "in love" with them. The idea of a one-way exchange is inconceivable, mainly because of our current obsession with the market i.e. buying and selling. Your statement that becoming detached means you lose the feeling of being alive indicates you think that desiring is a necessary prerequisite for feeling alive. However, this is simply a particular view which it is possible to change. It is difficult, and I haven't done it myself, but I have no doubt that it can be done. Hope this helps. ----- Hugh Garsden University of Adelaide hugh@cs.adelaide.edu.au
SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET (12/20/90)
In article <1990Dec1.212606.14671@nas.nasa.gov> david@star2.cm.utexas.edu (David Sigeti) >The point is not so much *detachment* as *non-attachment*. And, even >here, the emphasis is on not clinging. The point is not to actively >separate yourself from the world but to refrain from clinging to >things when you should let them go. For the past six years or so I have worked as a volunteer with terminally ill individuals. Most of these people became paralyzed (or extraordinarily weak from extreme cachexia) and often became demented. In several cases this work has involved very intimate relationships and taken place over an extended period of time and was not completed until I sat with them as they died. Recently I came across an early Chinese Buddhist aphorism: Let him who would truly learn, practice the Zen of the lone lamp in the death room. (This is not a perfect quote as my books are packed away, but the thrust of it is correct.) It was after beginning this work that I became a Buddhist. It certainly unfolds the Buddhists ideas of anicca, anatta and dukkha with relentless naturalness. I would like to say that I find David's comments on non-attachment as oppossed to detachment to be very reflective of my own experiences and observations. Detachment, it seems to me, is part of the process of arriving at a state/mode of non-attachment. Detachment does involve judgement, and overcoming emotional resistance. It is (in my mind, at least) a process of struggle and discipline. One the other hand, non- attachment, to the degree that I have experienced it, seems free of both judgement and effort. It is very difficult to explain but there is a qualitative difference in the way in which one "is". In caring for the terminally ill, it is quite easy to discern those care partners who have achieved some state of non-attachment. They have a capacity for focusing on the most concentrated instances of time and circumstances, and I believe this is because they are not involved (either attaching or attempting to detach) from the larger "drama", i.e. - the patient is getting worse, he is going to throw up, he is going to die soon, etc. The process of, say, cleaning a patient who is in great pain, and changing his/her soiled bedding without being able to remove him from the bed can comsume anywhere from 20 minutes to 40 minutes. But done with non-attachment it can be a series of small actions, of precise and careful touchings - each one with its own certain purpose, but which cumulatively become a clean individual in a clean bed. However, for those whose focus is on that big picture, that goal, the process is usually a nerve-wracking and tedious one marked with frustration and clumsiness. I think this comes from being attached to that "goal" - a clean patient in a clean bed, which can interfere with all those movements and gestures which are appropriate to all the many moments that occur before arriving at that point ("goal"). There is the popular saying "Go with the flow", however I think what I am attempting to describe is something closer to "Be with the flow." None of what I have described in the above setting presumes non-caring, rather it is the concentration and release of attention as the moment calls for it, an engagement in the present situation rather a commitment to an overarching ideal or goal. >If you really want to understand the spirit behind non-attachment, you >should probably take up some form of Buddhist mindfulness meditation. >The Theravadin, Tibeten, and Zen traditions all start out more or less >the same so which one you choose is probably not all that important. >In another posting in this newsgroup, Message-ID: <1990Nov27.004141.426@nas.nasa.gov> >I mentioned a number of books that can help you get started (if you >aren't already). I really think that, in general, it is necessary to >be practicing Buddhist meditation in order to understand the doctrines >of Buddhism. All the teachings and doctrines are just guides for your >practice and to understand them, you almost have to have a practice to >relate them to. I would agree with this. The arising/being/decay of thoughts, moods, ideas during sitting practice provides a concentrated view of impermanence. With continued practice, I feel, that a person carries over into non-meditation time an awareness of the complex "momentariness" of which formerly insoluble blocks of events are composed. In article <1990Dec2.215911.11350@nas.nasa.gov> cak0l@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Christopher A. Koeritz) writes: >some might argue that complete detachment from desire will lead >to abandoning the sacred doctrines, since there is usually a desire >to study them in those who do study them. There is, of course, the Buddhas sermon in which he compares the dhamma to a raft which is abandoned once one reaches the "farther shore", or Ippen's like comment (from Pure Land Buddhism) that finally even the Pure Land must be abandoned as an attachment. I remember Ippen's comments more clearly, and he seems to be making the point that one abandons the _concept_ of the Pure Land and instead you yourself become the Pure Land. Jack Carroll
tilley@ssd.Kodak.Com (David Tilley) (12/21/90)
In article <1990Dec20.011732.6053@nas.nasa.gov> SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET writes: >In article <1990Dec1.212606.14671@nas.nasa.gov> >david@star2.cm.utexas.edu (David Sigeti) > >In caring for the terminally ill, it is quite easy to discern those >care partners who have achieved some state of non-attachment. >They have a capacity for focusing on the most concentrated >instances of time and circumstances, and I believe this is because >they are not involved (either attaching or attempting to detach) >from the larger "drama", i.e. - the patient is getting worse, >he is going to throw up, he is going to die soon, etc. The process >of, say, cleaning a patient who is in great pain, and changing his/her >soiled bedding without being able to remove him from the bed >can comsume anywhere from 20 minutes to 40 minutes. But done with >non-attachment it can be a series of small actions, of precise and >careful touchings - each one with its own certain purpose, but >which cumulatively become a clean individual in a clean bed. >However, for those whose focus is on that big picture, that >goal, the process is usually a nerve-wracking and tedious one >marked with frustration and clumsiness. I think this comes from >being attached to that "goal" - a clean patient in a clean bed, >which can interfere with all those movements and gestures which >are appropriate to all the many moments that occur before arriving >at that point ("goal"). > This seems (to me) to be connected with the Sutras on Mindfullness. If you are constantly mindfull of the current moment of the current action then you will be free of the goal. (See The Miracle of Mindfullness by Thich Nhat Hahn). Has the Bardo been of any help or meaning to you? dave