Gurdjieff used to say to his disciples, "The first thing for the disciple is to know what his main characteristic is." Y
If your main characteristic is knowledgeability,
then look around without carrying your burden of knowledge, and then you are stumbling continuously into new surprises and life again becomes worth living, worth rejoicing. Life again becomes a mystery to be loved and lived. It is not a problem to be solved, it is a mystery to be lived.
"Brothers," said the colored preacher, "the subject of my sermon today is 'liars'. How many in this congregation have read the sixty-ninth chapter of Matthew?"
Nearly every hand went up.
"You are the very people I want to preach to," the reverend said. "There is no such chapter!"
But nobody wants to accept that he does not know. Sixty-ninth chapter of Matthew.... Everybody wants to pretend. And I will not say that they were doing it very consciously, deliberately. Maybe they were thinking that they had read it, maybe they were believing that they had read it, and seeing so many hands going up they must become convinced that yes, there is such a chapter.
In the old days down South, a minister had a Negro named Ezra in his household. Ezra was smart and ambitious, but he could not read or write.
One Sunday the minister saw Ezra in the church, scribbling away industriously through the sermon. Afterwards, the minister asked him, "Ezra, what were you doing in church?"
"Taking notes, sir. I's eager to learn."
"Let me see," said the minister, and he glanced over Ezra's notes, which looked more like Chinese than English.
"Why, Ezra," he chided, "this is all nonsense!"
"I thought so," said Ezra, "all the time you was preaching it!"
If your main characteristic is knowledgeability,
then look around without carrying your burden of knowledge, and then you are stumbling continuously into new surprises and life again becomes worth living, worth rejoicing. Life again becomes a mystery to be loved and lived. It is not a problem to be solved, it is a mystery to be lived.
"Brothers," said the colored preacher, "the subject of my sermon today is 'liars'. How many in this congregation have read the sixty-ninth chapter of Matthew?"
Nearly every hand went up.
"You are the very people I want to preach to," the reverend said. "There is no such chapter!"
But nobody wants to accept that he does not know. Sixty-ninth chapter of Matthew.... Everybody wants to pretend. And I will not say that they were doing it very consciously, deliberately. Maybe they were thinking that they had read it, maybe they were believing that they had read it, and seeing so many hands going up they must become convinced that yes, there is such a chapter.
In the old days down South, a minister had a Negro named Ezra in his household. Ezra was smart and ambitious, but he could not read or write.
One Sunday the minister saw Ezra in the church, scribbling away industriously through the sermon. Afterwards, the minister asked him, "Ezra, what were you doing in church?"
"Taking notes, sir. I's eager to learn."
"Let me see," said the minister, and he glanced over Ezra's notes, which looked more like Chinese than English.
"Why, Ezra," he chided, "this is all nonsense!"
"I thought so," said Ezra, "all the time you was preaching it!"
hans-wolfgang - am Montag, 24. Januar 2005, 18:43
noch kein Kommentar - Kommentar verfassen
Yes, Marx is not wrong when he says that religion is the opium of the people; it has been used that way. Not that religion as such is REALLY so, but religion has been used as an opium. Then people can be drugged.
Never bother about explanations. See the fact, and be aware of the fact, and don't be too concerned about explanations. Otherwise you will go on and on: you did something wrong in your past life, that's why you are so violent, aggressive, full of anger. But have you never asked the other question? -- "Why did I do something wrong in the past life?" Then they will say, "Even further back you did some wrong"; but that goes on and on. The question is: why, in the first place, did you do wrong in your first life? There is no explanation -- unless God Himself made you in such a way that you had to do something wrong. But then God is the culprit, you are not. Why should you suffer? Let Him suffer if He has committed a mistake.
These explanations are poor efforts to console oneself. Somebody dies and you are hurt, and you are in much pain, and you want somebody to console you, and somebody comes to console you -- because wherever there is demand there is supply. That is an economic law, it applies everywhere. If you are crying and weeping, some foolish, stupid person is bound to come, and he will say, "Don't cry. The soul is immortal." Now, that doesn't make any change. Your wife has died, and you cannot make love to your dead wife. The problem is there: you will miss her. The immortal soul cannot cook food for you tomorrow. And you have to look after your children; the immortal soul is not going to come.
But somebody says, "The soul is immortal"; it gives a sort of consolation: "So she has not died really. So she must be somewhere and there is a possibility to meet someday, somewhere, and it will be good." And you start dreaming, and it consoles. But this explanation is like a tranquilizer, a sedative, like alcohol; it intoxicates you.
If somebody has died and you are in pain, what do I say to you? I say: don't ask for explanations. Look at this pain. Death has happened; watch it. It has hurt you deeply; watch it, beware. Be aware, be mindful of how fragile life is, how everything ends. Just see the flux-like phenomenon of life, the momentary dream-like existence. Just see, and don't try to explain, and don't try to escape, and don't try to avoid, and don't try to get occupied somewhere else. Just look: death has happened, you are sad, great sorrow has happened to you; look into it. And by watching and becoming aware of it, much will be revealed to you. The sorrow, the sadness will disappear -- and with it will disappear all attachments, because you will be able to see that all attachment brings sorrow. It is not the death of your wife that you are sorry for. It is not because of death. If she had been somebody else's wife, there would have been no problem. She was your wife. It is not the question of death that you are troubled with. Some part of your being is snatched away -- you had become too attached -- you feel uprooted. You will feel a gap in your heart, an empty space.
Watching the sorrow that death brings, you will become aware that behind the sorrow is not death but attachment. And seeing the facticity of attachment, you will relax, you will become a little loose in your attachments. Next time death happens there will not be so much sorrow. And one day comes when death happens and there is no sorrow. You know this is how things are, you have accepted it. You have known the reality of life: that it ends in death. And there is nothing else to do. You have become aware.
Never bother about explanations. See the fact, and be aware of the fact, and don't be too concerned about explanations. Otherwise you will go on and on: you did something wrong in your past life, that's why you are so violent, aggressive, full of anger. But have you never asked the other question? -- "Why did I do something wrong in the past life?" Then they will say, "Even further back you did some wrong"; but that goes on and on. The question is: why, in the first place, did you do wrong in your first life? There is no explanation -- unless God Himself made you in such a way that you had to do something wrong. But then God is the culprit, you are not. Why should you suffer? Let Him suffer if He has committed a mistake.
These explanations are poor efforts to console oneself. Somebody dies and you are hurt, and you are in much pain, and you want somebody to console you, and somebody comes to console you -- because wherever there is demand there is supply. That is an economic law, it applies everywhere. If you are crying and weeping, some foolish, stupid person is bound to come, and he will say, "Don't cry. The soul is immortal." Now, that doesn't make any change. Your wife has died, and you cannot make love to your dead wife. The problem is there: you will miss her. The immortal soul cannot cook food for you tomorrow. And you have to look after your children; the immortal soul is not going to come.
But somebody says, "The soul is immortal"; it gives a sort of consolation: "So she has not died really. So she must be somewhere and there is a possibility to meet someday, somewhere, and it will be good." And you start dreaming, and it consoles. But this explanation is like a tranquilizer, a sedative, like alcohol; it intoxicates you.
If somebody has died and you are in pain, what do I say to you? I say: don't ask for explanations. Look at this pain. Death has happened; watch it. It has hurt you deeply; watch it, beware. Be aware, be mindful of how fragile life is, how everything ends. Just see the flux-like phenomenon of life, the momentary dream-like existence. Just see, and don't try to explain, and don't try to escape, and don't try to avoid, and don't try to get occupied somewhere else. Just look: death has happened, you are sad, great sorrow has happened to you; look into it. And by watching and becoming aware of it, much will be revealed to you. The sorrow, the sadness will disappear -- and with it will disappear all attachments, because you will be able to see that all attachment brings sorrow. It is not the death of your wife that you are sorry for. It is not because of death. If she had been somebody else's wife, there would have been no problem. She was your wife. It is not the question of death that you are troubled with. Some part of your being is snatched away -- you had become too attached -- you feel uprooted. You will feel a gap in your heart, an empty space.
Watching the sorrow that death brings, you will become aware that behind the sorrow is not death but attachment. And seeing the facticity of attachment, you will relax, you will become a little loose in your attachments. Next time death happens there will not be so much sorrow. And one day comes when death happens and there is no sorrow. You know this is how things are, you have accepted it. You have known the reality of life: that it ends in death. And there is nothing else to do. You have become aware.
hans-wolfgang - am Montag, 24. Januar 2005, 00:14
noch kein Kommentar - Kommentar verfassen
THERE WERE THREE FRIENDS DISCUSSING LIFE.
ONE SAID:
"CAN MEN LIVE TOGETHER AND KNOW NOTHING OF IT,
WORK TOGETHER AND PRODUCE NOTHING?
CAN THEY FLY AROUND IN SPACE
AND FORGET TO EXIST, WORLD WITHOUT END?"
THE THREE FRIENDS LOOKED AT EACH OTHER
AND BURST OUT LAUGHING.
THEY HAD NO EXPLANATION,
THUS THEY WERE BETTER FRIENDS THAN BEFORE. THEN ONE FRIEND DIED.
CONFUCIUS SENT A DISCIPLE
TO HELP THE OTHER TWO CHANT HIS OBSEQUIES.
THE DISCIPLE FOUND
THAT ONE FRIEND HAD COMPOSED A SONG
WHILE THE OTHER PLAYED THE LUTE.
THEY SANG:
"HEY, SUNG HU, WHERE'D YOU GO?
HEY, SUNG HU, WHERE'D YOU GO?
YOU HAVE GONE WHERE YOU REALLY WERE,
AND WE ARE HERE -- DAMN IT, WE ARE HERE!"
THEN THE DISCIPLE OF CONFUCIUS
BURST IN ON THEM AND EXCLAIMED:
"MAY I INQUIRE WHERE YOU FOUND THIS
IN THE RUBRICS FOR OBSEQUIES,
THIS FRIVOLOUS CAROLING
IN THE PRESENCE OF THE DEPARTED?"
THE TWO FRIENDS LOOKED AT EACH OTHER
AND LAUGHED:
"POOR FELLOW,
HE DOESN'T KNOW THE NEW LITURGY!"
The three friends looked at each other
and burst out laughing.
The fact, the question, the penetration of it, the depth, the reality, the fact of it, showed plainly that no answer was needed. Any answer would have been foolish, any answer would have been superficial.
It is said about Buddha that millions of times people used to ask him questions and he would not answer. If the question demanded a superficial answer, he would not answer; if somebody asked, "Is there a God?" he remained silent. And people are foolish. They began to think that he didn't believe in God, otherwise he would say yes; or they thought he was ignorant, he didn't know, otherwise he would say either yes or no!
When you ask a question such as, "Does God exist?" you don't know what you are asking. Do you think this is a question to be answered? Then you are stupid. Can such vital questions be answered? Then you don't know the depth of it; then this is curiosity, not inquiry.
If the man who was asking Buddha was an authentic seeker, then he would have remained with Buddha's silence -- because the silence was the answer. In that silence he would have felt the question, in that silence the question would have asserted itself strongly. Against the background of the silence it would have become clearer. A clarity would have come to him.
Whenever you ask a deep question, no answer is required. All that is required is to remain with the question. Don't move here and there, remain with the question and wait. The very question will become the answer. The question, if you go deep into it, will lead to the very source from where the answer also flows. It is in you.
Buddha has not answered any real question -- and remember that about taoism also, because no real question can be answered, it is not an intellectual thing. Only from heart to heart the transmission happens, not from head to head.
ONE SAID:
"CAN MEN LIVE TOGETHER AND KNOW NOTHING OF IT,
WORK TOGETHER AND PRODUCE NOTHING?
CAN THEY FLY AROUND IN SPACE
AND FORGET TO EXIST, WORLD WITHOUT END?"
THE THREE FRIENDS LOOKED AT EACH OTHER
AND BURST OUT LAUGHING.
THEY HAD NO EXPLANATION,
THUS THEY WERE BETTER FRIENDS THAN BEFORE. THEN ONE FRIEND DIED.
CONFUCIUS SENT A DISCIPLE
TO HELP THE OTHER TWO CHANT HIS OBSEQUIES.
THE DISCIPLE FOUND
THAT ONE FRIEND HAD COMPOSED A SONG
WHILE THE OTHER PLAYED THE LUTE.
THEY SANG:
"HEY, SUNG HU, WHERE'D YOU GO?
HEY, SUNG HU, WHERE'D YOU GO?
YOU HAVE GONE WHERE YOU REALLY WERE,
AND WE ARE HERE -- DAMN IT, WE ARE HERE!"
THEN THE DISCIPLE OF CONFUCIUS
BURST IN ON THEM AND EXCLAIMED:
"MAY I INQUIRE WHERE YOU FOUND THIS
IN THE RUBRICS FOR OBSEQUIES,
THIS FRIVOLOUS CAROLING
IN THE PRESENCE OF THE DEPARTED?"
THE TWO FRIENDS LOOKED AT EACH OTHER
AND LAUGHED:
"POOR FELLOW,
HE DOESN'T KNOW THE NEW LITURGY!"
The three friends looked at each other
and burst out laughing.
The fact, the question, the penetration of it, the depth, the reality, the fact of it, showed plainly that no answer was needed. Any answer would have been foolish, any answer would have been superficial.
It is said about Buddha that millions of times people used to ask him questions and he would not answer. If the question demanded a superficial answer, he would not answer; if somebody asked, "Is there a God?" he remained silent. And people are foolish. They began to think that he didn't believe in God, otherwise he would say yes; or they thought he was ignorant, he didn't know, otherwise he would say either yes or no!
When you ask a question such as, "Does God exist?" you don't know what you are asking. Do you think this is a question to be answered? Then you are stupid. Can such vital questions be answered? Then you don't know the depth of it; then this is curiosity, not inquiry.
If the man who was asking Buddha was an authentic seeker, then he would have remained with Buddha's silence -- because the silence was the answer. In that silence he would have felt the question, in that silence the question would have asserted itself strongly. Against the background of the silence it would have become clearer. A clarity would have come to him.
Whenever you ask a deep question, no answer is required. All that is required is to remain with the question. Don't move here and there, remain with the question and wait. The very question will become the answer. The question, if you go deep into it, will lead to the very source from where the answer also flows. It is in you.
Buddha has not answered any real question -- and remember that about taoism also, because no real question can be answered, it is not an intellectual thing. Only from heart to heart the transmission happens, not from head to head.
hans-wolfgang - am Freitag, 21. Januar 2005, 13:59
noch kein Kommentar - Kommentar verfassen
In Star Wars, the "Force" is what gives a Jedi knight his power.
May the Force be with you. Utter this famous line and there's no mistaking it. You're referring to the driving force (pardon the pun) behind the Star Wars world of exploding planets and intergalactic wars. But what exactly is it? In the words of the character Obi-wan Kenobi, a Jedi knight:
"The Force is what gives the Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together."
Neat. A power in all of us that we can manipulate to, say, blow up an evil empire or control the galaxy. Played out in a world of Jedi knights, princesses and evil Imperial troops, it's a tantalizing basis for a hyper-tech fairy tale. But, as synonymous as the Force is with the make-believe world of Star Wars, some of its basic principles can be found in a real-life, ancient Chinese philosophy called Taoism.
The Tao is kind of, well, a force that pervades the universe. It is the source of the universe, but it also IS the universe.
There are enough similarities between the Force and the Tao that help explain concepts in Taoism. Taoism is one of the two major indigenous religio-philosophical traditions that has shaped Chinese life for more than 2,000 years. A mysterious master Taoist named Lao-tzu, an archivist at the court of the Chou dynasty (c. 1111-255 BC) and an instructor of Confucius, is said to be one of its founders, after writing a series of poems called the Tao-te Ching.
Tao, often translated as the way or the path, is the ineffable, eternal, creative reality that is the source and end of all things. Te refers to the manifestation of Tao within all things. Thus, to fully possess Te, one must be in perfect harmony with one's original nature.
Put another way, the Tao can be understood in three ways. It is the nature of the universe. It is also your true essence. And it is the way to lead your life. Really this meaning ties the other two together, because the way to lead your life is to get your personal Tao in touch with the Tao of the whole universe.
Sound familiar? "Be one with the force, Luke," advises his teacher Obi-wan Kenobi, as our hero learns the "ways of the Force".
Learning the "ways of the Force"...
A key principle in becoming a master Taoist, is wu-wei, sometimes translated as creative inaction. It literally means getting things done without doing anything. But perhaps it's better described as an action that is so well in accordance with things, that there is no evidence of the action. To the Taoist, any deliberate intervention in the natural order of things will eventually turn into the opposite of what was intended and result in failure. And that is a common theme in Star Wars.
Take the scene from the first Star Wars movie, where Obi-wan Kenobi is teaching Luke Skywalker the "ways of the Force" on Han Solo's Millennium Falcon. Luke is trying hard to avoid laser blasts from a remote, but fails miserably. When Obi-wan Kenobi places a blaster helmet on his head so he can't see, he easily deflects the remote's laser blasts. That's really Taoist.
And remember the last battle scene when Luke blows up the Death Star? Several deliberate attempts by the Rebels, using a targeting computer, end in failure. But when Luke, once again listens to Obi-wan Kenobi to "use the Force", he turns off the device and takes a successful shot. That's really Taoist.
One poem in the Tao-te Ching describes the Tao like this:
The Tao is like a bellows: it is empty yet infinitely capable. The more you use it, the more it produces; The more you talk of it, the less you understand.
This idea of doing rather than understanding is paralleled in Luke Skywalker's experiences with his second Jedi teacher, the small, wrinkled Yoda. When Luke tries and fails to lift out his spacecraft from a swamp after trying to get a mental grip on such an impossible-seeming feat, Yoda replies "Try not. Do," and effortlessly raises the ship onto dry land.
But that's where the analogies end. Taoism celebrates a kind of agrarian lifestyle where people are very much in tune with nature - trees, grass and growing things. It's against the idea of conscious manipulation of the environment. Not exactly in line with the technology-driven world of Star Wars.
The Force is also expressed as two opposites - good vs. evil, dark vs. light. And on a superficial level, it has a parallel in Taoism. One of its icons is the yin yang symbol. A circle divided in two, it represents the unity of apparent opposites. The Yin represents the dark, death, winter and female side of the universe, while the Yang symboilizes the light, life, summer and male side.
But unlike the theme of the positive energy of the Force overcoming the Dark Side in Star Wars, the two sides are inseparable in Taoism.
The ethics in Taoism is to respect both the yin and the yang aspects because both are necessary. It is a mistake philosophically to try and foster the yang at the expense of the yin.
A mistake for those practicing Taoism, but it's a perfect way to incorporate a mysterious, unidentified religious force into a fairy tale.
May the Force be with you. Utter this famous line and there's no mistaking it. You're referring to the driving force (pardon the pun) behind the Star Wars world of exploding planets and intergalactic wars. But what exactly is it? In the words of the character Obi-wan Kenobi, a Jedi knight:
"The Force is what gives the Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together."
Neat. A power in all of us that we can manipulate to, say, blow up an evil empire or control the galaxy. Played out in a world of Jedi knights, princesses and evil Imperial troops, it's a tantalizing basis for a hyper-tech fairy tale. But, as synonymous as the Force is with the make-believe world of Star Wars, some of its basic principles can be found in a real-life, ancient Chinese philosophy called Taoism.
The Tao is kind of, well, a force that pervades the universe. It is the source of the universe, but it also IS the universe.
There are enough similarities between the Force and the Tao that help explain concepts in Taoism. Taoism is one of the two major indigenous religio-philosophical traditions that has shaped Chinese life for more than 2,000 years. A mysterious master Taoist named Lao-tzu, an archivist at the court of the Chou dynasty (c. 1111-255 BC) and an instructor of Confucius, is said to be one of its founders, after writing a series of poems called the Tao-te Ching.
Tao, often translated as the way or the path, is the ineffable, eternal, creative reality that is the source and end of all things. Te refers to the manifestation of Tao within all things. Thus, to fully possess Te, one must be in perfect harmony with one's original nature.
Put another way, the Tao can be understood in three ways. It is the nature of the universe. It is also your true essence. And it is the way to lead your life. Really this meaning ties the other two together, because the way to lead your life is to get your personal Tao in touch with the Tao of the whole universe.
Sound familiar? "Be one with the force, Luke," advises his teacher Obi-wan Kenobi, as our hero learns the "ways of the Force".
Learning the "ways of the Force"...
A key principle in becoming a master Taoist, is wu-wei, sometimes translated as creative inaction. It literally means getting things done without doing anything. But perhaps it's better described as an action that is so well in accordance with things, that there is no evidence of the action. To the Taoist, any deliberate intervention in the natural order of things will eventually turn into the opposite of what was intended and result in failure. And that is a common theme in Star Wars.
Take the scene from the first Star Wars movie, where Obi-wan Kenobi is teaching Luke Skywalker the "ways of the Force" on Han Solo's Millennium Falcon. Luke is trying hard to avoid laser blasts from a remote, but fails miserably. When Obi-wan Kenobi places a blaster helmet on his head so he can't see, he easily deflects the remote's laser blasts. That's really Taoist.
And remember the last battle scene when Luke blows up the Death Star? Several deliberate attempts by the Rebels, using a targeting computer, end in failure. But when Luke, once again listens to Obi-wan Kenobi to "use the Force", he turns off the device and takes a successful shot. That's really Taoist.
One poem in the Tao-te Ching describes the Tao like this:
The Tao is like a bellows: it is empty yet infinitely capable. The more you use it, the more it produces; The more you talk of it, the less you understand.
This idea of doing rather than understanding is paralleled in Luke Skywalker's experiences with his second Jedi teacher, the small, wrinkled Yoda. When Luke tries and fails to lift out his spacecraft from a swamp after trying to get a mental grip on such an impossible-seeming feat, Yoda replies "Try not. Do," and effortlessly raises the ship onto dry land.
But that's where the analogies end. Taoism celebrates a kind of agrarian lifestyle where people are very much in tune with nature - trees, grass and growing things. It's against the idea of conscious manipulation of the environment. Not exactly in line with the technology-driven world of Star Wars.
The Force is also expressed as two opposites - good vs. evil, dark vs. light. And on a superficial level, it has a parallel in Taoism. One of its icons is the yin yang symbol. A circle divided in two, it represents the unity of apparent opposites. The Yin represents the dark, death, winter and female side of the universe, while the Yang symboilizes the light, life, summer and male side.
But unlike the theme of the positive energy of the Force overcoming the Dark Side in Star Wars, the two sides are inseparable in Taoism.
The ethics in Taoism is to respect both the yin and the yang aspects because both are necessary. It is a mistake philosophically to try and foster the yang at the expense of the yin.
A mistake for those practicing Taoism, but it's a perfect way to incorporate a mysterious, unidentified religious force into a fairy tale.
hans-wolfgang - am Sonntag, 16. Januar 2005, 00:21
noch kein Kommentar - Kommentar verfassen
KARTENORAKEL & KRISTALLSEHEN
Karin Schuster
Frau Schuster hat wunderbar die Legesysteme erklärt.
Auch das Kristallsehen ist gut nachzuvollziehen.
Alles in allem, ein Buch für Anfänger und Fortgeschrittene.
Endlich ein gut verständliches Buch über das Kartenlegen.
Ein positiver Lebenswegweiser.
Karin Schuster
Frau Schuster hat wunderbar die Legesysteme erklärt.
Auch das Kristallsehen ist gut nachzuvollziehen.
Alles in allem, ein Buch für Anfänger und Fortgeschrittene.
Endlich ein gut verständliches Buch über das Kartenlegen.
Ein positiver Lebenswegweiser.
hans-wolfgang - am Mittwoch, 22. Dezember 2004, 16:21
noch kein Kommentar - Kommentar verfassen
The word nirvana means cessation of the self, arising of a no-self, emptiness... the zero experience. Nothing is, only nothing is.
Then how can you be disturbed? because now there is nobody to be disturbed. Then how can you die? because now there is nobody to die. How can you be born? because now there is nobody to be born. This nobodyness is tremendously beautiful. It is opening and opening, space and space, with no boundaries.
This is Buddha's concept of reality. It is very difficult to understand. We can understand that ego can be dropped -- but the soul? Then we go on in a subtle way still remaining an egoist. Then we call it the soul, the atman. Buddha is very consistent. He says any idea of yourself, that you can be in some way, is egoistic.
Let me try to explain it through modern physics, because modern physics has also come to the same point. Ask the modern scientist. He says the matter only appears, it is not. If you go deeper in the matter, only emptiness. It is nothing but emptiness. If you analyse the matter, if you divide the atom, then it disappears. At the ultimate core only emptiness remains... only space, pure space.
The same analysis Buddha did with self. What scientists have been doing with matter, Buddha did with mind. And both agree that if analysis goes deep enough, then there is no substance left, all substance disappears. Non-existence is left.
Buddha could not survive in India. India is the oldest country in the world which has believed in the self, the atman. The Upanishads, the Vedas, from Patanjali to Mahavira, everybody has believed in the self. They were all against the ego, but they never dared to say that the self is also nothing but a trick of the ego. Buddha dared to assert the ultimate truth.
While he was alive, people could tolerate. His presence was such a powerful presence, his presence was so convincing that they could not deny, they could not say that what he is saying is against human mind, absolutely against human mind. They may have discussed here and there; sometimes a few people came to discuss with him also -- 'What are you saying? Then what is the point of being liberated if nobody remains? We hope for liberation so that we will be liberated.'
Buddha's emphasis is that you will never be liberated, because until and unless you die there is no liberation. Liberation is from the self, the self is not liberated. Liberation is from the self itself.
But his presence was very convincing; whatsoever he was saying must be true. His existence was a proof. The grace that has happened to him, the harmony that was surrounding him, the luminousness that was following him wherever he walked, moved... the glow. People were puzzled -- because this man was saying that there is no self, only tremendous emptiness inside. They could not deny.
But by the time Buddha had gone, they started criticizing, arguing; they started denying. Only five hundred years after Buddha left his body, Buddhism was uprooted from India. People could not believe in such a drastic attitude. Nothing is, the world is illusory, attachments are stupid, and in the final analysis you are not. Then what is the point?
If everything is a dream and even the self is a dream, then why should we go into it? Let it be a dream -- at least something is there. Why should we make so much effort, so many arduous efforts to achieve just to nothingness?
But you have to understand. What Buddha calls nothingness is nothingness from your side. He says nothing remains -- nothing of your world, nothing of your relationship, nothing of you, but he is not saying that nothing remains. He is saying nothing remains from your side, and that which remains cannot be expressed. That which is left, there is no way to express it to you, no way to communicate it. Because in whatsoever way it is communicated, it will be misunderstood.
Then how can you be disturbed? because now there is nobody to be disturbed. Then how can you die? because now there is nobody to die. How can you be born? because now there is nobody to be born. This nobodyness is tremendously beautiful. It is opening and opening, space and space, with no boundaries.
This is Buddha's concept of reality. It is very difficult to understand. We can understand that ego can be dropped -- but the soul? Then we go on in a subtle way still remaining an egoist. Then we call it the soul, the atman. Buddha is very consistent. He says any idea of yourself, that you can be in some way, is egoistic.
Let me try to explain it through modern physics, because modern physics has also come to the same point. Ask the modern scientist. He says the matter only appears, it is not. If you go deeper in the matter, only emptiness. It is nothing but emptiness. If you analyse the matter, if you divide the atom, then it disappears. At the ultimate core only emptiness remains... only space, pure space.
The same analysis Buddha did with self. What scientists have been doing with matter, Buddha did with mind. And both agree that if analysis goes deep enough, then there is no substance left, all substance disappears. Non-existence is left.
Buddha could not survive in India. India is the oldest country in the world which has believed in the self, the atman. The Upanishads, the Vedas, from Patanjali to Mahavira, everybody has believed in the self. They were all against the ego, but they never dared to say that the self is also nothing but a trick of the ego. Buddha dared to assert the ultimate truth.
While he was alive, people could tolerate. His presence was such a powerful presence, his presence was so convincing that they could not deny, they could not say that what he is saying is against human mind, absolutely against human mind. They may have discussed here and there; sometimes a few people came to discuss with him also -- 'What are you saying? Then what is the point of being liberated if nobody remains? We hope for liberation so that we will be liberated.'
Buddha's emphasis is that you will never be liberated, because until and unless you die there is no liberation. Liberation is from the self, the self is not liberated. Liberation is from the self itself.
But his presence was very convincing; whatsoever he was saying must be true. His existence was a proof. The grace that has happened to him, the harmony that was surrounding him, the luminousness that was following him wherever he walked, moved... the glow. People were puzzled -- because this man was saying that there is no self, only tremendous emptiness inside. They could not deny.
But by the time Buddha had gone, they started criticizing, arguing; they started denying. Only five hundred years after Buddha left his body, Buddhism was uprooted from India. People could not believe in such a drastic attitude. Nothing is, the world is illusory, attachments are stupid, and in the final analysis you are not. Then what is the point?
If everything is a dream and even the self is a dream, then why should we go into it? Let it be a dream -- at least something is there. Why should we make so much effort, so many arduous efforts to achieve just to nothingness?
But you have to understand. What Buddha calls nothingness is nothingness from your side. He says nothing remains -- nothing of your world, nothing of your relationship, nothing of you, but he is not saying that nothing remains. He is saying nothing remains from your side, and that which remains cannot be expressed. That which is left, there is no way to express it to you, no way to communicate it. Because in whatsoever way it is communicated, it will be misunderstood.
hans-wolfgang - am Donnerstag, 4. November 2004, 20:16
noch kein Kommentar - Kommentar verfassen
DOGEN WAS BORN INTO AN ARISTOCRATIC FAMILY IN KYOTO, EIGHT HUNDRED YEARS AGO. HIS FATHER WAS A HIGH-RANKING GOVERNMENT MINISTER AND HE HIMSELF WAS AN UNIQUELY INTELLIGENT CHILD. IT IS SAID THAT HE BEGAN TO READ CHINESE POETRY AT THE AGE OF FOUR.
AT THE AGE OF THIRTEEN DOGEN WAS FORMALLY INITIATED.
HE WAS FORMALLY INITIATED INTO THE MONKHOOD ON MOUNT HIEI, THE CENTER OF TENDAI BUDDHIST LEARNING IN JAPAN. FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS HE STUDIED THE SCHOOLS OF VERSIONS OF BUDDHISM, UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF HIS TEACHER, ABBOT KOEN.
BY THE TIME HE WAS FOURTEEN DOGEN HAD BECOME TROUBLED BY A DEEP DOUBT CONCERNING ONE ASPECT OF THE BUDDHIST TEACHING.
IF, AS THE SUTRAS SAY, "ALL HUMAN BEINGS ARE ENDOWED WITH THE BUDDHA-NATURE," WHY IS IT THAT ONE MUST TRAIN ONESELF SO STRENUOUSLY TO REALIZE THAT BUDDHA-NATURE, TO ATTAIN ENLIGHTENMENT
IN SEARCH OF SOMEONE WHO COULD HELP RID HIM OF HIS DOUBT, DOGEN FOUND HIMSELF WITH ANOTHER TEACHER, MYOZEN.
Teachers are many. Just to graduate into a certain branch of knowledge is not anything unique or special. But to find a master is really arduous, in that they both speak the same language -- the teacher, the master. And sometimes it may be that the teacher speaks more clearly, because he is not worried about his own experience. The master speaks hesitantly, because he knows whatever he is saying is not perfectly appropriate, does not express the experience itself ... that it is a little way off.
The teacher can speak with full confidence because he knows nothing. The master either remains silent or, if he speaks, he speaks with a great responsibility, knowing that he is going to make statements which appear to be contradictory, but which are not.
But every teacher wants to be known as a master. For the seeker this creates a problem. Myozen also proclaimed himself a master, but time proved that he was not a master.
IN SPITE OF LONG YEARS OF TRAINING UNDER MYOZEN, DOGEN STILL FELT UNFULFILLED. AT THE AGE OF TWENTY-THREE HE DECIDED TO MAKE THE JOURNEY TO CHINA WITH MYOZEN, IN ORDER TO STUDY ZEN BUDDHISM FURTHER. LEAVING THE SHIP, DOGEN FOUND HIS WAY TO T'IEN-T'UNG MONASTERY, WHERE HE TRAINED UNDER MASTER WU-CHI.
STILL UNSATISFIED, FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS HE VISITED NUMEROUS MONASTERIES. JUST AS HE WAS ABOUT TO GIVE UP HIS SEARCH AND RETURN TO JAPAN, HE HAPPENED TO HEAR THAT THE FORMER ABBOT OF T'IEN-T'UNG HAD DIED, AND THAT HIS SUCCESSOR, JU-CHING, WAS SAID TO BE ONE OF CHINA'S FINEST ZEN MASTERS.
He changed his plan to go back to Japan and went again to the same monastery where he had been.
The old master, who was just a teacher, was dead, and he had been succeeded by Ju-ching -- a man who had soared high and touched the peaks of consciousness, who had dived deep and touched the depths of his being, who had moved vertically upwards and downwards, who had traveled through all his conscious territory. This man Ju-ching proved to be a man who answered doubts, settled them, because Dogen was still carrying the same question: that if buddhahood is your nature, then why is any discipline needed?
It was Ju-ching who said, "No discipline is needed. No discipline, nowhere to go, no way to be traveled ... just be, silent, settled, at the very center of your being, and you are a buddha. You are missing it because you are looking and trying everywhere else except within you. You will never find your buddhahood by changing this monastery for another monastery, this master for another master. Go in!"
AT THE AGE OF THIRTEEN DOGEN WAS FORMALLY INITIATED.
HE WAS FORMALLY INITIATED INTO THE MONKHOOD ON MOUNT HIEI, THE CENTER OF TENDAI BUDDHIST LEARNING IN JAPAN. FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS HE STUDIED THE SCHOOLS OF VERSIONS OF BUDDHISM, UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF HIS TEACHER, ABBOT KOEN.
BY THE TIME HE WAS FOURTEEN DOGEN HAD BECOME TROUBLED BY A DEEP DOUBT CONCERNING ONE ASPECT OF THE BUDDHIST TEACHING.
IF, AS THE SUTRAS SAY, "ALL HUMAN BEINGS ARE ENDOWED WITH THE BUDDHA-NATURE," WHY IS IT THAT ONE MUST TRAIN ONESELF SO STRENUOUSLY TO REALIZE THAT BUDDHA-NATURE, TO ATTAIN ENLIGHTENMENT
IN SEARCH OF SOMEONE WHO COULD HELP RID HIM OF HIS DOUBT, DOGEN FOUND HIMSELF WITH ANOTHER TEACHER, MYOZEN.
Teachers are many. Just to graduate into a certain branch of knowledge is not anything unique or special. But to find a master is really arduous, in that they both speak the same language -- the teacher, the master. And sometimes it may be that the teacher speaks more clearly, because he is not worried about his own experience. The master speaks hesitantly, because he knows whatever he is saying is not perfectly appropriate, does not express the experience itself ... that it is a little way off.
The teacher can speak with full confidence because he knows nothing. The master either remains silent or, if he speaks, he speaks with a great responsibility, knowing that he is going to make statements which appear to be contradictory, but which are not.
But every teacher wants to be known as a master. For the seeker this creates a problem. Myozen also proclaimed himself a master, but time proved that he was not a master.
IN SPITE OF LONG YEARS OF TRAINING UNDER MYOZEN, DOGEN STILL FELT UNFULFILLED. AT THE AGE OF TWENTY-THREE HE DECIDED TO MAKE THE JOURNEY TO CHINA WITH MYOZEN, IN ORDER TO STUDY ZEN BUDDHISM FURTHER. LEAVING THE SHIP, DOGEN FOUND HIS WAY TO T'IEN-T'UNG MONASTERY, WHERE HE TRAINED UNDER MASTER WU-CHI.
STILL UNSATISFIED, FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS HE VISITED NUMEROUS MONASTERIES. JUST AS HE WAS ABOUT TO GIVE UP HIS SEARCH AND RETURN TO JAPAN, HE HAPPENED TO HEAR THAT THE FORMER ABBOT OF T'IEN-T'UNG HAD DIED, AND THAT HIS SUCCESSOR, JU-CHING, WAS SAID TO BE ONE OF CHINA'S FINEST ZEN MASTERS.
He changed his plan to go back to Japan and went again to the same monastery where he had been.
The old master, who was just a teacher, was dead, and he had been succeeded by Ju-ching -- a man who had soared high and touched the peaks of consciousness, who had dived deep and touched the depths of his being, who had moved vertically upwards and downwards, who had traveled through all his conscious territory. This man Ju-ching proved to be a man who answered doubts, settled them, because Dogen was still carrying the same question: that if buddhahood is your nature, then why is any discipline needed?
It was Ju-ching who said, "No discipline is needed. No discipline, nowhere to go, no way to be traveled ... just be, silent, settled, at the very center of your being, and you are a buddha. You are missing it because you are looking and trying everywhere else except within you. You will never find your buddhahood by changing this monastery for another monastery, this master for another master. Go in!"
hans-wolfgang - am Donnerstag, 4. November 2004, 14:27
noch kein Kommentar - Kommentar verfassen
