rsp@PacBell.COM (Steve Price) (03/16/90)
I'm reading CONCENTRATION AND MEDITATION by Christmas Humphreys and have read something I wish to understand more clearly. Any light shed on this would be appreciated. Christmas (I love that name for a Buddhist writer!) says on page 140: "...those who hold that love is the guiding principle of life must remember that love, like any other principle, would be meaningless without its opposite." Is love NOT the guiding principle of the universe? What is he implying about HATE? that it is "necessary"? inevitable? useful? How does this assertion balance with the assertion that "Compassion" for all must be the goal of walking the Path? I thought that Buddhism says that love for all must be the purpose behind every pilgrim journey. -- Steve Price UNIX: pacbell!pbhyf!rsp PHONE: (415)823-1951 ...argument does not teach children or the immature. Only time and experience does that. Doris Lessing
dhosek@jarthur.Claremont.edu (---) (03/19/90)
In article <14591@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> rsp@PacBell.COM (Steve Price) writes: >Christmas (I love that name for a Buddhist writer!) says on page 140: >"...those who hold that love is the guiding principle of life must remember >that love, like any other principle, would be meaningless without its opposite." >Is love NOT the guiding principle of the universe? >What is he implying about HATE? that it is "necessary"? inevitable? useful? >How does this assertion balance with the assertion that "Compassion" for all >must be the goal of walking the Path? I thought that Buddhism says that love >for all must be the purpose behind every pilgrim journey. Where do you get "'Compassion' for all must be the goal of walking the Path" from? The Four Great Vows of Buddhism (according to the Platform Sutra, S21) are: I vow to save all sentient beings everywhere.I vow to cut off all the passions everywhere. I vow to study all the Buddhist teachings everywhere. I vow to achieve the unsurpassed Buddha Way. Zen Buddhism, I know, has no goal ("There is no knowledge, no attainment, nothing to attain" -The Heart Sutra). I'm not sure if that's the case in other sects of Buddhism, but I think that at the least some aspect of this shows up there. It appears that you are having difficulty letting go of your Western perspective when approaching Buddhism. That's OK, it's a difficult project, but it's important to remember that Buddhism is _very_ different from most Western religion and thought. -dh -- Important note: The Anti-Social Committee will not be meeting this week. UUCP: uunet!jarthur!dhosek Internet: dhosek@hmcvax.claremont.edu
aloise@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jim Aloise) (03/19/90)
>"...those who hold that love is the guiding principle of life must remember >that love, like any other principle, would be meaningless without its opposite" >Is love NOT the guiding principle of the universe? >What is he implying about HATE? that it is "necessary"? inevitable? useful? >How does this assertion balance with the assertion that "Compassion" for all >must be the goal of walking the Path? I thought that Buddhism says that love >for all must be the purpose behind every pilgrim journey. Take this definition of love: "Love is the willigness to see from the others viewpoint" Let's write it as +love+ so when we see the word we'll know it's this definition that is under discussion and we wont get the concepts mixed up with other thoughts that the word love evokes. (forgive some repitition below from another newsgroup) How willing are you to see things from the others perspective. See their wants, needs, joys, fears, desires. Understand their background, conditioning, goals, interests, etc.. Someone you hate, you wouldn't begin to try to see things from their point of view. If you +love+ your plants you're gladly willing to try to understand how much water and sun they want and what kind of earth is best and what temperatures do they freak out in. If you hate a bug the last thing you're going to do is try to understand that they might be hungry and are just trying to find a home and reproduce after their own kind, and so forth. The essence of the +love+ is not so much on the degree of understanding but the willingness to increase the understanding. A teacher +loves+ a student to the degree that he is willing to try and see the students misunderstanding and confusion and what's lacking in the student's approach. You +love+ a stranger to the degree that you're willing to see that they have a problem and in what little way you could now assist them or eliviate their concerns. You +love+ a subject matter to the degree that you're willing to understand what an author is saying, how it is all consistent from his point of view. You +love+ somebody to the degree that you want to share their experiences and perceive the world more and more as they do. You +love+ yourself to the degree that you become willing to observe and understand your own action and thoughts and motivations. This +love+ has little to do with being non-judgemental or supportive or accepting. You +love+ the criminal to the extent that you're willing to understand the frustration and emotion that they may have experienced in the committing of the crime and their hatred and resentment of the society that may have predisposed them, without in any way accepting or supporting their action and judge their punishment appropriate in a society of perishable bodies. The willingness to see the viewpoint has no relation to your accepting it or not judging it. This +love+ is really the same as compassion. To carry the +love+ further and further you ultimately reach the point where you ARE the other person, and to speak of +love+ is meaningless because there is no other. To practice +love+ less and less, you reach a point where the other is just an object and is not even capable of having a viewpoint. (In our society is sometimes seems like love is bodies exchanging fluids and taking actions to the extent that the other body remains willing to exchange with you.) So to respond directly, +love+ can be said to be the guiding principle of the universe and -hate- of course is the absence of +love+, and inevitable, until finally the +love+ is complete and, as mentioned above, becomes meaningless as the dichotomy vanishes.
jamess@ttidcc.TTI.COM (Jim Schoonover) (03/19/90)
In article <14591@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> rsp@PacBell.COM (Steve Price) writes: >[ Christmas Humphreys writes, in _Concentration and Meditation_ ] >"...those who hold that love is the guiding principle of life must remember >that love, like any other principle, would be meaningless without its opposite." > >Is love NOT the guiding principle of the universe? >What is he implying about HATE? that it is "necessary"? inevitable? useful? > What I see in his statement is a recognition of the nature of all of the pairs-of-opposites. Neither element of a pair can exist without the other. Furthermore, clinging to one is no better than (or different than) clinging to the other. The following excerpts from D. T. Suzuki's translation of "Inscribed on the Believing Mind [Heart]" by Seng-ts'an, third Patriarch of Zen in China, bear on this issue: The Perfect Way knows no difficulties Except that it refuses to make preference: Only when freed from hate and love, It reveals itself fully and without disguise. A tenth of an inch's difference, And heaven and earth are set apart: . . . Pursue not the outer entanglements, Dwell not in the inner void; When the mind rests serene in the oneness of things, The dualism vanishes by itself. . . . The two exist because of the one, But hold not even to this one; When the one mind is not disturbed, The ten thousand things offer no offence. . . . In the oneness of the void the two are one, And each of the two contains in itself all the ten thousand things: . . . In the higher realm of True Suchness There is neither 'other' nor 'self': When a direct identification is asked for, We can only say, 'Not two.' . . . I am also reminded of something once said by Nisargadatta Maharaj (not a Buddhist). I don't have the exact quote, but it was in effect: penetrate any one of the pairs-of-opposites and you have dissolved them all. -------------- Jim Schoonover <jamess@tti.com> {csun,philabs,psivax,pyramid,quad1,retix}!ttidca!jamess
aloise@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jim Aloise) (03/20/90)
In article <14677@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> jamess@ttidcc.TTI.COM (Jim Schoonover) writes: >What I see in his statement is a recognition of the nature of all >of the pairs-of-opposites. Neither element of a pair can exist >without the other. Furthermore, clinging to one is no better than >(or different than) clinging to the other. . . . >I am also reminded of something once said by Nisargadatta Maharaj >(not a Buddhist). I don't have the exact quote, but it was in >effect: penetrate any one of the pairs-of-opposites and you have >dissolved them all. Is it just the particular emphasis on the pairs-of-opposites of Being and Non-Being that differentiate the various Eastern religions and philosophies?
jhaydon@uunet.uu.net (Jennifer Haydon) (03/20/90)
In article <14591@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> rsp@PacBell.COM (Steve Price) writes: >I'm reading CONCENTRATION AND MEDITATION by Christmas Humphreys and have >read something I wish to understand more clearly. Any light shed on this >would be appreciated. > >Christmas (I love that name for a Buddhist writer!) says on page 140: >"...those who hold that love is the guiding principle of life must remember >that love, like any other principle, would be meaningless without its opposite." > >Is love NOT the guiding principle of the universe? >What is he implying about HATE? that it is "necessary"? inevitable? useful? I guess here you would have to go with your own experience. Do you feel inside that hate is necessary, or that love would be meaningless without hate? I feel that love is the ONE feeling (for want of a better word) that is beyond opposites. I can see from my own experience (which is the only way, I feel, that I can verify a deep inner understanding) that love needs nothing to happen or exist. It wells up from within. It stands alone. It bubbles up spontaneously. >How does this assertion balance with the assertion that "Compassion" for all >must be the goal of walking the Path? I thought that Buddhism says that love >for all must be the purpose behind every pilgrim journey. I feel that love is the purpose for our journey. I also feel that the purpose or goal of any spiritual search must be to arrive at a happier, and most definitely, compassionate state. Anyway, my two cents! > >-- >Steve Price UNIX: pacbell!pbhyf!rsp PHONE: (415)823-1951 > -- He's trying to give you a hard time, but you're not listening. -Shawna to Tracyr
asanders@decwrl.dec.com (03/20/90)
|"...those who hold that love is the guiding principle of life must remember |that love, like any other principle, would be meaningless without its opposite." | |Is love NOT the guiding principle of the universe? |What is he implying about HATE? that it is "necessary"? inevitable? useful? | |How does this assertion balance with the assertion that "Compassion" for all |must be the goal of walking the Path? I thought that Buddhism says that love |for all must be the purpose behind every pilgrim journey. -Steve Price Perhaps the first thing to remember is that "the problem of evil" is a very weighty issue, not likely to be fathomed by our off-the-cuff efforts to understand the mysteries of the Universe. But we can certainly try. The Buddhist point of view asserts that we live in a world of duality -- that is, in a state of ignorance. As a result, all our concepts are based on pairs of opposites: we cannot define "love" without reference to "not-love". Thus our efforts to paint an ideal picture of a world "without hate" are bound to fail. But it is not that the world is "worse" for all that, but that our state of consciousness needs to be "better". Of course these are relative concepts also: "better" and "worse" are simply different flavors of "good" and "bad", or "love" and "hate". But fortunately, our consciousness is relative also: our state of mind can fluctuate. Sometimes we understand more, sometimes less. Sometimes we may even catch a glimpse of a world in which pairs of opposites DO NOT EXIST. In Eastern thought, this state is sometimes called "not this, not that" -- hinting at the nature of Reality. The practical aim of Buddhist meditation could be expressed as the realization of this truth. As we are, we still have to make decisions -- notwithstanding the illusory nature of the distinctions we perceive. We do not really know that love is the guiding principle of the Universe; but we DO know, in our limited way, that compassion is preferable to cruelty. Similarly, we cannot have compassion for "all sentient beings"; but we CAN try to be compassionate toward those close to us. We have to start where we are. The story is told that a man was walking in the forest when robbers attacked him and stole his money. Several people soon came to his aid and tried to take him to the hospital for treatment of his wounds. But the man refused, insisting to know the names of the robbers, where their families were from, and so on before he would consent to be treated. And while he lay there arguing, he died. Regards, Alan
rsp@PacBell.COM (Steve Price) (03/21/90)
In article <14672@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> dhosek@jarthur.Claremont.edu (---) writes: > >Where do you get "'Compassion' for all must be the goal of walking the Path" >from? [omissions] > >Zen Buddhism, I know, has no goal ("There is no knowledge, no attainment, >nothing to attain" -The Heart Sutra). I'm not sure if that's the case in >other sects of Buddhism, but I think that at the least some aspect of this >shows up there. > >It appears that you are having difficulty letting go of your Western >perspective when approaching Buddhism. Obviously! I am puzzled to hear that there is "no goal" in Buddhism and then to read several other postings that mention the great Buddhist Saints who vow not to leave the cycle of birth/death until all sentient creatures achieve Enlightenment. So you are saying that his vow is taken without Compassion and without a goal? I don't wish to be confrontational at all, but that does seem difficult to process mentally. Or do Buddhists like to quote Walt Whitman: "Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself" or Ralph Waldo Emerson: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." I'm open to the possibility that the apparent inconsistency here may be an illusion based on mixing statements about different levels of spiritual understandings. In any case, I'd like to "see" what you mean.) -- Steve Price UNIX: pacbell!pbhyf!rsp PHONE: (415)823-1951 ...argument does not teach children or the immature. Only time and experience does that. Doris Lessing