Subscribe to RSS.
Become a Fan on Facebook.
Follow Top 10 US Green/ Yoga/ Buddhist/ Boulder Twitter.
Subscribe to Free Weekly E-Newsletter.
Bad Day? Here’s a reminder not to take yourself too seriously.
by elephantjournal.com on Dec 21, 2009
Our capacity to take ourself seriously is nearly limitless. You want proof?
If Rod can sing about how sexxxy he is with…that hair…those pants…hey.
The cosmic joke, as Chogyam Trungpa put it, is on all of us. Life is suffering.
So, smile.
Or, as Longchenpa, another great Buddhist teacher put it…well, the quote’s on the back of my stickard:
Subscribe to our free Top-10-Blogs-of-the-Week Email Newsletter.
You see, there it is again–that gaping difference between Buddhism and Yoga, which I keep trying to explain and study away. In spite of their common roots and overwhelming similarities:
Buddhism concludes we are nothing, a cosmic joke.
Yoga concludes we are everything, that we are the cosmos itself.
(Do you think I possibly missed your point of not taking ourselves too seriously?)
Bob Weisenberg
http://YogaDemystified.com
I think that language can carry tricky connotations. [I am sure this is not your intent] but by pitting conclusions of these traditions at polar ends of a spectrum an implication of dualism enters in which yoga offers connection with the universe and buddhism offers separateness. And in that context a cosmic joke becomes nihilism instead of a sense of humor at our constant identification and attachment. Regardless of gaping differences, each tradition and the traditions that follow those attempt to form a path to liberation. same-same
Thanks, stevenmoses. I'm sure you speak the ultimate truth!
In the meantime, I'm enjoying the discussion and the learning. It's what I like to do. And it's the way I like to develop my spirit!
Remember, it's a joke! That's not nothing, that's fun. Read the Heart Sutra: emptiness is fullness, et vice versa. Buddhism rejects nihilism as being one extreme. http://www.elephantjournal.com/2009/08/the-heart-...
The stereotype of Buddhism's view of reality as being cold, dark, harsh, all suffering…is just that, a stereotype. Reality isn't theory, it's reality. Meditate, practice, and what you see won't be Buddhist or yoga reality, it'll just be your ordinary, extraordinary life.
Shambhala Training was actually formed to address this difficulty in presenting Buddhadharma to Westerners…we're an optimistic lot. Read Shambhala: Sacred Path of the Warrior. Same root as Buddhism, but instead of starting with Four Noble Truths (Suffering and the way out of suffering) it starts with Basic Goodness. Shambhala Training weekends involve a lot of meditation, some lectures and discussion groups, and a reception. Reasonably fun, totally fulfilling and for me, hugely life-changing. http://sti.shambhala.org/
In nothing there is everything.
I had the same discussion with Mark Whitwell where I told him that I was sorry that the Buddhists he knows are such life denyers, which is basically what you are saying, Bob. Emptiness is not nothingness and once I truly got that, it was liberation. I think the Buddhist concept of emptiness is the most misunderstood and gives Buddhism its nihilistic label.
I think this is one of the best sites I have found for explanations:
http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/emptiness.html
Goodness gracious, my friend LindaSama.
Please refrain from misquoting me like that!
I said nothing of the kind, and it's certainly not what I believe.
I'm not misquoting you…you say "Buddhism concludes we are nothing, a cosmic joke." How is your statement not a belief that Buddhism is nihilistic? The way I understand Nihilism is that it's the philosphical belief of the negation of one or more aspects of life (hence, life-denying) — that life is without meaning or purpose. In other words, nothing (or not much anyway.)
Some people believe or have the misconception that Buddhism is nihilistic, or as Waylon said "The stereotype of Buddhism's view of reality as being cold, dark, harsh, all suffering." Sorry if I misunderstood you, but a statement like "Buddhism concludes we are nothing" sounds like a pretty straight-forward conclusion to me.
Then you say "Yoga concludes we are everything, that we are the cosmos itself." Well, not right away in any event when we are dealing with the dualities of the experience and the experiencer; with atman and brahman,
I am curious as to whether your conclusion about yoga comes from Advaita Vedanta or Samkhya.
"Cosmic joke" is a direct quote from Trungpa above.
My understanding of Yoga comes directly from the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita.
In any case, I hope it's obvious from everything else I've written below that I don't think Buddhism is nihilistic.
Bob
yoga good, BUddhism bad? Can they both be OK?
Absolutely, Lynn. Even in my provocative opening comment I never meant to imply Buddhism was bad in any way. Yoga and Buddhism are very closely related and I like them both.
Hey Bob. I am not a scholar in these matters but do have an opinion. For me they are reconciled in non-permanence and our views on attachment. We are only here in this moment as this self, it is fleeting and will change moment to moment so I need to let go to that attachment to a permanent idea of myself because I am always changing. In yoga that fleeting moment is only captured in an asana practice (as a type of yoga example) when that asana is being enacted, and even then there are opportunities to alter it in those 90 seconds or whatever. Enact in your asana practice with heart because you will improve in that "union" that is the ultimate goal in yoga, but even if you think you have achieved your goal the achievement it is fleeting.
If you are a more goal-oriented yogi then you can graph your goal on a timeline with some measure of your performance but expect to find oscillations along the trend you are seeking… and even if you are rocking your practice something can happen and a trend can collapse to zero in no time… you just don't know. It is not worth building up our ego, or basing our identity around how attached we are to a practice. Practice with heart/integrity, just don't let it be the basis of your identity.
Bob, I'm guessing that what might be confounding is the notion that "Buddhism concludes we are nothing." This isn't true. In fact, the Buddha avoided metaphysical talk in general. He did talk about anatman (Pali: anatta)–or "not-self," but this is just a referent to seeing the self apart from the five skandhas or aggregates that we tend to attach to (form, sensation, cognition, mental formations, and consciousness). Part of the problem is that some Buddhists or interpreters of Buddhism have referred to anatman as "no-self," which is simply erroneous and inaccurately grounds Buddhism in nihilism. Buddha taught a method to avoid attachment to the skandhas which results in suffering. Through this method you can either reach a higher enlightenment and/or simply live a life that is more "awake." It's a positive method.
Actually Bob, that's only one form of Buddhism. Not all schools of Buddhist thought believe that 'everything isn't real'. Much like the Vedanta vs Shivite Tantra, there are many schools of thought here (eg. Hīnayāna, Mahayana & Theravada). There's also Tibetan Tantra, Dzogchen and Bon – none of which has this view central to their philosophy.
Originally all these schools of thought (and others) overlapped. I guess they evolved eventually. The path of yoga (everything is god/the universe) is aligned with a number of different schools of thought, including most forms of direct realisation Tantra.
So I wouldn't worry about reconciling it. Take what works for you. Leave the rest. My general perspective on such things…
Thanks, Matt.
(Before I say anything, let me clearly state that I'm raising these issues to help me learn more about Buddhism, and for no other purpose. I'm amazed at my chutzpa raising questions about Buddhism here in this cyber-temple of Buddhism. What am I, nuts? I'm doing it only so I can learn from everyone here, and I enjoy provoking interesting discussions to that end. I hope no one takes offense. I realize I don't know much yet.)
Your reply is very helpful, but it does reinforce my feelings about the differences between Buddhism and Yoga.
(continued below)
I don't think of Bhuddism as negative, just kind of limiting, precisely for the reason you cite above–a disinclination to engage in the larger ineffable, but to me totally convincing, truths of metaphysics–an insistence on bringing us all down to earth instead of letting our spirits soar, which Yoga seems to encourage and Buddhism seems to consider just another illusion of the ego.
Yoga solves the problem of fuzzy metaphysics not by avoiding it, but by embracing the infinite wonder of the unknowable as the central tenant of Yoga philosophy. We don't know exactly what the life-force of the universe is, but we know it's infinitely wondrous, and that we are an integral part of that wondrousness.
Bob Weisenberg
http://YogaDemystified.com
Svasti, true there are many schools of Buddhism and yoga, but I don't see Shambhala (Trungpa) or any of the Buddhist schools listed which conclude that "we are nothing." Most schools use emptiness or sunyata as a teaching tool (rather than a fixed concept), but this is merely a means of showing that the skandhas are empty. That's not to say the skandhas are all bad–we need them to function in our practical, day-to-day lives, after all. It simply ends in suffering to *identify* and overzealously attach to them–or worse yet, to not see the attachment at all.
Svasti.
Very good points! Even with my very limited knowledge, I'm fully aware that both Yoga and Buddhism cover a vast array of philosophical schools, so much so that one easily can find Yoga that's just like Buddhism and Buddhism that's just like Yoga.
So anything I say about Yoga and Buddhism needs to be preceded by "in general as they are presented by the majority of their current devotees".
I'm not particularly "worried about reconciling" them, as you say. It's just that I'm a strong Jnana (Yoga of knowledge and study) personality. So discussion and debate are how I like to learn things.
Thanks for your help.
Bob Weisenberg
http://YogaDemystified.com
Bob, I understand and I apologize if I characterized your view inaccurately (Buddhism being negative). Not all schools of Buddhism avoid metaphysical speculation, however. After the Buddha's time, the Mahayana branch (which includes most Tibetan, Zen, and other sects other than Hinayana/Theravada) engaged in plenty of speculation which expounded upon the Buddha's insights. It's a very rich and varied religious/philosophical landscape.
No one necessarily "needs" Buddhism to live a full and joyous life or even to attain high falutin' "enlightenment." Svasti makes a good point there and you are probably a representative "I don't need no stinkin' Buddhism" success story in this regard.
Buddha was seen as something of a physician to his followers–so it is to those people who experience suffering that Buddhism will likely resonate.
On the flip side, you may find that for some of us the platitudes of some yogic philosophy isn't enough–we require a methodology that is free of attachment to concepts of deity, of objectifying "union" and enlightenment. I personally find a union of yoga and Buddhism to be edifying (and what my upcoming blog is all about!).
In sum, if you don't feel sick, you are probably fine and don't need to see Doc Buddha. On the other hand, you may have an undiagnosed disease!
Thanks, Matt.
Just so no one thinks you were quoting me, I never in a million years would say something like "I don't need no stinkin' Buddhism"! And I still consider Buddhism and Yoga to be closely related spiritual traditions, not a situation where I embrace one and reject the other.
I think you are are vastly underestimating Yoga's depth in handling the issue of suffering. In this aspect, Yoga is pretty much like Buddhism. Most of the Yoga Sutra reads almost exactly like any Buddhist text. It's the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads that are so dramatically different than, say, the Dhammapada.
Like you, I'm assuming I want to know a lot about both. That's why I'm asking all these questions! And the conversation so far hasn't certainly not disappointed.
Bob Weisenberg
http://YogaDemystified.com
I personally believe that Buddhism, Zen or any other spiritual traditions are practiced by Westerners in the hope of being connected with their higher Self or God or spirit..,.whereas Yoga practice brings us peace, clarity and in some cases Self-realization. I am walking on the yogic path, (haven´t read those original scriptures of Yoga yet, still learning). Thank you for sharing those different theories.
Thanks for your thoughts, Melissa. If you have an interest in the original ancient philosophy of Yoga, try my website http://YogaDemystified.com. I think it's a pretty good summary, and there are recommendations for further reading if it captures your fancy.
Bob,
LOL. Yes, don't let me put words in your mouth (especially when I'm getting cheeky)! And likewise, I qualified my statement by referring to the "platitudes of *some* yogic philosophy," not all. I have tremendous respect for Vedanta as well as Patanjali, in particular, and like you I'm aware that yoga and Buddhism influenced one another and actually continue to do so (Insight Yoga/Yin Yoga anyone)?
I couldn't help but notice that you referred to the "infinite ineffable wonder of the universe." To say something is ineffable means that it is incapable of being expressed in words. I think one aspect of the Buddha's method could be described as "experiencing the ineffable by avoiding the conceptual traps of expressing the ineffable." You may have much more in common with Buddhism than you realize!
Very interesting twist, Matt. Thanks.
Yeah, both Yoga and Buddhism see the futility of trying to define the infinite unknowable life-force of the universe. Buddhism largely solves this by just avoiding the subject and focusing on the workings of our mind. Yoga, by contrast, largely solves it by worshiping the very concept of infinite unknowability.
Anybody follow that? Then please explain it to me!
Bob Weisenberg
http://YogaDemystified.com
Hey Bob,
So the conversation is that Buddhism is far too grounded while yoga soars with spirituality. I think the comments already state alot of what Buddhism is about and how varied the practice is. For example both zazen meditation and yoga practice can lead to realization. Will the yoga feel more euphoric? Yes, I think by the nature of that practice, it will. Many Buddhists also incorporate an element of yoga (sometimes a large element) into their practice.
"Yeah, both Yoga and Buddhism see the futility of trying to define the infinite unknowable life-force of the universe. Buddhism largely solves this by just avoiding the subject and focusing on the workings of our mind"
Sorta False – Every Buddhist practice is an effort to focus our minds to come to connent with this "one-ness". They do focus on the mind as a locus for realization. The workings of the mind is usually what limits our ability "understand" this universality. I do agree that Buddhism does not focus exclusively on worship especially in the West but many Esoteric schools do just that.
Check out that Buddhist Yoga link under the resources on my blog. It may meld the two concepts together. The Yogacara School of Buddhism may be more to your liking. I personally think that is what you are looking for but it just never had much popularity in the West.
Cheers,
John
http://www.zendirtzendust.com
Nice, John.
BTW, Thich Nhat Hanh's book "Understanding Our Mind" is based on Yogacara, namely Vasubandhu's Twenty and Thirty Verses, and is a great introduction with commentary.
Bob also may want to check out Hanh's The Heart of Understanding (although not specifically Yogacara) which includes poetic commentary on the Heart Sutra–considered by some to be the essence of Buddhist teaching.
Wonderful! I love that Bob is asking so many questions. I think about bowing and prostrating when Bob asks this stuff. Do I bow and prostrate because I feel beat down by the pessimistic aspect of Buddhist practice. No, it is an act of humility. I am raising the Buddha's teachings and the Dharma above myself and my self. I bow to the archtypes that the Bodhisattvas and myriad of deities represent. I bow b/c there things much greater and larger than me in the universe but I am connected to it while being small myself.
There is a tendency in the west to not align Buddhist practice with this but it is still alive and well.
Thanks for the book recommendations! I actually never read TNH but maybe I'll give "Understanding Our Mind" a shot.
Cheers,
John
In my Buddhist community, I was taught that the bow was not a case of higher lower, but of mutual respect and vision, mission: to be of benefit. We have to be careful about that theism stuff, is all.
But most importantly, click the sexxxy link above and watch the video! Impossible to take yourself seriously watching that thing.
I don't know, Waylon. I think we better ask the ladies what they think! What if they all secretly want Rod Stewart? Where does that leave us?
This lady, does not secretly want Rod Stewart. Or openly, either, for that matter.
Actually John, what initially inspired my puzzlement about Buddhism was your recent article "The Zen of a Good Sh*t" http://bit.ly/8kmsgU in which you explained in some detail, seriously as far as I could tell, why Buddhism was like taking a shit.
I really expected a lot of Boulder Buddhaphiles to jump in and say, "No, John, that's not what Buddhism is like at all."
But much to my surprise, none of them did! In fact they all wrote in and said, "That's beautiful, John. Buddhism really is exactly like taking a shit."
That's when I started to get confused.
Thanks again to everyone who joined in here. It's been a great discussion–fun and informative.
Bob Weisenberg
http://YogaDemystified.com
Bob,
I don't think it is a good metaphor either and not all Buddhists see meditating–satisfying or not–as the end goal. But I suspect John didn't expect this particular metaphor to become representative of his practice.
I did like John's second reference to shit–in that we all have our own shit (particularly putrid skandhas) that we need to deal with. That's where the metaphor has more punch. Buddhism has a great tradition of via negativa dialectic for exposing our own shit and transcending it. Nagarjuna made it a high art.
It is indicative that as soon as you seek to describe something spiritual, you lose it. Language helps us along, but ultimately we have to make the journey ourselves.
Buddhists love confusion! Again, with the shit analogy. It is a statement of finding the transcendental (zazen, samadhi, nirvana, whatever you want to call it) in the mundane (ie, shit-taking). To me, personally, we find ourselves wrapped around the Big Comsic Picture to the point where we are running around in circles. We can focus on the mundane aspects to get to transcendental ones. It is a path and a method.____I never said Buddhism was like taking a shit (I don't think I did) but I did say that Zen practice (a good "sit") was. Taking a shit is a necessary part of life. If you don't do it, bad stuff will happen. We may find it to be a pain in the ass (lol) but we still need to do eat. I could say the same thing with eating or sleeping but I think shitting fits better.____Zazen is the same. Sometimes it feels good and sometimes it feels bad…but when we don't do it bad stuff and habitual thinking rises up again and we move further and further away from our True Selves (more Big Cosmic Picture stuff).
part 2
I thought to myself "maybe I need to take a step back away from the ethereal and start focusing on the mundane" when I did I saw my practice soar.
____No expectation, no goal. Just doing what needs to be done. I'm not the first to make this connection and I by no means put myself in the "enlightened" category but it was a big step for me.____cont….
But if one thing applies to both Buddhist practice and yoga. Talking about it only gets you so far. One has to experience and experiment with it to get a feel for what it is….
I would have a very hard time describing yoga w/o practicing it and even after practicing it my experience could be vastly different from the dude next to me. We each bring in our baggage in our practice and that tempers our experience. The trick is figuring out that baggage.
Although I liken yoga to taking a shower. It cleanses but grime will still build up. Zen is like shitting. A necessary act but one that needs to be done regularly (lol…regular).
Cheers,
John
Thanks for your very thoughtful clarifications, John. I appreciate it.
Brothers and Sisters, All:
Namaste! Having the privilege (some might say "misfortune"!) of having been ordained as a monk in the Advaita (yogic) tradition, the feral wisdom (Tibetan) Buddhist tradition and as a nontheistic (retired) Catholic monastic and former bishop, I hope I can bring a little more clarity to what seems to be one of the great stumbling blocks of the Western culture, trying to get their arms around the Dharma.
Buddhism is not and never was a nihilistic philosophy. It is best to understand the concept of Sunyata not by simply focusing on the idea that all phenomena share the same "empty" nature, and therefore are unreal in the "Absolute Reality", but rather to view sunyata as an ocean, which viewed from one shore appears to be nothing, and on the other shore appears to be all things.
Where we get caught up is, I believe, in not taking the last step. Yes, the phenomenal world is "real" in our subjective reality. And yes, the subjective world is emptiness in the Absolute Reality, but there is one further step — the numenal reality, in which all these concepts themselves dissolve, and all that is realised is Oneness.
Yoga seeks to explore and experience the Oneness in a way that is, at its core, tantric. Kundalini rising can accelerate the awareness of the ultimate (numenal) reality for the yogic adept. The Buddhist path had many approaches, all of which still lead to that ultimate awareness as well. Some quicker. Some not. Karma ripens at the rate at which it ripens.
In the end, it is not a pissing contest, although many Westerners attempt to make it so. And that's where they get lost. Neither Yoga nor Buddhism will be an effective path, when the mind is twisted and attached to such dualistic ideas as "this vs. that".
Both are ultimately expressions of Advaita philosophy, although the semantics may vary from culture to culture.
We can discover nothing in either path, until we still and quiet the ego-mind, so that it becomes free to soar.
Peace!
– dharmacharya gurudas sunyatananda
The Contemplative Monks of the Eightfold Path
Great comments, Gurudas! My words are like clumsy, drunk, Greek Sailors in comparison.
Nicely said…..
"In the end, it is not a pissing contest, although many Westerners attempt to make it so. And that's where they get lost. Neither Yoga nor Buddhism will be an effective path, when the mind is twisted and attached to such dualistic ideas as "this vs. that"."
also want to say: love that!
Gurudas,
Beautiful description of Sunyata and Oneness and I like the Advaita summary! I'm thankful that you accepted my invitation to jump into this conversation.
-Matt (@integralhack on Twitter)
I agree also — on everything said.
It's all quantum physics and string theory isn't it? There are 100 trillion cells in our "body", but only 10 trillion cells are actually us, the rest is parasites, bacteria and micro-organisms! But do those micro-organisms see "ourselves" as us, or do they look up into "outer-space" wondering if there's other life out there, or if there really is a God? 100 billion stars in the universe…. 100 billion cells in the brain! Buddhism sees everything as empty (sunyata), because it understands life at the sub-atomic level…. loads of particles rushing around in circles, with lots of space in between. We dont exist because we're made up of those particles and if we had a camera small enough, we could video the space in between what we feel is solid. Yoga, sees love as the glue that holds everything together, even though none of it really exists…. what does exist is the will, the feeling, the need, the energy that holds it all together. We are that energy, the same as the sea is that energy and redwoods are that energy. Everything is just a need to express the capability of that energy. We dont exist, only energy exists and energy will always exist. It may take on different forms, but it will always be the same energy. The humour is in the fact that we have 300 different types of yoga and hundreds of buddhist sects, all getting caught by ego and trying to explain the same thing in their own personal way. And then we argue and debate over how we see things through what we've learnt in our own way, but it's all the same and none of it exists! Endless scriptures in sanscrit, that takes years to translate and then understand and then we argue over the translations and which version is the best…. Yoga teachers spouting sanscrit mantras because they think it validates them in some way, buddhist monks talking riddles because, while you're trying to work out what they mean, you're in the moment, it doesn't matter what they mean, only that you stay in the moment for as long as you can! And the longer you stay in the moment, the more obvious it becomes that everything is complete nonsense, because all we are is dust in the wind!
You have to laugh deep in your belly, because its one big joke, but its not a sick, black humour, its joyous and full of love! You have to wake up in the morning and start smiling at how we're all stuck yogether with God's glue, for no other reason than he just wondered what he could do with it all! We could debate for millenia about his reasons for doing so, but in the end all we need to do is love it and know we are an equal part in all of it! And when I say "God" and "him" I'm talking about the energy. And when i say "equal part" I mean one and nothing.
Thanks, Tobye! This is an astounding conclusion to a great conversation. (Well, maybe not the conclusion quite yet.)
Your wonderful and eloquent summary takes us right back to where we started. Everything that you write above about the universe being a single energy with many different forms could have come right out of the Upanishads or the Bhagavad Gita, WITH ONE ENORMOUS EXCEPTION.
Instead of concluding that "we don't exist" because we are all one energy, the ancient Yoga texts conclude that we all exist in an infinitely more wondrous form called Brahman that is way beyond our ability to fully understand or comprehend.
In other words, instead of us being nothing as you say, each of us is the infinitely-wondrous, blindingly-amazing life-force of the universe itself. Instead of being nothing we are everything.
While this sounds "high-falutin" on the surface, as some have written above, to me it makes perfect sense because it acknowledges that even though we can understand that we are all just energy, we aren't even close to understanding the ultimate source of that energy and its wondrous manifestations.
That's what Yoga and some schools of Buddhism call God. It's not really a deity, but an acknowledgement of the infinite, awesome, very real but ultimately unknowable, wonder of the universe.
You know what? In spite of this apparent big difference in point of view, I think we are actually looking at two sides of the very same coin, my friend!
Thanks again for your excellent comment.
Bob Weisenberg
http://YogaDemystified.com
Thanks, Tobye! This is an astounding conclusion to a great conversation. (Well, maybe not the conclusion quite yet.)
Your wonderful and eloquent summary takes us right back to where we started. Everything that you write above about the universe being a single energy with many different forms could have come right out of the Upanishads or the Bhagavad Gita, WITH ONE ENORMOUS EXCEPTION.
Instead of concluding that "we don't exist" because we are all one energy, the ancient Yoga texts conclude that we all exist in an infinitely more wondrous form called Brahman that is way beyond our ability to fully understand or comprehend.
In other words, instead of us being nothing as you say, each of us is the infinitely-wondrous, blindingly-amazing life-force of the universe itself. Instead of being nothing we are everything.
While this sounds "high-falutin" on the surface, as some have written above, to me it makes perfect sense because it acknowledges that even though we can understand that we are all just energy, we aren't even close to understanding the ultimate source of that energy and its wondrous manifestations.
That's what Yoga and some schools of Buddhism call God. It's not really a deity, but an acknowledgement of the infinite, awesome, very real but ultimately unknowable, wonder of the universe.
You know what? In spite of this apparent big difference in point of view, I think we are actually looking at two sides of the very same coin, my friend!
Thanks again for your excellent comment.
Bob Weisenberg
http://YogaDemystified.com
[...] “Bad Day? Here’s a reminder not to take yourself too seriously.” [...]
Just a little clarification: Buddhists–at least Buddhists that have their view on straight–don't conclude that "we don't exist." My reference to "high falutin" was just a joke aimed at those (not necessarily those in this discussion) who reference nirvana or enlightenment as an attainment (and therefore an attachment).
Thanks, Matt. I appreciate the clarification.
I think I knew your use of high falutin' was somewhat in gest, but it captured the idea that others expressed that Yoga is sort of ethereal and in-the-clouds compared to good old down-to-earth Buddhism, which doesn't engage in that sort of fantasy.
I don't see this as a right or wrong, myself, just a personal preference. Some people are more into down-to-earthness and some people are more into infinite-wonder-of-the-universe.
Thanks again for helping make this such a fascinating discussion with all your comments.
Bob Weisenberg
http://YogaDemystified.com
intergralhack.
I was just thinking some more about your reference in your last comment to "those…who reference nirvana or enlightenment as a attainment (and therefore an attachment)".
What spiritual discipline doesn't see some sort of happiness as the result of practice? Even the Dalai Lama himself says the purpose of life is to find happiness.
Bob Weisenberg
http://YogaDemystified.com
Since we are nothing, we are everything.
Right, David. As I wrote above, two sides of the same coin!
Wonderful dialogue. Was disappointed I found it so late in the thread.
Love the clarification (by a number of posters) regarding Buddhism not being nihilism. In years past, I made the mistake of spending too much time debating nihilistic Buddhists and decided to leave the task to others. Was happy to see so many who were conversant and eloquent on the topic.
The easiest way I found to dissipate the confusion regarding nothing was to rephrase to No Thing. In other words, we find the Self to be that which IS but which is No Thing. Being without Thing-ness. A Buddha transcends the phenomenal nature of the skandhas. The skandhas are that which is Not Self.
I believe the Oneness concept creates as much confusion. It tends to result in identification with all phenomena (I am all Things) rather than recognizing Being that is No Thing — not phenomenal in nature.
Oneness may lead to the idea that "Since we are nothing, we are everything" as opposed to "Since we are not phenomena we are No Thing, not one thing or many things or all things. Rather we are No Thingness.)
The difference that came with Buddhism perhaps can best be explained as going beyond the All One of phenomena to that Self which is No Thing and thus beyond all identification.
In Yoga practice (as well as other mystical practices) one may encounter an All One universe of light but from the Buddha's view (and from the practice) this universe of light, where all appears One, is itself a fabrication and thus not fundamental or Absolute.
In a sense I guess one could say that zero and one are fabrications and thus one goes "beyond" to a state where zero and one do not have meaning as we understand it when we think in phenomenal or relative terms.
Anyway, risking being too serious, I will leave those thoughts and move on…
Hi, Greg. Your input is warmly welcome. Thanks for taking the time to write such an interesting and insightful comment.
We devotees of "Radical Traditional Yoga" have another whole approach to the conundrum of "what are we exactly?" that you so precisely analyse above. But instead of trying to figure it out, we just surrender to the awesome, unfathomable, unknowable, infinite wonder of it all.
To be conscious of the wonder of the universe, of which we are clearly an integral part, blows us away, to the extent that logical niceties don't seem to matter much anymore.
(continued below)
It's all in the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita, but it becomes overwhelmingly meaningful only because to us it is the most absolute reality of all reality, and not the semi-hallucinatory state that many more down-to-earth Buddhist thinkers see in Yoga.
After all these excellent discussions, I still fee this is a major difference between core Yoga and core Buddhism. It's the difference between the Upanishads and the Dhammapada. And it's not right or wrong, good or bad. It is, like I wrote earlier, and you wrote in your comment, just two sides of the same coin.
Bob Weisenberg
http://YogaDemystified.com
Bob, I agree wholeheartedly with the direction in which you are taking the discussion. It is worth applying discernment to this topic. Diamond Sutra territory.
You write: "It's all in the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita, but it becomes overwhelmingly meaningful only because to us it is the most absolute reality of all realities, and not the semi-hallucinatory state that many more down-to-earth Buddhist thinkers see in Yoga." I agree. I have seen "down-to-earth" Buddhists shout out the criticism you mention. (When I have spoken of such realities, I have frequently experienced the response, "That's Hinduism not Buddhism.")
The Buddha did not disrespect or deny the realities of which you speak. He simply added one more level of discernment in saying that even then we were dealing with fabrication and there is one more step of getting behind fabrication. Not from a theoretical viewpoint but from the viewpoint of practice and "reality."
You write: "We devotees of "Radical Traditional Yoga" have another whole approach to the conundrum of "what are we exactly?" that you so precisely analyse above. Instead of trying to figure it out, we just surrender to the awesome, unfathomable, unknowable, infinite wonder of it all." This is such a rich statement.
It is so true that one cannot force enlightenment and one must "surrender" even though, paradoxically, it is an active surrender, an intentional surrender. And yet, i believe that in that surrender one does not abandon one's discernment and ability to observe/know. Thus, i might quibble in a minor way with the words "unfathomable and unknowable."
I believe this is where the Buddha departed, ever so subtly, from that which preceded his effort. He was fully aware of the experience, the reality of the full yogic experience, but with a "surrendered" mindfulness he noticed something "out of the corner of his eye" and that was the fabricated nature of that state. He carefully, slowly, and gently stepped back and viewed the "origin" of the fabrication — and thus was able to fathom and to know its source.
This is not something I offer from a text or theoretical speculation viewpoint but rather from the practice. I can explain it in more detail if warranted but perhaps that is all that is needed to say that I agree with you that there is a subtle difference but a difference we most likely could both embrace within a common frame.
More later. Thanks for your well-considered reply. A pleasure to find someone who brings such clarity and wisdom to this topic.
yes, I know it was a Trungpa quote, Bob. I think what Gurudas Sunyatananda said below pretty much sums up the similarites/differences of yoga and Buddhism. I just don't agree with your "nothing v. everything" conclusions about both subjects. I don't see it as either/or or as black/white as you do.
In my opinion, the center that has done the most to intelligently weave these two wisdom traditions together is Spirit Rock in Woodacre, CA where I completed the first Mindfulness Yoga and Meditation training taught by some of the biggies in both the western yoga and Buddhist worlds. It was literally the first training in the world to link both classical yoga and Buddhism, and not separate them as most, if not all, yoga trainings do. After all, Buddha was a yogi.
I would suggest that you check out some workshops at Spirit Rock (or IMS in Barre, MA) to delve a bit deeper into the experiential aspect of Buddhism — books (depending on the writer, of course) really do make Buddhism sound dry and humorless. People can read all the books you want to, but like yoga, experience is where the rubber hits the road, even if it's just being away for one weekend — and Northern California isn't hard to take. If you ever took a class by Jack Kornfield or Phillip Moffit, I think your opinion about Buddhism would change. I also suggest some readings in the Advaita Vedanta tradition, i.e., Ramana Maharshi.
metta, Bob.
Thanks for the suggestions, Linda.
I don't see many things as either/or or black & white, and certainly not Yoga and Buddhism. As I already wrote below a few comments down:
"I'm fully aware that both Yoga and Buddhism cover a vast array of philosophical schools, so much so that one easily can find Yoga that's just like Buddhism and Buddhism that's just like Yoga."
My opening comment above was meant to be provocative and a little tongue-in-cheek. It was meant to generate discussion so I could learn more about Buddhism. I guess it worked! (If I didn't already like Buddhism I wouldn't have bothered.)
Thanks again for your help.
I actually used your statement "Buddhism concludes we are nothing" in my dharma talk last night, Bob. I asked my students how can we be nothing when we have buddhanature? and then we went on to talk about anatta….
so thanks!