|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
jillatay
USA
206 Posts |
 Posted - Apr 11 2007 : 6:55:18 PM
|
Moderator note: This discussion on the relationship of Yoga and Buddhism has been split from here for better placement.
---------------------------------
I, personally wish there was more of an integration with Buddhism. Here at AYP the terms pure bliss consciousness and ecstatic conductivity are used freely. If you say something like that in Theravada or Zen circles, look out!
The Buddha used a term "jhana" to describe altered states of consciousness that a seeker traverses on the path to Enlightenment, but the jhanas have been demonized by much of orthodox Buddhism. The scism happened not long after Siddharta's death. Some wouldn't even use the word until fairly recently.
That is why I am here at AYP and why I stay. I have experienced the blissful states and when I read how Buddha said they were not to be feared I was glad because that is what my own intuition told me. A quote from the Pali Canon:
"Seekers, just as the River Ganges slants, slopes and inclines toward the East, so too a seeker who develops and cultivates the four meditative absorptions (jhanas) slants, slopes, and inclines toward Nibbana"
Within the last few years modern seekers have researched the old texts and found this wonderful teaching and are now dispensing it to the world. But of course there are differences (anatta) from Yoga but all in all there are amazing similarities and the two schools could benefit from even agreeing to disagree. 
Many happy blessings,
Jill |
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4381 Posts |
Posted - Apr 12 2007 : 05:04:34 AM
|
Hi Jill
quote:
The Buddha used a term "jhana" to describe altered states of consciousness that a seeker traverses on the path to Enlightenment, but the jhanas have been demonized by much of orthodox Buddhism. The scism happened not long after Siddharta's death. Some wouldn't even use the word until fairly recently.
That is why I am here at AYP and why I stay. I have experienced the blissful states and when I read how Buddha said they were not to be feared I was glad because that is what my own intuition told me.
Yes, the Buddha taught about the Jhanas. As I see it they are equivalent to states of Samadhi. In the Jhanas bliss is experienced. I am sure the Buddha taught not to fear them, as they are important in the spiritual development of the individual. But he also taught not to get attached to them. In fact he once said that it is important to come to know all the states of consciousness from the lowest to the highest because then we can see that that is not it either.
quote:
But of course there are differences (anatta) from Yoga but all in all there are amazing similarities and the two schools could benefit from even agreeing to disagree
I wouldn't sweat too much about the inconsistency of Buddhist and Yogic teachings. I have never seen any. As for anatta, I think all Yogic teachers would say that the Ahankara (ego) is an aspect of maya (the illusion) and has no real substance, which is exactly what the Buddha was teaching. And the Buddha said that when the illusion (maya) falls away we see our own true Buddha nature, which has always been there, shining. A yogi would say that when the illusion falls away, we come to realize the Atman, which we have been all along. Just a matter of semantics really.
The Buddha was a Yogi, and his teachers were Yogis, so it's not really surprising that what he taught was.... Yoga!
Christi |
 |
|
|
Nirodha
New Zealand
86 Posts |
Posted - Apr 12 2007 : 09:09:19 AM
|
quote:
quote:
The Buddha was a Yogi, and his teachers were Yogis, so it's not really surprising that what he taught was.... Yoga!
Hmmm - unless I am missing some witty pun (quite likely lol) I am afraid that sounds like complete nonsense to me ... "yoga" as such never existed at the time ... the Buddha spent a lot of his 45years of teaching making plain his strong opposition to the practices and beliefs of the Brahmins of the day as well as to the fact that none of his teachers could teach him enough... the rest he had to find for himself.
Actually, the Buddha did at least mention the word "yoga" in several of his discourses. However, it's just a bit hidden, as one probably wont find it in the English translations of the Pali Canon - one would need to dig through the original Pali of several key meditation-related suttas in order the find the word. But, it is there, as bold as the Sun.
I suspect he was using the word in it's original meaning though - that being "yoking" or "union" - and not as a reference to a system codified by Patanjali. If I recall correctly, Patanjali post-dated the Buddha anyway.
I, personally, don't equate Brahmanism to Yoga and the rest of Santana Dharma (Hinduism) at all. While Brahmanism is sometimes referred to as "Proto-Hinduism" by academics, Hinduism consists of many more aspects and denominations other than Brahmanism.
However, I do agree that the Buddha was very outspoken about the Brahmins (the caste). But, he seemed to be opposed to their socio-political posturing more than anything else really.
While there are certain aspects of Santana Dharma and Buddha Dharma that appear to be diametrically opposed, some have argued - I believe quite rightly - that all the Buddha really did was condense Vedic knowledge down to it's absolute essentials. In other words, he separated the wheat from the chaff - kinda like what we're doing here. ;)
May you all be happy and achieve the highest bliss,
Nirodha |
Edited by - Nirodha on Apr 12 2007 11:11:39 AM |
|
|
|
jillatay
USA
206 Posts |
Posted - Apr 12 2007 : 7:04:46 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Just a matter of semantics really.
Maybe for the Yogis but for the Buddhist I have spoken with it is a real sticking point. Not being Enlightened myself, I will have to refrain from voicing any opinion.
Jill |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4381 Posts |
Posted - Apr 13 2007 : 12:08:45 AM
|
Hi Mike,
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Christi
I wouldn't sweat too much about the inconsistency of Buddhist and Yogic teachings. I have never seen any.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That may well be true but that does not mean they are there
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for anatta, A yogi would say that when the illusion falls away, we come to realize the Atman, which we have been all along. Just a matter of semantics really.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well sadly not... the Buddha's debates with the Brahmins (the yoga-guys if you like) are quite clear on this point - they were taking diametrically opposing points.
Yoga has been practiced in India for thousands of years. Many thousands of years before the Buddha was born. We know this because they left records of their practices and their realizations of union with the Divine consciousness. These records are referred to as the Vedas and the Upanishads and all pre-date the time of the Buddha. They are the first of the great Yogic sutras, and many more have been written since.
The Buddha was born during a very spiritual time. He lived for most of his life in India, and at that time there were many Yogis all over India. The Buddha lived with many of them and took several of them as his teachers. Yoga is about the realization of Truth (Dharma). There is only one truth, that Reality which is beyond the mind. Yogis had already been teaching this truth for thousands of years. The Buddha did not come to realize another truth, just the same truth as all the other great Rishis before him. The realization of this truth is Yoga (Union with the Divine consciousness).
Patanjali did not invent Yoga. He merely codified a system of yoga called ashtanga yoga. Ashtanga yoga predates the time of Patanjali. Patanjali reduced the system of ashtanga yoga to a condensed form, expressing it in as few sutras as possible whilst still maintaining the essence of the original teachings.
The Buddha did have disagreements with some Brahmins (members of the priestly caste of the Hindu religion) about some aspects of the nature of existence and of the human condition. In this way he was teaching them to go beyond their attachment to religious belief, and realize their true nature (their Buddha nature, the paramatma). The great Yogis have always done this, showing people the true nature of reality beyond the limited attachment to mental constructions (samskaras) within the conditioned mind.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Buddha was a Yogi, and his teachers were Yogis, so it's not really surprising that what he taught was.... Yoga!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm - unless I am missing some witty pun (quite likely lol) I am afraid that sounds like complete nonsense to me ... "yoga" as such never existed at the time
So, no... It wasn't a subtle witty pun at all, just straight down the line, as it is, no nonsense.
Yoga is as old as the hills, and the Buddha learned a great deal from the Yogic tradition. I doubt very much that he would have become realized without it. In fact, if he hadn't seen a Yogi walking past his palace, he may never have left his wife and child and taken up the spiritual path at all.
quote:
Jill wrote:
Maybe for the Yogis but for the Buddhist I have spoken with it is a real sticking point. Not being Enlightened myself, I will have to refrain from voicing any opinion.
Jill
Buddhists get stuck on things... we all get stuck on things... but when we let go of the things that we are stuck on, we have a better chance of seeing that truth that is always there. We don't need to be enlightened to see that  .
It is true of course, that just because I have never seen any contradiction between the teachings of the Buddha and the teachings of Yoga, that they don't exist. I do not know everything that the Buddha taught, or everything about Yoga. But with respect to the teachings about Anicca, Anatta, the nature of Atman, the nature of the Ahankara, Maya, the Jhanas, or the Samadhis, I see no contradiction at all between the traditions.
Christi
|
Edited by - Christi on Apr 15 2007 09:48:33 AM |
|
|
|
Mike
United Kingdom
77 Posts |
Posted - Apr 13 2007 : 03:55:44 AM
|
It is my opinion that the views expressed above are both historically and doctrinally inaccurate, and disrespectful to the Buddhist tradition.
I am sad that they are allowed to be left standing without moderation. It is my opinion that Yogani's teachings are for all regardless of colour or creed. If this is to be so then there needs to be proper respect shown for all faiths... Words framing Buddhism as a subset of Yoga are not respectful to the Buddha and to me are as distasteful as saying eg that Christianity is simply a mere sect of Judaism and that Jesus had no doctrinal differences.
Religious-fundamentalism of all descriptions is divisive. Religious certainy feels like a comfortable thing but is actually a subtle strategy of the egoic mind... a straightjacket if you like rather than a jacket that you can take off and put down when the time comes.
This last point is important - clinging to any set of teachings, any world-view will keep you on this shore for sure.
Mike |
Edited by - Mike on Apr 13 2007 11:16:23 AM |
|
|
|
AYPforum
351 Posts |
Posted - Apr 13 2007 : 12:09:01 PM
|
Moderator note: Originally posted by Mike 4/12. Moved here for better placement.
--------------------------------------
Mike said:
Christi - I agree with you on the Buddha not being scared of bliss! Indeed it is part of the jhanas and no-one can accuse him of being scared of those!
Mike
ps its rather OT and I dont want to create a dissonant vibe so I'll put this in a minor footnote...
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
I wouldn't sweat too much about the inconsistency of Buddhist and Yogic teachings. I have never seen any.
That may well be true but that does not mean they are there 
quote:
As for anatta, A yogi would say that when the illusion falls away, we come to realize the Atman, which we have been all along. Just a matter of semantics really.
Well sadly not... the Buddha's debates with the Brahmins (the yoga-guys if you like) are quite clear on this point - they were taking diametrically opposing points. There's a whole thread in the 'Other Ways' bit of the forum (or whatever it is called) on this major difference if you are interested.
quote:
The Buddha was a Yogi, and his teachers were Yogis, so it's not really surprising that what he taught was.... Yoga!
Hmmm - unless I am missing some witty pun (quite likely lol) I am afraid that sounds like complete nonsense to me ... "yoga" as such never existed at the time ... the Buddha spent a lot of his 45years of teaching making plain his strong opposition to the practices and beliefs of the Brahmins of the day as well as to the fact that none of his teachers could teach him enough... the rest he had to find for himself. |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4381 Posts |
Posted - Apr 13 2007 : 12:38:51 PM
|
Hi AYP forum,
Thanks for splitting the topic off.
the last post (just before this one ) should have been placed before my last post, as I quoted from it in that post, and replied to it.
Hope you can move it, as theis very interesting discussion would make more sense like that.
Thanks
Christi |
|
|
|
AYPforum
351 Posts |
Posted - Apr 13 2007 : 12:57:46 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi AYP forum,
Thanks for splitting the topic off.
the last post (just before this one ) should have been placed before my last post, as I quoted from it in that post, and replied to it.
Hope you can move it, as theis very interesting discussion would make more sense like that.
Thanks
Christi
We don't have the ability to move posts within a topic without getting our tech administrator involved, which will take some time, and then it may or may not be possible to fix.
The reason it ended up at the end, is because it was inadvertently left behind when the split was done, and all that could be done then was to add it on the end as a quotation. Apologies for that.
|
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Apr 13 2007 : 1:08:33 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mike
It is my opinion that the views expressed above are both historically and doctrinally inaccurate, and disrespectful to the Buddhist tradition.
I am sad that they are allowed to be left standing without moderation. It is my opinion that Yogani's teachings are for all regardless of colour or creed. If this is to be so then there needs to be proper respect shown for all faiths... Words framing Buddhism as a subset of Yoga are not respectful to the Buddha and to me are as distasteful as saying eg that Christianity is simply a mere sect of Judaism and that Jesus had no doctrinal differences.
Religious-fundamentalism of all descriptions is divisive. Religious certainy feels like a comfortable thing but is actually a subtle strategy of the egoic mind... a straightjacket if you like rather than a jacket that you can take off and put down when the time comes.
This last point is important - clinging to any set of teachings, any world-view will keep you on this shore for sure.
Mike
Mike, to be completely direct here, I think you are simply seeing a sectarianism, and a 'disrespect' in Christi's point-of-view here which is simply not there.
You seem to be very suddenly writing as if you are in the middle of a sectarian scuffle. I don't think Christi brought on the sectarian scuffle, and I doubt he is interested in the least in participating in one. So far this looks like a one-man sectarian scuffle to me!
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Apr 13 2007 1:41:50 PM |
|
|
|
yogani
USA
5195 Posts |
Posted - Apr 13 2007 : 2:40:18 PM
|
Hi All:
The distinction I aways try and make is between the belief system and the operative practices that are contained in it.
Debating what works practice-wise is much more fruitful than debating one belief system versus another. Belief systems are a matter of personal preference which we can honor in each other, while practices are much more measureable in terms of cause and effect in daily living. Practices are often found to be complementary (if not directly overlapping) once the lines that divide belief systems have been crossed. Whatever works!
May our beliefs not overshadow what has practical benefit, even if we find it on the other side of an imaginary wall. There is only one nervous system design that is giving rise to all human perceptions, including the many variations in view based on culture and belief. Each point of view is therefore valid from its own perspective.
The practices that are used in all of the traditions have much more in common than is generally known. This makes sense, since we are all working with the same vehicle of experience, and the same process of human spiritual transformation.
So what's to argue about except the relative effectiveness achieved in integrating the many practices which have all been designed for accomplishing the same thing? The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
The guru is in you.
PS: Personally, I am not much for giving this eclectic approach a name (though we had to), since it only leads to the question, "As opposed to what?!!"
|
|
|
|
Mike
United Kingdom
77 Posts |
Posted - Apr 13 2007 : 2:43:50 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
Mike, to be completely direct here, I think you are simply seeing a sectarianism, and a 'disrespect' in Christi's point-of-view here which is simply not there.
Hi David... to be direct back yours is the argument used when sexism/racism cases come to court "there was no offence your honour merely over-sensitivity"...
In which case no doubt you will be able to explain how - just taking eg:
quote:
The Buddha was a Yogi, and his teachers were Yogis, so it's not really surprising that what he taught was.... Yoga!
...
Buddha did not come to realize another truth, just the same truth as all the other great Rishis before him. The realization of this truth is Yoga (Union with the Divine consciousness).
...is not offensive yoga-sectarian historical re-write/ignorance??
The Buddha did not teach Yoga period. Thats an anachronism as well as completely wrong. Union with Brahma is also categorically precisely what the Buddha was not teaching and was objecting to!
Coming back to the disrespect and arguments used in court... the sheer fact of the matter is that no-one sees the world neutrally. It has been scientifically shown that Democrats or Republicans will react entirely differently to whether a certain piece of information is true based on their beliefs.
So - assuming you are someone with a close relationship with Yoga and less close with Dharma, and that I am vice versa - the situation (in terms of disrespect perception) is entirely unsurprising. That folks speaking from a contentious polemical position cant see the offence they are handing out is just human nature (sadly). Equally none of us can (by definition) see our own ignorance.
Its no difference from a group of guys closing ranks in an office when a sexism case occurs - they all agree in the lockerroom that "shes just being over-sensitive"  .
Sadly I find the current context and defensive close-ranks reactions not conducive to a discussion of the topic-header of "Yoga and Buddhism?" the interactions of which (and of preceding Indian philosophies/interactions) over the centuries is indeed a fascinating and complex one.
Mike |
Edited by - Mike on Apr 13 2007 4:10:02 PM |
|
|
|
Mike
United Kingdom
77 Posts |
Posted - Apr 13 2007 : 2:51:29 PM
|
Yogani
I agree almost entirely with your perspective... although I would say that most strands of Buddhism are really quite deficient in the more energy-orientated&physical practices that Yoga has developed (hence jillatays original comment about energetic reactions (altho' I am curious what the reactions were?!?)).
As I have said before in this context there is the issue of how belief conditions experience and (in another thread this is gone into) there is this sticky issue that in terms of the russian dolls that we all are (egoic self on the outside etc) the vedantan view is of a solid innermost doll and the Buddhist view of an empty innermost doll [with the technical difference of "the extra jhana" as I have heard it put]. Also I do have to say that some Christian folks who are really into all these tools do not buy into the rebirth/reincarnation worldview.
So whilst pragmatically we should separate out out the Tools from the Religion/Philosophy/Politics for that matter there is this lingering doubt that it can be done 100.00% ... but hey if its done 90% it makes for a quieter life for forum moderators lol.
Transformational tools are indeed the key thing... attachment to views and opinions is (as per the Second Noble Truth) a key source of dukkha all too readily leading to confrontation.
Peace
Mike
ps jillatay - this rather got lost along the way but I was surprised by your perception of anti-jhanic views in Buddhism - after all the word Zen you mention is precisely the jhana-word... (via Chinese Ch'an) |
Edited by - Mike on Apr 13 2007 3:00:24 PM |
|
|
|
Nirodha
New Zealand
86 Posts |
Posted - Apr 13 2007 : 3:46:27 PM
|
Hi all,
I thought some of you might find the following interesting. It's a rather good essay on the similarities between Buddhism and Yoga:
buddhism & yoga
by sritantra
http://buddhism-and-yoga.blogspot.com/
I, personally, see many similarities between the various Dharmic religions (i.e religions that originated on the Indian sub-continent), even if their doctrinal framework seems to be diametrically opposed in certain places.
While Santana Dharma is more focused on poly-theism, poly-theism is not denied in Buddhism. However, the focus of Buddhism is generally - and I say this because of the obvious poly-theism in various Mahayana and Vajrayana sects - not poly-theistic as the Buddha deemed it unnecessary for the process of Awakening.
@Mike, please forgive the intrusion, but I felt the need to address something. Zen does not directly translate to the Pali word "Jhana," but rather to what we in the West call "seated meditation." Ch'an, also, doesn't directly translate to "Jhana" either, but rather the Sanskrit word "dhyana."
While some of asserted that "dhyana" is Sanskrit for "jhana," something, very obviously, got lost along the way as Buddhism was transported via the Silk Road to China and, eventually Japan; if some of the wild, erroneous assertions made about it by monastics of these sects are anything to go by.
Regarding Jill's assertions about the open hostility that is displayed by various Buddhist sects toward Jhana, she's quite right in her observations, as I have experienced it as well. As a matter of fact, Jill and I know each other from another forum - Hi, Jill - where this hostility has been observed and reported by many others and discussed on numerous occasions.
As a matter of fact, from what I have seen, the majority of Buddhist sects seem to have totally disregarded what the Buddha had to say about Jhana in the root texts, and, instead, seem to have taken their various commentaries - where all manner of wild speculations and erroneous assertions are made about Jhana - as "authoritative." In Theravada, the precedence given to the Visuddhimagga over the Suttas is a glaring example of this skewing.
May you all be happy and achieve the highest bliss,
Nirodha |
Edited by - Nirodha on Apr 13 2007 4:39:57 PM |
|
|
|
Mike
United Kingdom
77 Posts |
Posted - Apr 13 2007 : 4:18:29 PM
|
Hey Nirodha you actually gave me a good laugh - its the first time I have heard Buddhadhasa described as a Maharishi 
quote:
It cannot be over-stressed that in the Buddha's own quest he achieved his renowned Illumination while actually practicing yoga
You'll forgive me for finding the link you gave an entirely polemical piece - its no different in the slightest from the view that one sometimes hears about the Buddha being a reformist Hindu .
[Hey later edit - I read further down the page and lo and behold "the Buddha was a kshatriya or warrior-caste Hindu" - more blatant anachronisms  ... also whats this fantasy stuff?!?
quote:
But it seems the Bodhisattva, or Buddha-to-be, was to gloss the second and third stages over and scarcely discharge his caste obligation to the minimal extent of stealthily peeping through the door of the chamber where his wife lay recovering from their first born child.
Sad bigotry
]
It is equally based in ignorance
Sure monks do yoga (most of them should probably do more!) - but its not different from some monks doing Tai-Chi - doesnt make them Taoists!
Anyway last time I am rising to the bait on this one no matter how many black is white links y'all dig out lol... you need some new cannon fodder lol...
..either that or you can listen to what Yogani says and avoid fuelling forum jihads against the unbelievers
Love and peace.
yrs wondering how I walked so easily into a mugging
Mike |
Edited by - Mike on Apr 13 2007 5:10:27 PM |
|
|
|
Mike
United Kingdom
77 Posts |
Posted - Apr 13 2007 : 4:44:23 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nirodha
I, personally, see many similarities between the various Dharmic religions (i.e religions that originated on the Indian sub-continent)
Indeed there are - as I have said elsewhere in this forum there are more similarities between some Buddhisms and Vedanta [I am not sure what folks really mean by Yoga round here] in terms of techniques and world-view than there are within Buddhisms.
quote:
Zen does not directly translate to the Pali word "Jhana," but rather to what we in the West call "seated meditation." Ch'an, also, doesn't not directly translate to "Jhana" either, but rather the Sanskrit word "dhyana."
I am not sure what point you are making... I never implied it leaped from India to Japan... eg etymologically speaking (just to quote wikipedia):
quote:
"Zen", pronounced [ze#628;] in Japanese, is the Sino-Japanese reading of the Chinese character "ìø", which is pronounced [t#642;#688;¨¢n] (Pinyin: ch¨¢n) in modern Standard Mandarin Chinese, but was likely pronounced [d#8203;#865;z#690;en] in Middle Chinese.[2] The term "zen" is in fact a contraction of the seldom-used long form zenna (ìøÄÇ; Mandarin: ch¨¢nn¨¤), a derivation from the Sanskrit term dhy¨¡na (P¨¡li: jh¨¡na), which refers to a specific type or aspect of meditation. While "Zen" is the name most commonly known worldwide, it is also known as Chan in China, Seon in Korea, and Thien in Vietnam
quote:
Regarding Jill's assertions about the open hostility that is displayed by various Buddhist sects toward Jhana, she's quite right in her observations, as I have experienced it as well.
How curious - I guess it depends what you mean by sects and what kinda fora you are talking about... of course by the time you get to later developments like Pure Land Buddhism has virtually become an other-power Theism (unless one is prepared to tie oneself in knots to eel-wriggle out).
quote:
their various commentaries - where all manner of wild speculations and erroneous assertions are made about Jhana - as "authoritative." In Theravada, the precedence given to the Visuddhimagga over the Suttas is a glaring example of this skewing.
The Buddha never taught Buddism, neither did he teach Theravada, Mahayana not Vajrayana - these are all creations of mind and society. Nevertheless in all traditions subsequent commentaries (continuing right up to today in terms of Dhamma talks) have been a way to keep tradition fresh and relating to Arahants experiences rather than some teacher long since gone. Of course this process did and does introduce as much 'noise' as 'signal' (but we are rather off topic here I feel lol).
Mike |
Edited by - Mike on Apr 13 2007 4:47:06 PM |
|
|
|
Mike
United Kingdom
77 Posts |
Posted - Apr 13 2007 : 5:01:52 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by yogani
The distinction I aways try and make is between the belief system and the operative practices that are contained in it.
Yogani
A potential 'bug' in this algorithm has occurred to me...
Just sticking withing Buddhism (which I know best) - the greater number of ethical problems have undoubtedly occured in Zen (as documented in that article on 'naughty gurus' (altho it didnt as I recall include such matters as the Japanese Zen establishment justifying war on some total-BS grounds on non-duality)).
Now Zen is (arguably) the most stripped down practice-only system.
In other systems (eg Theravada as practiced by 'ordinary folk' in SEAsia) the absolute first grounding is in Sila not any practices.
Now of course it depends where you are drawing the line in your definitions between "beliefs" and "practices"...
...it also depends what practitioners do in terms of the ordering of practices/belief-embedding.
Thus (and I have seen precisely this problem arising in qigong schools), given modern human nature, no one wants to waste time on the "boring stuff"... everyone wants to rush to the "hot stuff"... meditation and energy practices.
But for all those folks that have taken a pop at naught gurus - for each naughty guru there are 1001 naughty students... The mind gets some small achievements (and the ego goes crazy)... the body gets some more energy (and the ego shoots the lights out lol).
Now to be clear my posting this is not (a) to imply there is a bug/lacuna in AYP nor (b) to imply that students are out on some wild sex, drug and rock and roll parties (well apart from those on the Tantra chapters ).
However it is to point out that "practice-orientated" systems do have this risk a little bit akin to giving young children knives and matches. Its also a problem of course being open-source and internet-based that the teacher cannot direct the students when they err in this way.
Anyway its an intellectual point - please take it or leave it as you wish. Lessons on practicing Right Speech and Sila (morality) are not always the best bodice-rippers - to prove my point the 'restraints' and 'bhakti..karma' sections of AYP forum are well down the number of posts order.
As I say its perhaps more of a problem of human nature than a system... but of course systems are designed to funnel human beings in a certain direction. The same thing applies to Taoist and Tibetan (in particular) practices - folks are not at all keen about doing the dull seemingly non-progress spadework on the unglamorous foundational stuff.
Good luck herding cats
Mike |
|
|
|
Nirodha
New Zealand
86 Posts |
Posted - Apr 13 2007 : 5:24:47 PM
|
Hello Mike,
I wasn't trying to give you a laugh. However, if you want to laugh at me, then that's fine too - even if I do find it a bit rude.
No one's trying to mug you though, we're just having a bit of friendly debate here. You can dismiss what's being presented to you here - which was not presented with any malice - as polemics, anachronism and ignorance. Or, and I do highly recommend this to anyone, you can do thorough research and investigation of the subject at hand, and back up your assertions with facts and findings, not emotion.
May you all be happy and achieve the highest bliss,
Nirodha |
|
|
|
yogani
USA
5195 Posts |
Posted - Apr 13 2007 : 5:34:57 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mike
As I say its perhaps more of a problem of human nature than a system... but of course systems are designed to funnel human beings in a certain direction. The same thing applies to Taoist and Tibetan (in particular) practices - folks are not at all keen about doing the dull seemingly non-progress spadework on the unglamorous foundational stuff.
Hi Mike:
It seems to be the same question/argument that comes up among the yoga traditions: Is it necessary to learn "codes of conduct" before we learn meditation and other powerful practices? It is discussed in this lesson on the eight limbs of yoga, after the limbs are listed: http://www.aypsite.org/149.html
The upshot is that deep meditation enhances spiritual conduct naturally from within, and is therefore a favored approach to enhancing spiritual conduct, rather than an externally enforced approach. Not all yoga schools agree on this point, as is discussed in the lesson. Maybe similar disagreements on where to start with practices occur in Buddhism also?
Additionally, yes, there is some overlap between belief and practice. In yoga it is part of "bhakti" -- devotion to our chosen ideal, which operationally is (by many names) the single most important spiritual practice in all the religions. In most religions, the belief system provides the ideal, but not always. It is the person who chooses this, which is what makes belief systems personal, and deserving our respect. That does not mean someone else can't have a completely different ideal associated with the same belief system. That too is personal, and deserving our respect. A chosen ideal cannot be imposed from outside with effective results. It must be chosen within each person with deep emotion to have the desired effect. Check out the article on bhakti just resurrected recently here: http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic....D=1891#20269
Sorry I can't put these concepts into Buddhist terminology. Maybe in the next lifetime, if there is one.
All the best!
The guru is in you.
|
|
|
|
jillatay
USA
206 Posts |
Posted - Apr 13 2007 : 6:02:42 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nirodha
Hi, Jill
Hi Bill/Nirodha. Nice to see you here.
To all who have contributed to this topic:
The Buddhists have maintained a strong position of separation from the Brahmins just as the Christian did or do with Judaism.
They like to point out how Siddhartha learned from Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta and the most orthodox Buddhists like to say he learned all they could teach and "walked away in disgust." This is very emotionally misleading in my opinion. Because, after his night of Enlightenment he said to himself how subtle and profound the Dhamma was. Who could he share it with? Then he said "maybe there are a few with just a little dust on their eyes" and went in search of his old teachers. Now if they were only worthy of disgust why would they be the first he thought who might be able to grasp this subtle thread?
This discussion mirrors the long debate of two schools. The difference here is the nature of our new medium, the internet.
I am hoping that this discussion can get beyond dogma and to the root of the similarities (which are obvious) and perhaps to the differences (if there are any at the heart) because we here at AYP are not strictly sworn to uphold any fixed belief systems but hopefully are interested in a genuine authentic path. Of course even without oaths of loyaty and secrecy there is prejudice and preference. Rising above rigid thinking there are ways to get beyond clan identification and find some truths. This is why I brought up the subject because it is of great interest to me. And I have not felt it has been adequately covered to my satisfaction
Thanks everyone for your input.
Sincerely seeking wisdom,
Jill |
|
|
|
Mike
United Kingdom
77 Posts |
Posted - Apr 13 2007 : 6:06:24 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by yogani
It seems to be the same question/argument that comes up among the yoga traditions: Is it necessary to learn "codes of conduct" before we learn meditation and other powerful practices? It is discussed in this lesson on the eight limbs of yoga, after the limbs are listed: http://www.aypsite.org/149.html
Thank you for this reference - a lot of great material on that page 
I cant comment on this one - as I say I was more lobbing the ball over the net for you to play with lol... As a quick from the hip though I would say the middle ground between (yawn) 'conduct code' and (sexy) 'techniques' is perhaps dukkha, karma and emphasis thereon?
As I mentioned above one might argue that "buddhism" (assuming there is one such thing which there isnt lol) undercooks the 'chi/prana angle' ... well that kind of vacuum I think gets filled with more emphasis on the detailed workings of the mind. The action-consequence point ('karma') is very emphasised in the Buddhist tradition. So if I post poorly or contentiously then - wham! - suffering follows - moderators like bees around a honey pot, angry responses, I get sucked in etc etc... or for that matter one says the right thing in the wrong place
Actually as I say folks here appear to use the word Yoga in many differing fashions... However talking about the Buddha's time clearly one of his significant differences with the Brahmins was over the nature of karma. So I dont know what theory of karma yoga/AYP subscribes to (the Jains and Buddhists differ to this day over what is and isn't a karmic act)
quote:
Maybe similar disagreements on where to start with practices occur in Buddhism also?
Well emphases certainly differ and ethical problems differ too. Of course in an American context the naughty gurus angle differs little between say Zen and Yogic contexts - its the same human fallibility.
I cant see anything immediately of use from the Buddhist angle other than the obvious. I think more problematic is in the nature of the medium - ie open-source, book/internet means you are bound to herd cats to an extent. But problems crop up in seminar settings, in retreats too. As the best healer/meditator I know in the world says "I must have bad karma indeed to be in this line of business"
So I dont know... in a professional consultancy context I would suggest the exercise of you reflecting for some time on "if AYP has been seen to have failed in 10yrs time what are the three most likely reasons" and then doing what you can to reinforce the ship at those points. Non-directive counselling
quote:
Sorry I can't put these concepts into Buddhist terminology. Maybe in the next lifetime.
Ah well my friend an enlightened chap like your good self (if only you'll sign up to the church of Buddha... convenient monthly payment arrangement available ) is no doubt guaranteed to pari-Nirvana and so wont be seen again in this realm ... all great ones seem to have their last incarnation as teachers.. kind of "ok lets see if you can handle this then"
Anyway talking of Indian philosophies at least you have karma good enough not to come back as an Ajivaka - not a nice way to go 
peace and love
Mike |
Edited by - Mike on Apr 13 2007 6:12:14 PM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Apr 13 2007 : 6:58:50 PM
|
Mike said:
Hi David... to be direct back yours is the argument used when sexism/racism cases come to court "there was no offence your honour merely over-sensitivity"...
Mike, if people were not sometimes wrongly accused in court of sexual harassment, there would be no need for the court proceedings in sexual harassment cases -- the mere complaint should produce a guilty verdict. I don't believe anyone believes such proceedings should be skipped; "over-sensitivity" is indeed in some cases the correct verdict.
Mike said:
In which case no doubt you will be able to explain how - just taking eg:
quote:
The Buddha was a Yogi, and his teachers were Yogis, so it's not really surprising that what he taught was.... Yoga!
...
Buddha did not come to realize another truth, just the same truth as all the other great Rishis before him. The realization of this truth is Yoga (Union with the Divine consciousness).
...is not offensive yoga-sectarian historical re-write/ignorance??
Sure. The bigger question here is why you found it offensive at all. Since it is not obvious, I can only speculate why that is. I can speculate how you received what Christi was saying, and I'm quite sure that is not what he was saying.
I believe you are reacting exactly as if he said "Yoga is superior to Buddhism". That's the kernel of it. It all follows from that. You saw him as a representative of another sect, saying that his sect is superior. This talk of 'closing ranks' is along the same lines; Christi did not close ranks. He is not in any ranks. This is a one-man scuffle.
If you want an example, from which I think you will be sufficiently detached in order to see the phenomenon: Do you think the opinion 'Christianity influenced Mohammed's teachings' is inherently sectarian? It actually isn't -- it's a respectable scholarly opinion, which can be entirely neutral. Say it in some circles and you will be accused of the wickedest of sectarianism. Why is that? Because those who hear you will be hearing, not what you said, but, they are hearing 'Our Christianity is superior to Your Islam'.
Sometimes, the speaker is not bringing the sectarianism, the hearer is. (And indeed that is sometimes true for sexism and racism.) What if the speaker doesn't participate in those sectarian-tribal interests at all? What if Christi isn't saying that Yoga is superior to Buddhism? What if he sees Buddha as a person who experienced enlightenment and taught means to achieve it?
Your reading of his language seems mistaken. His 'Yoga' is a more generalized concept of enlightenment-invoking practices and ways-of-life which is broad enough to include, in his opinion, what Buddha taught. His concept of 'Yogi' is equally broad. Within this language, by the way, I think it is entirely reasonable and even historical to say that Buddha was a Yogi. But even if it is factually wrong and unhistorical, that does not make it sectarian.
But you interpreted his language in a sectarian way -- 'Yoga' meant something more narrow, represented some sort of sect-territory, and had a flavor of 'what Yogis do as opposed to what those Buddhists do'.
You superimposed the sectarianism and found his remarks egregiously offensive.
Yes, over-sensitivity is sometimes the correct verdict. Over-sensitivity is actually a big element in factional-fighting tendencies. It's called 'over-sensitivity', but the term is a little misleading in that it seems overly passive; it's actually a tendency to see others as behaving as your enemy even if not. So it is really an integral part of the fighting tendency.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Apr 13 2007 7:10:11 PM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4381 Posts |
Posted - Apr 14 2007 : 1:36:21 PM
|
Hi Mike,
Well, I am not quite sure what the confusion is about, but I do apologize if I offended your religious views. Hopefully any confusion will be cleared up in time.
quote:
I am not sure what folks really mean by Yoga round here
Maybe this is the source of the confusion. Yoga is not a religion. It is not a sect, or a world-view. It is a transcendence, and the practices that lead to that transcendence. Yoga cannot be in opposition to Buddhism. If a Buddhist is doing practices that effectively lead to that Transcendence, then it is Yoga. If they are doing practices that do not lead to that Transcendence then it is not Yoga. It must be clear to you, at least from following the discussions in this forum that Yoga is about a great deal more than a set of stretching exercises, and a few breathing practices. Many Yogis in India do no stretching exercises at all as part of their Yoga, and many do no breathing practices either. Their entire Yoga is meditation. So the question as to whether Siddhartha Gautama practiced and taught Yoga or not, surely depends entirely on our understanding of the term Yoga. I don't think it is worth stressing about. As I said in a post above, it is largely a question of semantics. I believe I did make some attempt to give an understanding of how I was using the term Yoga in my earlier posts in this thread, but I didn't overstress it. After all, this is a forum for people interested in Advanced Yoga Practices, so (perhaps) I may be forgiven for assuming some knowledge of the term Yoga among forum members. I am also aware that I use the term differently from many other forum members. It's not a big deal... look at the way Buddhists use the word "Buddha" .
I am certainly not interested in sectarian fights, that don’t serve any purpose, and I do not believe that Yoga is superior to Buddhism in any way.
But what is important to understand, is that Yoga is not and never has been Hinduism, or Brahmanism. Yoga existed long before the development of the Hindu tradition and comes from a different source. So if we want to understand the relationship between Buddhist teachings and Yogic teachings, it is necessary to understand first of all, what is Yoga, and secondly, where the Buddha fits into this picture, and thirdly what is the relationship between Yoga and Brahmanism. If we do not understand this we could just end up contrasting Buddhist teachings with the teachings of the Orthodox Brahmins, thinking that this equates to our Yogic practice and get totally confused.
So no... I'm not engaged in some kind of Yoga sectarian historical re-write, or presenting a view based on ignorance. If you find what I write upsetting, it could be because you are attached to a particular spiritual teacher/ religion/ belief system/ world view, and what I write upsets you because it threatens that. The Buddha often counseled against such attachments to mental constructs within the mind, and pointed out that these attachments lead only to suffering. This suffering is our karma, it is right here. The degree to which we are attached is the degree to which we suffer.
David said that:"Sometimes, the speaker is not bringing the sectarianism, the hearer is." In the same way, sometimes the speaker is not causing the suffering, but the suffering is created by the mind of the listener due to attachment.
There was a Buddhist monk once living in a monastery in north east Thailand. The monastery was built next to a busy road and the monk found it hard to meditate due to the noise of the traffic. He went to the head of the monastery to complain about his situation, and about how much the noise disturbed him in his room. The head of the monastery said: "The noise does not come in to your room to disturb you; you go out to disturb it".
The head of the monastery was Lung Por Cha (I mention that because I know you are a fan of his).
Christi
|
Edited by - Christi on Apr 15 2007 09:29:04 AM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4381 Posts |
Posted - Apr 15 2007 : 02:57:12 AM
|
Hi Jill,
quote:
I, personally wish there was more of an integration with Buddhism. Here at AYP the terms pure bliss consciousness and ecstatic conductivity are used freely. If you say something like that in Theravada or Zen circles, look out!
What happens to you if you use the terms ecstatic conductivity or pure bliss consciousness in Theravada or zen circles?
quote:
The Buddha used a term "jhana" to describe altered states of consciousness that a seeker traverses on the path to Enlightenment, but the jhanas have been demonized by much of orthodox Buddhism. The scism happened not long after Siddharta's death. Some wouldn't even use the word until fairly recently.
I have never met a Buddhist who has had a problem with the term Jhana, or who does not feel that they are an important part of the Buddhist path. Who are these Buddhists, and what do they say about the Jhanas?
quote:
That is why I am here at AYP and why I stay. I have experienced the blissful states and when I read how Buddha said they were not to be feared I was glad because that is what my own intuition told me. A quote from the Pali Canon:
"Seekers, just as the River Ganges slants, slopes and inclines toward the East, so too a seeker who develops and cultivates the four meditative absorptions (jhanas) slants, slopes, and inclines toward Nibbana"
There are many descriptions of the Jhanas in the Suttas and the Abidharma, as well as discussions about them. I did not realize it was any big secret, or an issue of any sort among Buddhists.
quote:
But of course there are differences (anatta) from Yoga
Well... as I said above, I have never seen these differences. If you read the posts written by Katrine in this forum she writes a great deal about Anatta. She doesn't use the word, but the teaching is the same. Go to any Advaita Vedanta Yoga teacher and it is all they will talk about. Anatta, anatta, anatta from morning till night. Many teach nothing apart from this teaching.
quote:
all in all there are amazing similarities and the two schools could benefit from even agreeing to disagree.
There are so many similarities that it is very difficult to find any difference in either teaching or practice. Stress is put in different areas in Yoga and Buddhist teachings, as far as I can see, that is all.
Christi |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4381 Posts |
Posted - Apr 15 2007 : 03:40:11 AM
|
Hi Mike,
quote:
Hey later edit - I read further down the page and lo and behold "the Buddha was a kshatriya or warrior-caste Hindu" - more blatant anachronisms
There seems to be some confusion about the Buddha and Hinduism here.
Siddhartha Gautama was born in Southern Nepal as a prince into a Hindu Royal family. If you are born to Hindu parents then you are a Hindu, whether you like it or not (just as someone born to a Jewish woman is a Jew). That's just the way it goes. His parents were of the Kshatriya (warrior) caste, so he was too. It is not possible in the Hindu system to change your caste the way we can change our social class in the West (by getting rich).
The Kshatriya caste is the second caste in Hindu society, the Brahmins are considered to be higher. Siddhartha was married, had women who served to his needs, and had a child. He wasn't happy with his life in the palace. One day he saw a wondering Yogi outside his palace gates and decided to leave and search for happiness. That night he left his wife, son and serving women whilst they lay sleeping and crept out of the palace. He left his wife to bring his son up. He found a group of Yogis living in the forest and began his spiritual training (practices) with them. Many years (and several teachers) later he realized Moksha (Nibbhana) whilst sat under a Bodhi tree meditating.
All of this is recorded in the Buddhist texts. It is the life story of Siddhartha Gautama, later called the Buddha, or the Tatagatta. It is not Biggotry, or nonsense. It is just history.
quote:
You'll forgive me for finding the link you gave an entirely polemical piece - its no different in the slightest from the view that one sometimes hears about the Buddha being a reformist Hindu .
The Buddha did make many reforms, so he could be called a reformist Hindu, but I don't think it is especially useful. Jesus of Nazareth was born to Jewish parents so he was a Jew, and he brought about a revolution in the hearts and minds of humanity that spread across most of the world. So he could be called a Jewish revolutionary, but I don't think the term helps us to understand what he was doing. Jesus of Nazareth, like the Buddha before him, and like Krishna before him, was a spiritual revolutionary. All three men significantly changed the way people understood spiritual practice. One was born a Jew, and the other two were born as Hindus, but what they did completely transcended the circumstances of their individual births.
So to say that the Buddha was a Hindu, is just stating a simple fact about his birth, and has nothing to do with ignorance.
I hope that helps to clear up any misunderstanding.
Christi |
|
|
|
jillatay
USA
206 Posts |
Posted - Apr 15 2007 : 7:31:06 PM
|
Hi Christi,
All I can say is I have personally witnessed Theravadans, Vipassana people and others discourage even knowing about jhanas let alone practicing them. I have also spoken with many others who have had similar experiences. I am glad your experience has been supportive and hope that things are changing (I think they are) due to a more open access to information. I hope I have not offended you because my experience has been different. Buddhists can be quite on the stoic end of spirituality in spite of the fact that Gotama wanted to free people from the austerities. This will always be the way it is with some people, they are fear based.
If you could direct me to sites where the jhanas are celebrated by Buddhists I would gladly see them.
Many happy blessings,
Jill |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Yoga and Buddhism?
