Marshland Flowers Part Acharya Mahayogi Sridhar Rana Rinpoche Having humbly offered marshland flowers to the Master

of gods and men (sasta deva manushyanam), the god of gods (Devadideva) the yogi of yogis, I humbly begin this series on Buddhism. Nepal is the land where the Buddha was born and it was the first country outside India where Buddhism spread. A vast number of Sakyas had become Buddhists at the time of the Buddha himself. However, leaving aside the Himalayan ethnic minority, the vast majority of the Nepalese people, including those who are supposed to be Buddhists by birth, know very little about both the Buddha and Buddhism. To the vast majority of non-Buddhist Nepalese, the Buddha-legend is based on myths coming from non-Buddhist cultures. So the Buddha becomes an incarnation of Visnu and that's about all that is known about the Buddha. In this age and era when Buddhism is spreading like wild fire across the seven seas and becoming the talk of the intellectuals across the world, Nepalese intellectuals fumble and mumble about the Buddha being born in Lumbini before their knowledge about Buddhism dries up, whilst the more orthodox try to cull up what other famous Hindu yogis had said about the Buddha most of which are purely fabricated story, historically unsound and alien to any form of Buddhism around the world. So, putting the horse before the cart, who or what is the Buddha or a Buddha according to the Buddhists themselves? This story goes three asankhya kalpas ago. When there was a powerful yogi with all the siddhi and riddhis called Bhikchhu Sumedha. It is said that even though he was already a powerful yogi with siddhi riddhis, he resolved to make the aspiration (pranidhan) to become a Buddha, in front of the Buddha Dipankara, some three asankhya kalpas ago. And that was the starting of the making of a Buddha. This point is based on the words of the Buddha Sakyamuni himself as recorded in the Jatak which is one of the Scriptural texts found in the Tripitaka. The Jatakas are collection of the stories of Sakyamuni's former lives as told by himself. Then Bhikchhu Sumedha practiced sadhanas for three asankhya kalpas under many Buddhas like Kashyapa etc. until finally he became a Buddha. Whether we regard this story as mere myth or real, it is the Buddhist version and speaks abundantly about the Buddhist culture related to who or what a Buddha is. Even if it be considered as only a myth it is the Buddhist myth as opposed to non Buddhist myths about the Buddha. But myth or not it does tell us a lot about who or what a

Buddha is to the Buddhists and about Buddhism. This story says that a Buddha is a sentient being who is the acme of spiritual development, as he was already a powerful yogi when he began his journey to Buddhahood. Thus he is the king of all yogis. Also he is not some kind of a God or incarnation of a God, but rather a human being who started on the long journey to become a Buddha. In the process, the Jatakas tell us he was born many times as Devas like Indra etc, many times as humans etc. This opens up the Buddhist concept that there is not much difference between the Gods and men and animals in terms of cycle of existence, because the continuity of the same mental continuum can be a deva at one time and a human at another time. So devas in Buddhism are not eternally fixed devas but can die and be born as humans etc. depending upon the karma they have accumulated. This means karma is not fixed thing bestowed upon men by some super gods but rather the actions one's own self has perpetrated and the result one's own self has to experience and is changeable by one's ownself. So a Buddha is not a God come down to help mankind but a person that has reached the acme of spiritual development. That is why he called himself "Sasta deva manushyanam" which means the Spiritual Guru or Master of Devas and humans. Being born as a human, he was a human but having become a Buddha he was no more a mere human, but the Sasta/Guru/Master of humans and Devas in terms of spiritual development. He himself clearly said in the Drona Sutra of the Anguttara Nikaya that he was not a Deva, not a yakchhya, not a Gandharva and not a human as well. The Buddha is certainly not a God or an emanation of any God by any Buddhist account but then if he is not a human too what is he? He is a Buddha. What is the meaning of the word Buddha and how is a Buddha different from being a human? Published on 22-29 April 2007 Issue He was born a human of a human mother and father. Suddhodhan and Mayadevi were not gods and goddesses or even their avatar. They were humans. But in Buddhism as I have already mentioned humans are not some eternally stuck beings whose lot is to be humans for ever. It is those very humans who became gods and goddesses according to the actions they have performed (karma); and gods and goddesses become humans and animals according to their karma performed in the past and present. So devas are not eternal gods and goddesses, who have no connection with humans. So how was he not a human? Humans are those who are still engrossed in emotional defilements, and still lost in ignorance. Ignorance here does not mean ignorance of worldly knowledge whatever they be but ignorance of the way the world really exists, ignorance of ones own true nature (swarup). Since a Buddha is neither entangled in emotional defilements nor is he ignorant of

the true nature of all that exists including himself, he cannot be said to be a human, although his physical endowments continue to be that of a human. His level of mind is no more the same as the level of mind of any human or gods and goddesses for that matter. In fact the mind of a Buddha is no more like any sentient beings in the entire universe called Trisahasra mahasahasra loka dhatu in Buddhist culture. That's why the Buddha himself told the Bramin Drona to understand him as a Buddha as he was not a Deva, yakchhya, gandharva or human. A Buddha is the result of the spiritual practice of three immeasurable kalpas (tri asankhya kalpa), thus according to the Lalitvistar, the Mahasangik record of the Buddha's life, he was the eldest of all sentient beings (including Gods and Bramah of the highest Deva lokas) at the point of birth itself. This is the meaning of Bramah, Visnu and Mahesh coming to greet him at his birth as is shown in the sculpture in Lumbini and in many paubha paintings. Because of the immeasurable merit he accumulated during the three immeasurable kalpas of practice he was born with the 32 lakchhyanas (physical characteristics) and 80 anubyanjanas (sub characteristics). These are found only amongst those who will become a Chakravarti King or a Buddha. These two are concepts which existed in the sub-continent even before the time of Sakyamuni because we find the Brahmin Puskarswati sending his Brahmin disciple Ambatha to check whether Gautam was really a Buddha and had those characteristics or not. Ambatha was rude to the Buddha, he appears to be a snobbish Brahmin but when the learned Brahmin Puskarswati heard that Gautam indeed had those characteristics, he asked Ambatha "How did you behave with him?" When Ambatha told him how he behaved, it is said Puskarswati gave him a swat on the face and went himself to apologize for his disciple's rude behaviour. But it must be made cleat that these 32 lakchhyanas and anubyanjanas are not the same attributed to Krishna. These are a more ancient version of the 32 lakchhyanas. Some of the major part of which are a golden colored skin, a swirl of white hair between the eye brows, and a mound on top of the skull which gives the impression that he has tied his hair in a tuft on the crown. That tuft like mound on top of all Buddha statues is actually not a tuft of hair tied up in a bun above the crown as most non Buddhist Nepalese think but rather a peculiar bump of the skull found only in the Buddha or a Chakravarti Kings, called the usnisa. These are characteristics not found in any non Buddhist devas or yogis, although some of them are common. According to the Ambatha sutta, Digha Nikaya, these characteristics were well known to the Brahmins of the time of the Buddha and mentioned in their texts too. But, this knowledge seems to have become lost in the Brahmanical systems in later centuries after the Buddha,

because we find in later Hindu texts, that the Buddha is made into an avatar of Visnu and Krishna whose very name means black is also said to have the 32 lakchhyanas. Even the Brahmins of the Buddha's time knew that a Buddha is as rare as the Udumbara flower. A flower said to bloom only when a Buddha attains full enlightenment and that was very rare. A Buddha arises only when the teachings of a Buddha before him has been totally lost. As there can be no two lions in the same forest so there can be no two Buddhas at the same time or two different teachings of two different Buddhas at the same time. So a new Buddha arises only after the sasana (dispensation) of the one before him has totally vanished. Right now the dispensation of Sakya Muni Buddha still exists and is going strong and so no other Buddha can arise. Maitreya Buddha will arise only after the dispensation of Sakya Muni has totally vanished. Taking this metaphor (which should not be stretched too far like all other metaphors) we can say that the Buddha and only the Buddha could possible validate whether or not another person he has taught has experienced the same Bodhi or not. I am sure there can be no two thoughts about this much. This is exactly what the Buddha did when he declared hundreds of his disciples as arhats or srotapannas or sagridagami or bodhisattvas who had attained Darsan marga or higher up the ladder. These new words bring us closer to what the Buddhists call enlightenment but we shall deal with them a little later after having dealt with the "Unbroken enlightened lineage" issue first. So the Buddha historically validated different levels of enlightenment amongst his disciples; and this is recorded in Theravad, Sarvastivad, and Mahayan literature. Now that means these first generation disciples were enlightened to various degrees according to the Buddha himself. So, more than anybody else these disciples would be the authentic authorities on what was the Buddha's Bodhi. Now these disciples authenticated the degrees of enlightenment of their disciples who were the second generation. As these first generations had experienced themselves the Bodhi of the Buddha to various degrees, they would know better than anybody else which of their disciples had reached/attained/experienced various degrees of the Buddha's Bodhi. I do not think there can be two minds about it. Only a scientist can test whether a new student has the knowledge he himself has and definitely not a non scientist. Likewise only Masters of Buddha's unbroken lineage can gauge whether the practitioners of the next generation have attained the Buddha's Bodhi to some degree or not and not other non Buddhists. For this validation to remain authentic and pure, the lineage should be unbroken generation to generation from the time of the Buddha through the first generation, second generation, third generation etc etc. till the present

time. Even if in one generation, there was no one who was validated as enlightened, the lineage is broken as far as enlightenment is concerned; even if it continues. That then is an unbroken lineage but not an enlightened unbroken lineage. There are other kinds of lineages like the pandit lineage of scholars, who have transmitted unbroken, the knowledge of the Buddha's teaching from generation to generation up to date. But that is not an unbroken enlightened lineage but and unbroken pandit lineage. The pandit lineage can not validate authentically the experience of someone as valid Buddhist enlightenment or not. It can only infer based on scriptures. In the Buddhism of today, as a whole both the lineages exist unbroken and alive. It is the Masters of these lineages who are the authentic disseminators of the Buddha's teachings and not others no matter how brilliant or profound their explanations of the Buddha's teachings are. Published on 7-13 May 2007 Issue Actually since such lineage Masters of both types of lineage exist in abundance in both the Mahayana and Sravakayana tradition, many of them being holders of both lineages, there's no need for others who do not belong to such authentic lineages to explain or even teach Buddhism based on one's own personal ideas. The Buddha's teaching is still alive and dynamic. It is not a thing of the past history which can be explained according to one's preferences and conditionings. So this is the meaning of unbroken enlightened lineage and unbroken pandit lineage. Within Buddhism, there is also an unbroken Bhikchhu lineage from the time of the Buddha till today. Some Masters hold all the three unbroken lineages. They are enlightened Masters authenticated by their Masters who themselves were authenticated by their Masters thus going backwards to the Buddha himself, but at the same time are also pandits, taught by pandits of an unbroken lineage who were themselves taught by such pandits going back to Sakya Muni himself and they were also Bhikchhus, made by Bhikchhus by older generations, who themselves were made by Bhikchhus by older generations going back right upto Sakya Muni himself. These are not unrecorded facts; but well recorded. In Mahayana, which consists of two Major streams :- 1. Paramitayana 2. Vajrayana, the names of the unbroken lineage Masters from Masters of present day back to Nalanda, Bikramashila etc etc are well recorded and available even today. And everybody knows that these great Mahavihars were like huge universities whose lineage goes back to the Buddha. People from as far away as China, Korea, Central Asia, Greece, Egypt came to study in these learning houses which were virtually Mahaviharas (Great monastic complexes). And those Mahayana lineages of those Mahavihars were unbroken and continue to remain alive and vibrant up till this day. The meaning of the sutras

and sastras of Buddhism should be according to the Masters of such lineages and not otherwise. There have been many interpreters of the Buddha's teachings in the Indian subcontinent who never studied under any of the authentic lineage masters. Needless to say people are free to interpret as they deem fit the teachings of the Buddha but such interpretations should not be mistaken as authentic Buddhism. Published on 14-20 May 2007 Issue While dealing with various interpretation or more aptly misinterpretation of Buddhism made by non-buddhist yogis and the like it seems apt to point out some of the more common ones before continuing with the lineage issue. One of the oft repeated concept is that the Buddha actually taught, the same thing as the Vedanta of the Vedic system but his disciples did not understand him. Now a lot of nonbuddhists believe with ease such blatant fallacies. First of all, as we have seen, the Buddha himself validated the scholastic and experiential understanding of all his immediate disciples and their lineages still exist unbroken. So to say that the Buddha's disciples who walked the breadth of North India with him and studied with him for forty years or more and were validated by the Buddha himself, that they fully understood what he taught, did not understand him while non-buddhist swamis and yogis really understood him and that too after two thousand five hundred years afterwards is indeed a bit far fetched to say the least. No rational person could possibly agree with such flagrant distortion of reality. A corollary to the above misconception is that the Buddha actually taught what was in the Vedas but his disciples either did not understand his teaching or distorted them. An aspect of the above mentioned misconception has already been shown as totally absurd. But there is another aspect which needs to be dealt with. As the Buddha's immediate disciples had experienced in their own mental continuum what the Buddha meant, there could not possibly have been any distortion. And as the living enlightened lineages continue to date, which means that each generation experienced in their mental continuum, the exact meaning of the Buddha's teachings, to claim that the Buddhists distorted the Buddha's teachings and that's why it has become so different from the Vedic teachings, is the height of naivety. And this brings us to another similar misconception about Buddhism. Most Hindu scholars, or otherwise, would like to believe that the Buddhism is a branch of Hinduism. This misunderstanding is rampant amongst educated Hindus and is a correlate of the story fabricated in the 16th century and later in the Shiva Purana

and its likes, that the Buddha was an incarnation of Visnu. First of all Hinduism as it is known today did not exist at the time of the Buddha, so there can be no question about Buddhism being a branch of Hinduism. In fact, according to historical records and anthropological studies, what we call Hinduism is 75% derived from Buddhism and is the offspring of the impact of Buddhism on the Brahmanic system. What existed in the Buddha's time was a form of Brahmanism, that was quite different from what is known as Hinduism today. From ancient times there were two streams of spiritual quest in the Indian sub-continent. One was Sramanism and the other was Vedic Brahmanism. These two streams did interact with each other as is seen clearly in the Upanishads of the Brahmanic systems and the sutras of the Buddhists and Jains who were both members of the sramanic system. It should be kept in mind that both the Buddha and Mahavir called themselves Mahasramans, which is a clear indication that they did not subscribe to the Brahmanic systems. In one of the most famous mantras of Buddhism 'ye dharma hetu prabaha hetustathagato hyevadat tesancha yo nirodho evam badi mahasramana, Aswajit, the famous Brahmin disciple of the Buddha called the Buddha Mahasramana. Sramanism was probably older than the Vedic Brahmanism, that, according to many historians came into India when the IndoAryans transmigrated into the Indian sub-continent, from Central Asia. But there are many who do not agree to this view. However, Sramanism is definitely an indigenous spiritual tradition of the Indian subcontinent, and there is no two thoughts about this. We see the transactions between the Sramans and Brahmins in the Brihadaranyak Upanishad 3.6.1 where we find Gargi (who is often vaunted as the daughter of Nepal) challenging the Brahmin Yagyavalkya. We know that Gargi was a Sraman by the fact that she stuck a twig of the rose-apple (Jambu tree) as a sign of challenge. And also the style of questioning of Gargi is a shade different from the questions put forth by the many other Brahmins in that same text. The Brihadaranyak is thought to be at least 2-3 hundred years older than the Buddha if not older. So Sramanism was an equally old (if not older) stream of spiritual system as Brahmanism and the Buddha has clearly called himself Mahasraman. This would clearly imply that Buddhism is definitely not an off-shoot of Brahmanism, what to speak of Hinduism which is a product of Brahmanism's interaction with Buddhism and thus something that developed in the Indian subcontinent after the Buddha. We could give scholastic quotes to validate this but it's not necessary in an article like this. Vedic Brahmanism metamorphosed drastically due to the catalytic influence of Buddhism and others and became the multifarious system under the generic name of Hinduism.

Published on 21-27 May 2007 Issue But of course, we cannot say that Buddhism was not influenced by Vedic Brahmanism and later Hinduism at all. That would be too nave. However, in the give and take which is inevitable in any culture within a space of time (and Buddhism covered 75% of India and 75% Asia for sixteen or so hundred years), it was Hinduism which took mostly from Buddhism and not the other way around. Another interrelated myth is that it was Sankaracharya who defeated the Buddhists all over India and that is how Buddhism vanished from India or as the former President of India Dr. Radhakrishnan Sarvapulli put it, Hinduism embraced Buddhism and in the process killed it. Again these are myths running wild amongst Hindus of the Indian sub-continent; but they do not have any historical validity. This notion is given further credence to Nepalese, including Buddhist Newars by the Newari legend that Sankaracharya came to Nepal and defeated all the Buddhists, converted the kings and beheaded the Bhikchhus. First of all the Adi Sankaracharya was around the 7th century and great Mahavihars like Nalanda and Bikramashila were still running strong till the 12th /13th century when the Muslims over ran India and destroyed them. Secondly there were still Mahasiddhas like Naropa, Tilopa and many others till the Muslim invasion. So, Buddhism was still running strong five century after Adi Sankaracharya. And furthermore, the stories of Sankaracharya as written by Ananda Giri and Madhava etc. do not contain any element which mentions that he debated with the Buddhists all over India and defeated them. In fact those stories show Sankaracharya debating mostly with other non-advaita Hindus and rarely with the Buddhist. So, the misconception that Sankaracharya went up and down India defeating all the Buddhists and this is how Buddhism vanished from India seems to be baseless and fabricated by uneducated Non-Buddhists. Thirdly, the Sankaracharya that came to Nepal seems to be of the 11th-12th century or later and not the Adi Sankaracharya. He seems to have entered Nepal when Buddhism was beginning to decline in Nepal as a result of its having declined in India due to the Islamic invasion which literally destroyed Buddhism in India. So he did not find any match for his debates and was able to convert many people in Kathmandu. He may possibly be the same Harinanda who was defeated by the Great Tibetan Guru Sakya Pandit. However this is not conclusive. But the stories do say he died in Tibet. However he did not die before he created havoc amongst the Buddhists of Kathmandu Valley, who still do not seem to have recovered from the shock. Big learning houses like Nalanda, Bikramashila etc were raised to the ground and the monks beheaded and the books in the libraries burnt to cinders by the Islamic invaders like Bakhtiar, Khilji etc. It

is said in the diary of Khilji's general that, the books of the library of Nalanda took six months for the cinders to settle down and nine months for the smoke to settle down. So much destruction took place all over the Indian subcontinent. It said one of the reasons why the Buddhist monasteries were specially picked out by the Islamic invaders is that they mistook the monks in uniform monk dress as uniformed army men and the books in the library as books on warfare et al. This happened in the 12th/13th century, almost 5 centuries after Sankaracharya. Till then Buddhism was still flourishing strong in the Indian subcontinent. Published on 28 May - June 3 2007 Issue Yes the Adi Sankaracharya refuted the Buddhist tenets in his commentaries of the Upanishads and Brahma Sutra; but the Buddhists have also equally refuted the concepts of Sankara. Debate and refutation was both ways till the Islamic Invasion. It was only after Buddhism was literally raised to the ground by the Islamic Invaders that present day Hinduism, which is a metamorphosed form of Vedic Hinduism, began to raise its head. Till then 75% of Indian subcontinent and 75% Asia was Buddhist. From the time of the Buddha and specially from the 1st/2nd century till the 11th/12th century, when the Vajrayana form of Buddhism was in sway, Buddhist art, philosophy and logic developed to its fullest potential. It can certainly be said that, that was the golden period of Indian culture as a whole and Indian Buddhism specifically. This was also the period when, as a result of interaction with Buddhism, Hinduism also developed to its cream. It should be remembered that Sankaracharya who is considered as the cream of Hinduism by an overwhelming majority of the Hindus, was a product of the 6/7th century and many ancient Hindus like Bhaskaracharya etc even called him pracchanna Bauddha (crypto Buddhist). Why did these Hindu pillars call Sankaracharya a crypto-Buddhist? This is not because he, his philosophy or tenets were like the Buddhists'. No, far from it, he has attempted to refute the Buddhist tenets. It is because he has used the Buddhist logical modus operandii to refute all his opponents which included the Hindus, Buddhists and Jains. This clearly shows how even Sankara was influenced by Buddhism. The great Buddhist Nyaiyayik (logician) Dharmakirti literally changed the logical system of the Indian subcontinent with his Buddhist logical tenets. Another big confusion is that the Buddhist Tantra was a result of the influence of Hindu Tantra on Buddhism. But the famous Indian Iconographist Benoytosh Bhattacharya has amply proven that it is the other way around. Hindu Tantra developed after Buddhist Tantra (Vajrayana) reached its acme in the Indian

subcontinent. One of the oldest Hindu Tantric literature the Pichu Tantra also called the Rudrayamala and the Brahmayamala very clearly states that Vasistha went to Mahachina (Tibet) to study the tantric methods with Shiva-rupi Buddha. Now till the 12th century, Tibetans came down to the hot plains of India to study the tenets of Vajrayana in the great learning houses like Nalanda/Bikramashila etc. Now this means this oldest Hindu Tantra was written after the 12th century and not before that. It was written after Vajrayana vanished from India after the Islamic Invasion. Although Hindu Tantra developed as a result of the influence of Vajrayana on the entire subcontinent, the two are only apparently similar. A deeper probe into both of them exposes a tremendous difference not only of the paradigms on which each is based but also on the principles on which each is based, the path followed by each and the final goal of each. The entire Hindu Tantric systems are themselves diverse; some based on Shakti, others on Shiva and some on Visnu. The objective of most of them is to unite with the deity and finally attain Brahma, Parasamvit or Sambhava states. Excepting the dualistic tantras, they are all varieties of advaita Vedanta where other names substitute the Brahma of the Vedanta. Most of them are geared towards the realization of the Eternal unchanging self called the Atma in the entire Hinduistic system. Now the whole of Buddhist Tantra is geared to the realization of emptiness (sunyata) which is a subtle form of Anatma. Published on 4-10 June 2007 Issue Hinduistic Tantra is based on the experience of an eternally existing, unchanging entity called the true Self or true Atman, whereas the entire Buddhist Tantra is based on the experience that from the very beginning there is no eternally existing, unchanging Self. Both experience is a non-dual experience. In the Hindu system one merges non-dually with the eternal, unchanging Self and that is the non-dual experience. In Buddhist Tantra one sees through that there is no eternal, unchanging Self as opposed to the changing world. So there is no two, i.e. advaya. Many scholars have been confused by similar words like advaita/advaya and many others used in both the systems and believe that they are two versions of the same thing. Nothing could be further away from the truth. There are also many differences in the path; but that would require detailed technical nitty gritties which is not the purpose of this article. So we shall stop here about these points. All forms of Mahayana Buddhism within which Vajrayana lies, uses Sanskrit as its lingua franca. Since Hinduism and Hindu Tantra also uses Sanskrit, and because Buddhism and Hinduism developed first and foremost within the cultural milieu of

the Indian subcontinent, it is not surprising that similar words are used in both system. For example, words like mantra, dhyana, Samadhi are common to both but do not necessarily mean exactly the same thing and one must not be fooled by the use of such common words to conclude that Buddhism and Hinduism are the same. One famous Nepalese Brahmin scholar saw that the word Bhairava is used in the mantra of Bignantak and used that as a proof that the Buddhist worship Bhairava and thus they are the same. In the Buddhist context the word only means wrathful and not any particular deity as is the case in Hinduism. The two tantric systems of the Indian subcontinent are as different from each other as Theravada is from Vaisnavism. Only the name Tantra is the same but even the exact definition of tantra in each of the system is drastically different. So these are some of the myths about Buddhism rampant amongst non-buddhists of Nepal which needed to be exploded. These rampant confusions exist amongst the non buddhists of the Indian subcontinent because, it has been over nine centuries since Buddhism was erased from the memory of the Indian subcontinent. It is common place for absurd rumors to spread like wild fire in the absence of authentic information. The people of the Indian subcontinent came to believe that Buddhism had died out completely and did not exist at all; so each was free to interpret it according to one's own predilictions. But in reality Buddhism continued to survive in full fledge in other lands where it was taken by the inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent themselves. Buddhism is still alive and dynamic in Central Asia, Mongolia, Tibet, China, Korea, Japan, Bhutan, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Burma, Sri Lanka, the Cis Himalayan regions of Nepal and India, and in the Kathmandu Valley. But remarkably enough blinded by their own cultural preconceptions, biases and prejudices even the non buddhists of the Kathmandu Valley who could not but rub shoulders with it constantly, were completely oblivious about its reality and continued to subscribe to the rumors made up by their Indian Gurus. This is indeed one of the world's best epitome of how blind spots control the human mind, that in Nepal where Buddhism never died, the non buddhist populace virtually know nil about authentic Buddhism. Published on 11-17 June 2007 Issue Now lets go back to the unbroken enlightened lineages. Within Buddhism from very ancient times, and in fact according to the Buddhist notion, even in the times of former Buddhas there were three distinct highways. They are called :-1. The

Sravakyana 2. The Pratyek buddhayana 3. The Bodhisatvayana also sometimes called the Samyak sambodhiyana. The goals, that is the enlightened state of each of them, though similar are not exactly the same. Thus the enlightenment of the Sravakyana is called Sravak Bodhi which is the enlightenment of the Arhat, and this is not according to Buddhism itself the same as the Pratyek bodhi which is the enlightenment of a pratyek Buddha and both of the above are not exactly the same as the Samyagsambodhi of a Samyak sambuddha. Now here within the Buddhist tradition itself we find three different enlightenments and this is something we have found that most non-buddhist teachers were totally unaware of. Here we shall take issue with all those who believe or claim that the enlightenment taught by the Buddha is the same enlightenment as taught by other non-Buddhist Masters including those who claim to be Buddhists or teach Buddhism but do not stem from any authentic Buddhist lineages. If Buddhism itself says there are 3 different enlightenments which may be similar but not exactly the same, how can others claim that non-buddhist enlightenment and the enlightenment of the Buddha are the same? It is not even clear which of the three Bodhis they are talking about when they claim that their enlightenment is the same as the enlightenment of the Buddha. Not only that much, according to the Theravadin sutta, Samyukta Nikaya (which is a form of Sravakayan) the two agrasravakas (foremost disciples of the Buddha, Maudgalyayana and Sariputra) had penetrated Dhammadhatu (in Sanskrit Dharmadhatu) which even the other Arhats had not penetrated. So to claim that whatever other non-buddhist Masters call enlightenment (Bodhi) is the same enlightenment as the Buddha and his disciples is to display gross ignorance about what Buddhism is all about. The goal of Sravakyana is Sravak bodhi which is the same as to say to become an Arhat. An Arhat is someone whose kleshas (emotional defilements) have become totally extinguished. Unless a person has became totally free from all klesha to claim that she/he is an Arhat is like a fox claiming that she/he is a lion. There are two different types of Arhats, those who become Arhats through samatha and vipassana practice and those who become Arhats through what is called Sukkha Vipassana/Vipassyana which means practicing Vipassana after attaining only the first dhyana. The former have pratiharya (miraculous powers) whilst the latter usually have less of it. Now these Arhats are neither Buddhas nor is their Bodhi (enlightenment) considered as Samyak Sambodhi, i.e. the enlightenment of the Buddha, what to speak of the enlightenment of nonbuddhist systems. Likewise there is the enlightenment of the Pratyek-Buddhas called Pratyek bodhi which is neither the same as the Arhats' nor that of a Buddha. Published on 18-24 June 2007 Issue

Pratyekbuddhas arise only in the gaps between the teachings of two Buddhas. They do not appear at other times. For example, when the dispensation of Sakya Muni has become completely extinct, there will be a gap between the extinction and the coming of Maitreya Buddha. It is during this period that Pratyek Buddhas will arise. They are those who have already practiced in many lives with other Buddhas and they will practice based on their memories of the teachings of the Buddhas under whom they practiced before, when the Buddhas teaching have become completely extinct. It is said that at the moment when they attain Pratyek bodhi, no matter what their get-up was they will miraculously be transformed into full fledged Bhikchhus along with the Bhikcchu dress. These Pratyek Buddhas do not teach like Arhats or Buddhas. They are loners or live in groups of Pratyek Buddhas and only answer questions asked but do not formally teach. Needless to say, there are no Pratyek Buddhas now at this period when the dispensation of Sakyamuni is still alive. Nor has anyone heard any particular person miraculously turning into a Bhikchhu with all its regalia at the point of his enlightenment. And this is correct, because Pratyek Buddhas will not arise until Shakyamuni's sasan (dispensation) has completely died out. Now let us talk about Samyak Sambodhi which is the enlightenment of a Buddha. First of all a bodhisattva (i.e. a being destined to be a Buddha in the future) begins his career by making the resolve in front of a living Buddha, that he too has determined to become a Buddha like himself to be able to free immeasurable sentient beings from sorrow. Then his career begins. The career or path of the Bodhisattva is practicing the six paramitas (sometimes also called the ten paramitas). These six paramitas are practiced from three to four asankhya kalpas during which period the Bodhisattva crosses through the five paths called the pancha marga. Various lineages like Theravada, Mahasangikas, Sarvastivadins have different categorizations in order to explain the path of the Bodhisattvas; but they are not really different in essence. Here, however, we shall use the explanation of Mahayana-Vajrayana which is similar to that of the Sarvastivadins. It is only these who make the resolve to become a Buddha in front of a living Buddha and practice the six or ten paramitas for 3 to 4 Asankhya Kalpas, who become a Buddha as a culmination of their path and not others. No other person, no matter how intelligent and how great a meditator can and should be called a Buddha. To become a Buddha one must cross the pancha marga (the five paths) and these may take a longer or shorter time but there are no short cuts to Buddhahood as some have misconceived. Perhaps an explanation of the pancha marga (five paths) will clarify the above statement; but let us finish with the unbroken enlightened lineage issue first.

Published on 25 June - July 1 Issue Thus there are three distinct 'yanas' i.e. vehicles of which there are no unbroken lineages of the Pratyek Buddhas. The remaining two, the Sravakayana and the Bodhisattvayana were both taught by the Shakyamuni and their unbroken lineages continue till today. The teachings and lineages related to Sravak Bodhi continued to grow after the Parinirvana of the Shasta, and in later centuries developed into 18 distinct lineages called Nikayas. Some scholars say that they developed into 24 lineages. These were the Sravakayana lineages whose methods produced Arhats. Arhathood was the final stage of these lineages and not everybody was called an Arhat the moment he experienced some extraordinary state of mind. In fact, people go through four stages of enlightenment in which they become progressively free from Klesha until they become completely free of all klesha (emotional defilements). It is only those who have become completely free of all klesha, whose klesha have been completely destroyed, that are called Arhats, what to speak of Buddhas. In the Sravakayana it is the progressive experience of nirvandhatu (Pali: nibbandhatu) that is called enlightenment. And the first glimpse of nibbandhatu cuts off three major klesha and is called srotappatti. It means he has entered the stream (srota) which will carry him towards Arhathood. And he has become enlightened but not fully enlightened. There are two more stages of enlightenment before he becomes a fully enlightened Arhat. Many non-buddhist systems in the bazaar call the experience of thoughtless awareness, as enlightenment and some go even further and call people who experience such thoughtless pure awareness by itself as Buddhas. Needless to say, that is not even what the srotappanna experiences what to speak of an Arhat or even further a Buddha? There seems to be a lot of confusion about this point in the spiritual market especially in Nepal. So let's make this point clear once and for all. No form of Buddhism, Sravakayana or Bodhisattvayana claims that the experience of pure awareness by itself / Pure thoughtless Awareness / Watcher as the enlightened state. So people who experience only such states are not ever considered as enlightened let alone Arhats or Buddhas. Experiencing such states is relatively easy and quick. That does not make methods which produce such mind-states or awareness as the quick, short path. The path to Arhathood or Buddhahood is a slow and gradual path. The Buddha himself has said that extinguishing the klesha (emotional defilement) is a slow and gradual process and therefore becoming an Arhat or Buddha is a slow and gradual process. People who experience only the pure awareness by itself do not become permanently free of any klesha even after experiencing such a state which I have said is relatively easy to experience for anybody who has a mind. So let me recapitulate once again, just experiencing a thoughtless pure awareness by itself is not any kind of enlightened state nor is the

ability to remain in that state an enlightened state. We shall speak in more detail about this point when we talk about the Buddhist enlightenment. Published on 2-8 July Issue Of the eighteen to twenty four Sravakayana lineages, only the Theravada (which developed out of the Vibhajyyavadin which itself developed out of the Sthabirvadins) remains today. However, it is still alive, dynamic and going strong. It has many lineages and there are still enlightened masters in Laos, Burma, Thailand and Sri Lanka. And these masters are both householders (upasakas / upasikas) and monks and nuns (Bhikchhus / Bhikchhunis). However, the Bhikchhuni lineage of the Theravada tradition has been broken. But China still have an unbroken Bhikchhuni sanga of the Mahasangika Nikayas. For anybody to become even a srotappanna, what to speak of an Arhat, one must study and practice under such lineage masters and be confirmed by such a Master. This is how the Buddhist system works from the time of the Shasta (Master) himself. It was the Buddha himself who declared and thus stamped the authenticity of the Srotappanna, Sakridagami, Anagami and Arhats of his time. In fact, there is a story that some Bhikchhus who had reached the very high state of Anagami (those who will not return to human forms) claimed that they had reached Arhathood; but when the Buddha was told about this, he called them and told them they had not become Arhats yet. This story implies that only Arhats and Buddhas can know whether a person has become an Arhat or not and that the individual himself cannot possibly know it and can easily be fooled. This is the raison d'etre for an unbroken enlightened lineage. All forms of Buddhism and specially lineages of the Mahayana place great importance and value to the purity of such an authentic unbroken enlightened lineage. No yogi / yoginis or practitioner is accepted as a Genuine Master (Guru) no matter how intelligent he may be, no matter how hard he may have practiced, no matter how many years he has spent in retreat, no matter how scholarly he is, no matter how much of an orator he may be, until and unless he is authenticated by a master or masters of such authentic unbroken enlightened lineages. This is the Buddhist culture in all Buddhist countries where the unbroken enlightened lineages have not died out. This issue is crucial not only to understand what is genuine, authentic Buddhism but also for the existence of authentic Buddhism itself. So, forget about non-buddhists who have never practiced any form of genuine Buddhist practices of either the Sravakayana or the Bodhisattvayana even by reading genuine, authentic books of Buddhism; even those who have studied and practiced for long periods

under authentic masters do not dare pretend to be Masters until and unless, older Masters authenticate them as Masters. Published on 9 -15 July 2007 Issue A very good example is that of the famous scholar of Zen Buddism Professor Dr. D. T. Suzuki. He was a good practitioner of Zen Buddhism, and had attained a very high level. He wrote many books on Zen Buddhism which was crucial in popularizing Zen Buddhism in the west. When he died not a few masters said that he was already enlightened. But because he had never sat for the dharma battles (The Zen system of interview) with any of the older Masters, he never received the title of Roshi / Zenji / Osho etc. which are the authentication of his enlightenment from any of the Masters; he himself never called himself an Osho or Zenji or Roshi which are all Japanese words. Zenji means Zen Master, Roshi means old venerable Master which is given to a disciple whether he be a lay person or a monk, when he completes the training and the Master is satisfied that he has attained the final Satori (enlightenment). This entitles him to teach. In the Rinzai school of Zen the person has to complete the course by answering a series of three or four hundred koans. Koans are questions which point directly to the nature of mind and dharma and the student has to show that he has experienced directly what is being pointed out by the question. In essence they are not questions but fingers pointing to the dharmata of all dharmas (phenomena). We shall talk more about this later when we describe the Zen lineages. For now, no one is entitled to call himself Roshi unless he has completed this course and been validated by his own Master and at least 3-4 other masters. The word Osho is also a Japanese word which is given to a Master who is a monk. It is made up of two Chinese ideographs which is pronounced as Hwa Shang in Chinese, and in Japanese the pronunciation varies with the particular lineage. The Zen and Pureland Schools pronounce those two ideographs as Osho, while the Tendai school pronounces those same ideographs as Kasho and in the Shingon School (Japanese Vajrayana) it is pronounced as Wajo; and they originate from the Sanskrit Upadhyaya (Pali Upajjaya) which means 'Master' in the sense of teacher. A layman cannot be an Osho / Upadhyaya. The meaning of Osho does not mean to be one with or disappear in the ocean or one who has attained Bhagvatta upon whom the sky showers flowers or Ocean of wisdom as some non-buddhists with very little knowledge of Buddhism have posited; but means the teacher who is an old monk specially. Now going back to the example of Professor Dr. Suzuki, even though he was already enlightened, according to many Zen Masters, since he was never authenticated by any of the older Masters, he never called himself an Osho / Zenji / Roshi or Zen Master. Even though he wrote many books on Zen; he

never took on students to guide them on the path. This is the spirit of genuine Buddhism. It is a true display of the authentic experience of anatma (Japanese Muga). And this is a genuine Buddhist culture, a culture based on modesty (Hri apatrapya) and no-self (anatma). Published on 16-22 July Issue Another example from the Sravakayana tradition (Theravada) is of Achan Jha (Acharya Jha) of the Thai Laos Mountain. He was renowned to be an Arhat but when a journalist approached him and asked him the question, he said "How can I be an Arhat?" This answer has a double entendre. One, he just clearly denied it and second he was also teaching the journalist that as long as there is an 'I' , there is no Arhat, when there is 'no I' (anatma) there is no one to be an Arhat. This beautiful answer hits the heart of the entire Buddhist tradition. Now let us go back to the lineage issues. Within Buddhism there always have been two major lineages 1. The Sravakayana lineages and 2. The Bodhisattvayana lineages. Let us first talk about the Sravakayana lineages. From the time of Shakyamuni the Sravakayana lineages grew, expanded and branched out into 18 to 24 Nikayas. Each Nikaya had its tripitaka written in its own language. For example, the Shaila and Purva shaila Nikayas had their tripitakas in the Paisachi language, the Sarvastivadins had their tripitaka in the Sanskrit language and the Theravadins had their tripitaka in the Pali language. The Buddha himself is said to have discouraged his teachings being formalized in any one language. When a group of Brahmin disciples suggested to him to record all his teachings in the 'Chanda' (Vedic Sanskrit) he discouraged that and unequivocally reiterated that his teachings should be made accessible in all languages. That is why the tripitakas developed in so many languages. Of the 24 or so nikayas today only the Theravada is alive while the tripitakas of the Sarvastivadas exist in the Chinese language. While the Theravadin tripitaka remained in the Pali language which was a language developed out of the Saurseni family of Indian language for the express purpose of maintaining high philosophical standards, the Sanskrit pitaka of the Sarvastivadins and the Prakrit pitaka of the Mahasanghikas were further translated into Tibetan, Chinese, Khotanese, Mongolian etc etc following the injunctions of the Buddha himself. The Mahayan Pitaka also was in Sanskrit and later in accordance with the inner intention of the Buddha, translated into Tibetan, Chinese, Khotanese, Mongolian, Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese and various Central Asian languages. So of all the various Sravakayana lineages, only the Theravada is alive today and still going strong. The Theravada Nikaya spread to

Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Southern Vietnam. This system began when in the 3rd century King Asoka's son Bhikkhu Mahinda (Mahendra) took the Pitaka prevalent in Ujjain in the Pali language from Ujjain to Sri Lanka. Since then the lineage spread to Burma and Thailand. Although Burma was already Buddhist, the Sri Lankan Theravada reformed and gave it an impetus. The Bhikkhu lineages and the Samatha and Vipassana lineages of the Theravada School are still running strong and unbroken in these countries. Because a form of Sukkha Vipassana from Burma arrived in Nepal through the Venerable Sri Goenka, many Nepalese, including those who should know better, are a not a little confused about the Vipassana meditation. Published on 23-29 July Issue Most Nepalese who have heard of the word Vipassana and perhaps have attended the Vipassana Shibirs (retreats) of The Venerable Sri Goenkaji in Budhanilkantha are of the impression that that is the one and only way that the Buddha taught (Ekayano Maggo). This notion is completely baseless. First of all there are many lineages of Vipassana existing even today in Burma itself whose methods are very different from the style of Vipassana taught by the Venerable Sri Goenkaji. It is certainly not the one and only true method that the Buddha taught. Two other methods of Vipassana taught in Burma is the lineage of Mahashi Sayadaw which is being taught in Sankhamula even today; and the lineage of Sun Lun Sayadaw. There are many other lineages existing in Burma which are all different from each other; but are all pure Vipassana methods. Then there are many other different lineages still existing, still going strong and still producing enlightened Masters in the Laos Mountains, Thailand and Sri Lanka. They are all true teachings of the Buddha. Perhaps we need to explain a few points here. All these methods are based on the teachings of the Buddha like the smrityupasthan Sutra (Pali: Satipathan Sutta). Let us take the Satipathan Sutta. In it the Buddha simply says look at the body (kaya), look at the feeling sensations (vedana), look at the mind (chitta) and look at the mental factors (chaitta / chaitasik or dharma) with smriti samprajanya (sati sampajana) which means with mindfulness or mindful comprehension. Now let us look at one of them. The Buddha say look at the Vedana, when it arises and when it ceases and know that it has arisen (udaya) and it has ceased (vyaya). Now if you understand this, we can easily see that many methods could be used to see the arising and ceasing of Vedana and not just one way. For example, you could scan the body from top of the head to the tip of the toes and back again to the head to observe the Vedanas there and that is a correct

way but definitely not the one and only way. In the Therigatha, a Theravadin text and part of the Theravada tripitaka, an old woman attained Arhathood by simply going around and around the wall of the nunnery feeling the sensations on the hands as she used her hands to support herself on the wall. She did not look at her vedanas from the top of the head to the toes etc. The methods of Mahashi Sayadaw is to look at the sensations in the stomach region as one breaths. It is looking at vedana that arises and ceases in the stomach / belly area as one breathes; and the Shasta (Master) taught to look at the Vedana. So it is equally a valid method of Vipassana. The method of Sun Lun Sayadaw is to breathe heavily until strong sensations are produced all around the body and to look at it just as the Shasta (Master) prescribed. It is an equally valid method of Vipassana. But those are just two from Burma itself which have not yet made an impact in Nepalese Circle. Published on 30 July - 5 August 2007 Issue We Nepalese tend to be like frogs in a well and believe whatever is within my well in the one and only truth, full stop! This is a dangerous attitude as far as Buddhism is concerned. The Shasta himself said to Chanki in the Majjhima Nikaya that learned people should never say "This is the only truth" and close their mind to all other possibilities. Then there are many powerful Vipassana systems in Laos, Thailand, and Sri Lanka which are pure Theravada systems based on the Theravada pitaka and coming through long unbroken lineages. In fact, according to Nyan Ponika Thera, a German Theravadin Bhikkhu, the Burmese Sukkha Vipassana lineages all began from Jetavan Sayadaw about a hundred and fifty years ago. If this is true, none of the Burmese lineages are unbroken lineages. But whether they are unbroken lineages or not they are based firmly on the unalloyed interpretation of the Buddha's teachings and are not mixed with other non-buddhist views however the Pandit lineages and the Bhikkhu lineages of Burma are unbroken. But if these Burmese Sukkha Vipassana are not unbroken lineages (as pointed out by Theravada scholars themselves), then many fine points will be missing. The marga is not matter of just looking at vedana or chitta etc only. There are many aspects of the marga which is handed down in an unbroken enlightened lineage like the nitty gritties of when to push, when to relax, when to recognize that the winds are being disturbed by meditation, what are the medicines for the wind disturbances, what are the landmarks on the path and how to use them, the development of sraddha which is equally as important to become an Arhat or Bodhisattva etc etc. There are thousands of such things which will be

missing in a broken lineage. The richness of meditation lore, experiential lore handed down through the unbroken enlightened lineages cannot be compensated for by reading books or conducting seminars. The experiential richness of a Master cannot be compensated by any other means. The presence of an authentic Master itself acts like a catalyst for the transformation of the practitioner. There is a story in the Theravadin tradition itself (Anguttara Nikaya) that the Master told one of his attendant not to go to retreat during the three month monsoon period (varsabas); but disobeying him, the attendant nevertheless went for the retreat. After 3 months, he came back and told the Buddha that he had absolutely no experience in those three months of retreat. The Buddha told him, 'I told you not to go.' This episode tells us a few things. 1. The path is not merely sitting down and meditating even if the meditation is correct. 2. Without the backing of a genuine enlightened Master, even if you really sit hard in meditation, nothing authentic is going to happen. 3. This is a good warning for all those who think they can read books and practice on their own and avoid any contact and interaction with another living being who has deeper experience than himself. This avoidance or fear of interaction with another personality is itself a neurosis, which will keep him stuck wherever he is and is a sign of big ego. Published on 6-12 August Issue But from what I have known, the Laos and Sri Lankan and Thai lineages are unbroken. Even Sri Lankan Theravadin scholars have objected that the Burmese Sukkha Vipassana is the true teachings of the Buddha. But in spite of these Theravadin scholars' objections the Burmese Kalyanmitras spread their system throughout the world. These are facts most Nepalese, including those who are supposed to be experts in Vipassana, are blissfully unaware of. The word Vipassana in the Theravadin scholastic system means to 'see' in a special way 'visesena passati' or to see it holistically from many angles 'vividena passati'. This is the same definition found

within the Mahayana tradition. Various forms of Vipassyana (the Sanskrit version of the Pali Vipassana) exist in the Mahayana tradition too and are equally pure teachings of the Buddha. But we are jumping ahead and we shall deal with this matter when we come to the bodhisattvayana lineages. Also within the Theravada system, the form of Vipassana which emphasizes looking at the sensations (vedana) is only one kind of Vipassana and it is certainly not more special than other forms of Vipassana which lay emphasis on looking at the body (kayanussati) or mind (chittanussati) or mental factors (dhammanussati). Nor is vedananussati the one that Shasta emphasized as the root practice of all practice. There are no suttas in the Theravada tradition to validate that. In fact, it is stated that in the Visuddhimagga that the exercise of mindfulness of the body had never been practiced before the advent of the Buddha, nor does it come within the scope of any of the other religious systems. It is praised in various ways by the Buddha in different Suttas; for example, "there is one state, monks, which, being developed and repeatedly practiced conduces to great religious emotion, great benefit, great freedom from bondage, great mindfulness and self possession, the attainment of knowledge and insight, the happy state in this visible life, the realization of the fruit of knowledge and release. What is that one state? Mindfulness of the body " Again, "those who do not enjoy mindfulness of body do not enjoy deathlessness (amata); those who enjoy mindfulness of the body enjoy deathlessness. Those who have not enjoyed mindfulness of the body have not enjoyed deathlessness; those who have enjoyed mindfulness of the body have enjoyed deathlessness. Those who have neglected mindfulness of the body have neglected deathlessness; those who have not neglected mindfulness of the body have not neglected deathlessness." (Anguttara Nikaya I 43-45) and Nagarjuna says that kayagatanusmriti is the most important meditation taught by the Shasta. Published on 13-19 August Issue Various Theravadin meditation techniques continue to proliferate in the various Theravadin countries. They maintain strong Samatha Vipassana lineages. These Masters are not only monks, but also are, as the Buddha himself would have it, householders, both female and male. The nun (Bhikchhuni) system has been broken in the Theravadin system but, the Mahasangika Bhikchhuni system still exists unbroken in the Chinese system.

As we said earlier the Theravada is only one of 18 24 Nikayas (lineages) of the Sravakayana system. However, today only the Theravada lives on, the others vanished along with the rest of Buddhism from the Indian subcontinent. By the time of the Muslim invasion 11 12th century, Theravada had already left the Indian subcontinent and had been transplanted in Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia. So, even if all other forms of Buddhism vanished from India, the Theravada Nikaya continued to flourish and proliferate in the South East Asian countries. This was merely a historical fluke. Likewise, various forms of Mahayana and Vajrayana had entered China, Tibet, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Central Asia and the entire Cis Himalayan belt from Kashmir to North Eastern Frontier of Arunachal before the Muslim Invasion and continued to thrive strongly in those countries just as the Theravada Nikaya of the Sravakayana continued to thrive in the countries it had reached before the Muslim Invasion. It is important to understand that we cannot compare the Theravada with the Mahayana because the Theravada is a lineage within Sravakayana and thus only one of the 18 24 Nikayas or lineages of Sravakayana, whereas the Mahayana is not one particular lineage but rather a conglomeration of a vast array of lineages. That is why Theravada is a more uniform and homogenous system as it is one lineage amongst the many lineages of Sravakayana. The Sravakayana is not uniform as there were at least 18 24 different lineages, all Sravakayana. But Mahayana is a counterpart of Sravakayana. Thus Mahayana like Sravakayana has many lineages within it. Because of that it appears to be more heterogeneous and diversified. Thus we cannot compare Mahayana and Theravada. We can compare Zen or Tien Tai and Theravada because they are single more homogenous lineages within the Mahayana and Sravakayana systems respectively. However, within the Theravada system there are many diverse lineages teaching different modes, styles and emphasis on the Samatha Vipassana meditations of Buddhism. And this is rightly so, because in his forty or so years of dispensation, the Buddha certainly did not teach just one method or technique or style. First of all the Buddha taught many types of people and naturally as a skillful doctor he would dispense teachings according to the needs and temperaments and capacities of the person. Famous and learned Brahmin Pandits came to him and he taught them, simple village folks came to him and he taught them, people with sharp intellects, people with great faith in him all came to him. Thus it is most natural that he taught many styles, modes, techniques. If he were to have taught just one straight forward method to all and sundry he would have been very unskillful to say the least. Secondly in the Theravadin suttas themselves, he has given many modes and styles of meditation: Samatha Vipassana. In the

Satipatthan Sutta he gave the methods of watching four different things to attain insight into the characteristics of all phenomena. In the Udayi Sutta, Anuttariya Vaggo of Anguttara Nikaya, he has given other methods of Vipassana like pabbhassar sangya, ratri sangya, diwa sangya etc etc. He has said that people can attain liberation through these methods also which means they are other forms of Vipassana different from Vedananussati and the others mentioned in the Satipatthan Sutta. Published on 20-26 August Issue As for styles, although the Buddha himself never conducted intensive group retreats, he often did tell his disciples to sit under a tree, or an abandoned house and spend their time meditating. But today, intensive group retreats have become common in both Mahayana systems like Zen Tien Tai, Vajrayana and Theravada. However, there are Theravadin Acharyas like Achan Jha of the Laos Forest Mountain tradition of Theravada who decry such intensive retreats as unnatural, not conducive to enlightenment and not taught by the Buddha. He emphasizes a more relaxed and natural, unforced style of gaining insight (Vipassana) into the nature of all dhammas. Before I go into some of the various styles of meditation within Theravada itself I would like to elucidate a little on what the Buddha taught. Even though, as I said, he taught many varieties of teachings according to both the Theravada and the Mahayana traditions, they can all be subsumed into what is called the Tri Shikchhya; often translated as the Three Teachings or Three Trainings. The Tri Shikchhya are 1. Shila 2. Samadhi and 3. Pragya. Shila means living a life according to moral precepts. All Buddhist householders must take the 5 Shilas (Pancha Shila). There is also the taking of eight or ten Shilas during special ceremonies like uposatha (fasting) etc. Then there is the two hundred and fifty three Shilas taken by the Bhikchhus. Shila is taken basically to purify the mind to some extent by not allowing the mind to remain in an emotionally defiled state. The purpose of Shila is to lighten the mind of emotional defilements (klesha) to some extent, and not to suppress the emotional defilements back into the subconscious mind. In Mahayana, the meaning of Shila is to help lighten self oriented behaviours and the like. Shila should develop selfless behaviour. If following a rule is selfish in a context, then following that blindly is no more Shila but Shilabrataparamarsha i.e. grasping to Shila and rites and rituals no matter what the case. While Shila help in liberating

the mind, Shilabrataparamarsha only bind the mind more and more. Shilabrataparamarsha is to cling to ideas that following this ritual or that strictly sticking to precepts and rules will automatically liberate you, while Shila if followed properly can be liberating, if not properly understood and followed blindly can produce neurotic people who tend to be fundamentalists. The purpose of Shila is to open the mind to become more gentle and compassionate not to see other's faults and gloat over it. In modern psychotherapy those who pin point others' faults or lack of Shila by that very act show that they are not free from that defilement but rather have repressed those defilements into their subconscious so well that it is projected onto others. That was not the purpose of the Buddha making these Shilas. If a mind has genuinely followed the Shila in the correct way, it opens up to the suffering and mistakes of others. It empathizes with the difficulties of being a human. Such a mind does not criticize others. But if in the name of Shila, one has only suppressed ones emotional defilements, then one tends to only see others as Shila breakers, one only sees others' faults and think one is pure. And this definitely was not the purpose why the Buddha considered Shila as one of the three Shikchya. Shila called Tsul Trim in the Tibetan tradition means 'cool'. It should cool the mind. Published on 27 August - 2 September Issue A cool mind is relaxed and open to the suffering of humans and aware of ones own human weakness. Such a mind cannot be critical but understanding and helpful. I would like to elucidate a story of Zen Master Bankei. There was one thieving monk in his monastery. This had been brought to his notice many times but besides telling the monk not to steal etc. he did not take any action to punish the thieving monk. This kept on going for quite a while until all the other monks in the monastery became fed up. One day they caught the monk red handed and took him to the Master. But again he did not seem to take any strict action. So all the monks got together and went to the Master and told him in no clear terms that either he kick out that thieving monk from the monastery or all the rest of them were going to leave the monastery. But to their utter surprise, the Master said "Ok if all the rest of you would like to leave you are free to leave." They were all shocked to say the least. After they recovered from the shock, they asked the Master, "How can you possibly drive all of the rest of monks like us who have adhered strictly to the Shila while taking the side of a thieving monk?" Osho Bankei coolly replied "You are all excellent monks who maintained your Bhikchhu Shila very well and can easily maintain them anywhere you go. So you all will be able to survive easily anywhere

you go; but this poor kleptomaniac will not be able to adjust anywhere, so if I don't keep him who will keep him." This is the result of a mind that has opened to the suffering of others due to having maintained his Shila. Osho Bankei was able to empathize with the kleptomaniac monk, just like the Shasta (Master) empathized with Angulimala, who had already murdered nine hundred and ninety nine humans and strung their fingers in a garland. The Buddha's mind did not get heated up (perturbed) when he came to know about Angulimala, no, it remained calm and cool (Shila); but rather he empathized with the human situation of Angulimala. As a result, Angulimala became an Arhat himself. Shila is important because if followed properly it cools the mind. A cool mind is the stepping store to the next Shikchya called Samadhi. A mind beset by klesha (emotional defilements and neurotic tendencies) cannot attain Samadhi. That is why Shila is the corner stone of all of Buddhism. Although all the three Shikchyas (trainings) are emphasized in all forms of Buddhism, it is often said that the Theravada system of South and South East Asia is better known for its special emphasis on Shila, Tibet is better known for its special emphasis on Pragya while China is better known for its special emphasis on Samadhi. Chinese Buddhism has historically been well known for Samadhi till today, Tibetan Buddhism for the development of Pragya in all its three levels (Srutamayi, chintamayi and bhavanamayi) and the Theravadin tradition for laying great emphasis on Shila. This does not, of course, mean that there is no Shila or Samadhi in the Tibetan system or no Pragya and Shila in the Chinese system, no Pragya and Samadhi in the Theravada system. We are talking about the emphasis given to one of the three Shila in terms of the historical direction the system took. In the Sravakayana systems, the emphasis is on the Shila and Theravada being a Sravakayana system; it is natural that the emphasis is on the Shila. Although there are Samatha (Samadhi) and Vipassana (Pragya) practices within the Theravadin system, the emphasis on Vipassana is a new dimension within Theravada which began approximately 150 years ago from Jetavana Sayadaw of Burma. Before that, Vipassana was limited within Theravada to only special Bhikkhus, whereas in Tibet Vipassyana (Tibetan: Lhag Thong) in the form of Mahamudra practices and Dzog chen practices were commonly given even to cow herders. In the Chinese systems and their satellite systems which flourished in Korea, Japan, Vietnam etc. too, Vipassyana was well known in various forms. The Chinese for Vipassyana / Vipassana is 'Kuan' and for Samatha is 'chi'. There seems to be a kind of misconception that Vipassana is taught only in the Theravadin system and that too only in Burma. This is based completely on lack of knowledge. As I said earlier, all the Tri Shikchya are in full form in all forms of Buddhism i.e. in Paramitayana

and Vajrayana of Mahayana. This misconception began in Nepal because a form of Theravadin Vipassana arrived in Nepal in the late seventies and because it was presented in Nepali and Newari it became very popular very quickly; and the acharyas etc. of this particular system went around claiming that only their method is Vipassana and especially Mahayana does not have any Vipassana. But Samatha and Vipassyana of one form or the other have been taught and practiced in Tibet, China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Mongolia, Central Asia and the Cis Himalayan belts for centuries. As I said Samatha Vipassyana is called Shiney Lhagthong in Tibetan and Chi Kuan in Chinese. And all the forms of meditation found within the Tibetan or Chinese Buddhism are one or the other forms of Samatha Vipassyana.

Marshland Flowers Part 2 Published on 3-9 September 2007 Issue Perhaps we need to go more into detail about what Samatha / Vipassyana means to really fully understand how this confusion, mentioned above is not correct. As we said before, Samatha is intimately related to Samadhi and Vipassyana to Pragya. Without following Shila properly the kleshas will not be weakened. Without weakening the kleshas or cooling the mind from the fire of kleshas (emotional defilements), there is no possibility that the mind will attain Samadhi. And without some degree of Samadhi, Pragya just becomes an intellectual game (Buddhi vilash). However without Pragya, Shila can become a source of neurosis, a means of making people self righteous and puritanical. Shila must always be peppered with some Samadhi and some Pragya. Samadhi without Pragya is Mithya Samadhi. Most people of the Indian subcontinent think that once a yogavachara (yogi) attains Samadhi he has reached his goal. This may be true for Non Buddhist systems; but in Buddhism the Shasta (Master) himself has said very clearly that there are many types of Mithya Samadhis [Samadhis which propagate the continuity of ignorance (falsity / avidya)]. So Samadhi without proper Pragya is a trap into which many unwary yogavacharas fall. Now let us go into Samatha Vipassyana. Samatha in Sanskrit means remaining in an equipose / level / quiet place. 'Sama' means equipose / level / quiet / tranquil / equanimous / peaceful etc. and 'tha' would mean both place and abiding / dwelling. It is translated most accurately in Tibetan as Shine. Shi is the exact counterpart of

Sama and ne is the exact counterpart of 'tha'. The word Samadhi also has a similar meaning with 'sama.' This part of the training begins after the wild whirlwind of a mind has cooled down by following Shila to the best of ones ability. Then the mind is slowly but steadily trained to abide (stha) quietely (sama) on an object if it is a focused meditation or to remain objectless remaining aware without focusing on anything if it is a non-focused meditation. Published on 10-16 September 2007 Issue In the Buddhist tradition, there are many kinds of focused meditations. The Sravakayana has forty or so different types of focused meditations on outer and inner objects and the Mahayana has others on top of those forty or so. The forty or so Samatha methods were taken by the Shasta from those prevalent in the Indian subcontinent and were not his own creations. Samatha is the quieting of the mind by focusing it on some object normally. No matter what method is used if that method gradually quietens the mind and concentrates it on an object, whatever it be, that is Samatha meditation. This was common in the time of the Buddha in the Indian subcontinent and it was common before his time and is still common today. The Buddha himself took some of those to help his disciples to attain one-pointed concentration. So Samatha is not specifically special to Buddhism. Even Christian Mystics and Muslim Sufis have various methods to make the mind concentrated, i.e. Samatha meditations. When one crosses a certain level of ability to remain in a concentrated state without effort then that is called Samadhi. In the Buddhist tradition, there are eight levels of Samadhi called dhyanas (meditative stabilizations). There are nine levels of concentration. Through long and dedicated practice the person slowly climbs upon the ladder as his / her capacity to concentrate single pointedly on one object (alambana) increases by dint of effort. At the eighth level, his / her concentration starts becoming easier and effortless. When he reaches the 9th level, the object of meditation takes on a new quality. It generally becomes brighter and seems to come closer to the meditator. This is called Samantaka Samadhi in Mahayana or Upachar Samadhi in the Theravada system (Near attainment Samadhi). Then as s/he goes on practicing with great dedication, the winds in the body (called Prana vayu in Sanskrit and rlung in

Tibetan and Chi in Chinese, Ki in Japanese) begin to move in his body. The winds begin to flow up to his head so that s/he feels like someone is pressing his head lightly with the palms of the hand. During this period bliss called Prasabdhi begins to rise. It can rise to such a degree that his / her breathing can become belaboured. This Prasabdhi reaches a peak point and then begins to subside somewhat like a rushing river subsiding when it arrives at the ocean. Then the mind becomes extremely calm like the calm after a storm and this is the attainment of Mula Samadhi of the 1st dhyana. In the Theravadin tradition, this is called Appana Samadhi. But this is only the first dhyana; higher levels than this is the second dhyana; third dhyana and the fourth dhyana. In some Buddhist systems both Sravakayana and Mahayana, there is also a 5th dhyana but this is not really a higher Samadhi than the fourth dhyana mentioned above but only the style of categorizing it makes the difference. In the fourth dhyana, breathing stops automatically. This breathing can stop in other methods of meditation using the nadi chakras as alambana (channels etc); but even without the use of any breath control and nadi chakra when a person reaches the fourth dhyana his/her breathing stops. It is said that great Gurus like Gampopa (the disciple of Milarepa) took his breath in at sunset and let go of his breath at sunrise. Above the fourth dhyana are what are called formless meditative stabilizations (Arupa dhyana). These are really based on the fourth dhyana and are not really considered higher than the fourth dhyana in the Buddhist tradition. They are called formless dhyana because the objects of meditation (alambana) are formless (arupa). The first of these is Infinite Space dhyana (Akasanantyayatana dhyana). The experience at this stage is of Infinite Space or void, as all forms are dropped. Beyond that, even the space is dropped and experience is of the infinite consciousness (Vigyanantyatana dhyana). This is what many non Buddhist systems call the experience of super-consciousness, where there is only the Infinite all expansive consciousness or pure awareness by itself, that does not seem to change. In the Buddhist system of Samatha, there are two more stages above this 1) Akinchanyatana (Nothing remaining) and above that 2) Naiva sangya naasangya (Neither perception nor non-perception). All these are highly rarefied states of mind; but and a big but at that : in Buddhism, none of these states are considered as the attainment of enlightenment. There is one more Samadhi state called Nirodhasamapatti which is higher than all the above but is accessible only to Arhats and Boddhisattvas from eighth bhumi upwards. This is a crucial point to understand if you want to understand Buddhism.

Although the various Samadhis, including the Samadhi of Pure awareness by itself, is cultivated and used in Buddhism as in all religious systems, in Buddhism they are only used to develop concentration and never accepted as the enlightened state. Published on 17-23 September 2007 Issue Here we are talking about genuine high level Samadhis of Pure awareness by itself where the person remains absorbed in it for six, twelve or twenty four hours without taking a single breath. Even such an experience is not considered as having penetrated the veil of Ignorance, what to speak about watered down, thoughtless states of clear awareness where the person is not even in the first dhyana level. Such experiences of thoughtless awareness by itself without entering into various levels of Samadhis are even further away from the Buddhist enlightenment. Such states can be easily produced and are not considered as either enlightenment or even near to it. In fact, according to all Buddhist traditions especially the Mahayana, such states are considered dangerous and if the correct view is not present can be even detrimental to the process of enlightenment. The great Siddha Pandit of Tibet, Sakya Pandit said cultivation of such Pure awareness without the correct view can cause the person to be reborn either in the formless Deva realm or as a Naga etc. To be reborn in the formless Deva realm (Arupa dhatu Deva Loka) is considered as the worst birth for a Bodhisattva as once born there, s/he cannot help sentient beings from ten thousand to eighty thousand kalpas. In that state, the yogi remains in a highly blissful, and formless state which can easily be mistaken for the Non-dual state from anywhere between ten thousand kalpas to upto eighty thousand kalpas. There are others types of Samatha systems which are conducive to deep Samadhi that take you to the state of super-consciousness, like meditating on the inner sounds called Nada yoga or in the Shanta Parampara of India as Sabad Surati yoga. There are four levels of Samadhi related to nada yoga technically called 1) Vaikhari 2) Madhyama 3) Pasyanti 4) Para. During the process, the person hears various types of sounds like the humming of the bumble bee, the sound of the bell, the sound of the drums, the sound of thunder and the sound of Om (Pranava) and so on. At the Para level, all sounds subside and only the infinite Pure Awareness by itself or super-consciousness remains. Likewise another well-known method is to concentrate on the light/sparks or the like seen in between the eyebrows. This too has various stages similar to different levels of Samadhis etc. until one reaches the infinite light of the mind or Atman as non-buddhists would call it. All of these methods are only varieties of Samatha and, according to Buddhism,

these states are neither enlightenment nor do they produce enlightenment by practicing them for a long time. This statement is true of the famous Kundalini yoga methods too; which also ends in the super-conscious state of Pure Awareness by itself which is infinite. That one can experience such an awareness through various methods of Samatha is well-known to Buddhism and is not alien at all to Buddhist literature. However, Buddhism neither regards such a state as enlightenment or liberation nor regards such states or production of such states over and over again for longer and longer periods as productive of enlightenment. Let me repeat again, that any method that only absorbs the mind on anything belongs to the Samatha type of meditation. And Samatha meditations, no matter how extraordinary or different from other Samatha types, are not enough to attain enlightenment. And in this context, Buddhism is very emphatic that only the types of meditation that probe into the mode of existence of all phenomena (dharmas) to gain insight can cut through the 'Innate Ignorance' (Sahaja Agyan) and thus destroy that Ignorance. And this type of meditation (and there are many techniques here) is called Vipassyana in Sanskrit, Vipassana in Pali, Lhag thong in Tibetan and Kuan in Chinese and Kan in Japanese. It is through various types of Samatha practice that various Pratiharyas (miraculous powers) also called siddhi riddhis develop as a matter of course or if they do not easily develop, can be developed by various specialized mental exercises geared to awaken these potentials in the human mind. In this era of modernism when the physical science was considered the evaluating measuring rod for the validity of anything, Pratiharyas were suspect. And many Buddhists with modernistic leanings even thought that these were interpolated into the Buddhist scripture by overly nave simple village folks. Needless to say this was a result of the so called scientific education spawned out by Modernism. But the beauty of science is that it moves on and does not remain static. From the eighteenth century to the mid twentieth century, science progressed in leaps and bounds to such an unimaginable extent that man thought science alone was the answer to all its question. So the milieu developed in which whatever was scientific was true/real/valid/non superstitious and whatever wasn't scientific was untrue/invalid/superstitious. The progress of Physics and other physical sciences was so mind boggling, that its dazzle blinded all those who were part of the era of Modernism. But there was a flaw in this thinking and not only Buddhist but also many Hindu swamis and yogis also failed to see it. First of all only what can be measured can be studied by Physics and such other

physical sciences. Now there are many things which cannot and will never be measured like love/compassion/beauty, the splendour of the Himalayas etc etc galores. We cannot possibly say that such things are unreal/untrue/superstitious. Secondly the physical sciences are limited by the type of instrument available. That means even those things which could be measurable like the chemical correlates in the brain to love and compassion were out of reach of the sciences in the eighteenth and nineteenth century. Now are we too say that these brain chemicals like dopamine, serotonin, norepinephrine etc all were untrue/unreal/superstitious till the mid twentieth century, then they suddenly became real/true/scientific? Such type of thinking is absurd to say the least. Furthermore, science itself never claims what it cannot measure at the moment as superstitious. It is the half baked ultra-modernist types whose knowledge of science is limited to vague ideas and the enjoyment of consumerist goods produced by science that have these kinds of quaint notions. As early as 1950 Einstein declared that science cannot and will not answer all the questions and problems of mankind. This is true because rational linear thinking on which science is based in only one mode of thinking and knowing available to man. The world view made available through science is only one possible view amongst many other views. And this materialistic reductionist view of science is not only an artificial view extracted out of reality but also it is not more real than any other view. Using the empirical reductionist Positivism (reducing all things to empirically measurable things etc) modus operendii itself, we can question this style of absurd thinking that only what is empirically measureable is true/real/valid/non-superstitious. The million dollar question is, "Is this hypothesis empirically measurable?" Since it is not, by its own logic falls apart. Max Planck, the father of Quantum Physics and a Nobel Laureate of 1918 says in his book "Where science is going?" The fact is that there is a point, one single point in the immeasurable world of mind and matter, where science, and therefore every causal method of research is inapplicable, not only on practical grounds but also on logical grounds and will always remain inapplicable. Wolfgang Pauli, the Nobel Laureate of Physics of 1945 insisted that rationality had to be supplemented with the mystical. In his book 'Across the Frontiers', Pauli's life time friend and colleague and a Nobel Laureate of 1932, Werner Heisenberg as well writes that "Pauli expressly warns that one should never declare theses laid down by rational formulation to be the only possible presupposition of human reason." The central point of Werner Heisenberg in his various books like Physics and

Beyond, Across the Frontiers etc is that Physics can make only statements about strictly limited relations that are only valid within the framework of those limitations. He also says "Science tries to give its concepts an objective meaning. But religious language must avoid this very cleavage of the world into its objective and its subjective sides: for who would dare claim the objective side to be more real than the subjective? Heisenberg warns that spirituality/religious experiences and Science/Mathematical knowledge are two different modes of thinking and should not be confused. He warns "many modern creeds which claim that they are, in fact, not dealing with questions of faith, but are based on scientific knowledge contain inner contradictions and rest on self deception." Heinrick Hertz, in his introduction to the Principles of Mechanics says that "a natural science is one whose proposition on limited domains of nature can have only a correspondingly limited validity; that science is not a philosophy developing a world view of nature as a whole or about the essence of things." Erwin Schroedinger, the Nobel Laureate of Physics in 1933 in his various books like My View of the World, Mind and Matter, Science and Humanism etc etc says "I do not think I am prejudiced against the importance that science has from the purely human point of view. But with all that, I cannot believe that (for example) the deep philosophical enquiry into the relation between subject and object and into the true meaning of the distinction between them depends on the quantitative results of physical and chemical measurements with weighing scales, spectroscopes, microscopes, telescopes, with Geiger-Muller counters, Wilson chambers, Photographic plates, arrangements for measuring the radio-active decay, and what not Further Schroedinger says, "The scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experiences in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight, it knows nothing about beautiful and ugly, good or bad,. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.Whence come I and wither go I? That is the great unfathomable question, the same for every one of us. Science has no answer to it. The well known Nobel Laureate of Physics in 1921, Einstein perhaps the most well

known scientist of the 20th century says in his Ideas and Opinions: Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. Ken Wilber, a distinguished scientist in his own right and a prolific writer says in his Quantum Questions: I should like to stress the following: Modern science, in its beginning, was characterized by a conscious modesty; it made statements about strictly limited relations that are only valid within the framework of these limitations. This modesty was largely lost during the nineteenth century. Physical knowledge was considered to make assertions about nature as a whole. Physics wished to turn philosopher and the demand was voiced from many quarters that all true philosophers must be scientific. (my comment: This was the era named Modernism, and we can see that the influence of Modernism is found in almost all writing on Religion, be it Buddhism or Hinduism or Philosophy; during this period. Many Buddhist scholars of that period like Rahula Sankrityayana, Dr. Ambedkar are stalwarts of Modernistic interpretation of Buddhism. Modernism lasted in the West till about the mid twentieth century when the Cognitive Revolution, threw Modernism overboard and a new era of Post Modernism began in the west. Many writers like Ken Wilber are of the opinion that Post Modernism is also on its death throes in the West and the West is looking for another weltanschauung. But alas Nepal, as usual always behind time to the rest of the world is still in the throttling grasp of Modernism, though a smattering of writers talk about post modernism, the brunt of the Nepalese weltanschauung (world view) is still pretty much coloured by modernism, which was itself blinded by the view that the one and only truth/fact/reality were what was compatible with the empirical, reductionist positivism that believed that only what could be measured by scientific instruments was real.) Now going back to Ken Wilber. Today Physics is undergoing a basic change, the most characteristic trait of which is a return to its original self limitation. (my comment: This is the beginning of Post Modernism which began because of the Cognitive Revolution that took place in the mid twentieth century. When research was done on cognition, new facts came into light which implied that the empirical Positivism is true but not the whole truth says Ken Wilber. What began to be discovered was that, the so called objective observation of the world out there was not free from the observer (mind) and in fact we saw what the observer mind posited out there. The Art psychologist Jerome Bruner and Leo Postman conducted an amusing demonstration experiment of this point. A series of cards were

tachistoscopically presented to observers giving observers only milliseconds of exposure to the display of the cards and increasing exposure to the display of the cards and increasing exposure successively. The display consisted of both normal playing cards and ones in which colour and suit were reversed a red six of club for example. It was found that observers somehow corrected the wrong coloured playing cards and saw what the mind expected rather than what was out there. Thus the world out there is not as objective as Modernism would like to think but depends a lot on the observing mind. Now this opens up a whole new weltanschauung. That is, there are many ways to understand/experience/ interpret/give meaning to the world and that no one particular view/meaning/ interpretation is more true/factual/real than any other. And this is the essence of the Post Modern thinking. A new logic called the Modal Logic came into existence. Jerome Bruner says in his book, Actual Mind Possible Worlds,.. In the new, more powerful modal logic, we ask of a proposition not whether it is true or false, but in what kind of possible world it would be true. Jerome further says.. Both science and the humanities have come to be appreciated as artful figments of men's minds, as creation produced by different uses of mind. The world of Milton's "Paradise Lost" (or Bhanubhakta's Alkapuri) and the world of Newton's Principia exist not only in the minds of men; each has an existence in an 'objective world' of culture what the science Philosopher Karl Popper calls the world three Robert Ornstein and many others brought out the fact the human brain was divided into two halves and each half more or less dealt with two different modes of knowing. (Robert Ornstein: The Metaphoric Mind/The Nature of Human Consciousness) These two modes were named, the Metaphoric Mind and the analytic mind. The left brain is linked with the right side of the body and with logic, analytical thinking, science, mathematics, linear thinking. Linear thinking means thinking in a straight line like 2 2 = 4 etc. But linear thinking is neither the only mode of giving meaning to the world nor is it the most accurate/correct/true mode. The right half of the brain is linked with the entire left half of the body and is also linked with what is called Metaphoric thinking. Metaphoric thinking is linked with Music, Poetics, Art, Love, Compassion, Empathy, Sympathy etc etc. It could also be called the intuitive mode. And religions/spiritual experiences are based on this mode. Insight, which is the most used English translation for Vipassyana, does not depend on analytical linear thinking but rather as Metaphoric thinking.

An experiment was conducted in New York for Kindergarten children when they were asked to tick mark the correct answer to the question:- Birds eat seeds and seeds eat birds; it was amazingly found that the vast majority of the children tick marked seeds eat birds. The experimenter thought that perhaps the children did not understand the question, so the experiment was done again with explanation of the question. But, the result was still the same. After a lot of thinking the professors who conducted the experiment realized what the children had easily realized that it was equally true that seeds ate birds. When the birds die, they do fall on the ground and became compost for the seeds to eat. That birds eat seed is linear thinking which is correct but it is equally true that seeds eat bird but that logic is not linear logic but circular logic. Circular logic is also equally valid and true. A lot of spiritual principles are based on circular logic rather than simple linear logic alone.) Now let us go back to Ken Wilber. 4. The philosophic content of a science is only preserved if science is conscious of its limits. Great discoveries of the properties of individual phenomena are possible only if the nature of the phenomena is not generalized a priori. Only by leaving open the question of the ultimate essence of a body, of matter, of energy, etc., can Physics reach an understanding of the individual properties of the phenomena that we designate by these concepts, an understanding which alone may lead us to real philosophical insight. Issue 35: 24 - 30 September 2007 Science itself never claims what it cannot measure at the moment as superstitious. It is through various types of Samatha practice that various Pratiharyas (miraculous powers) also called Siddhi Riddhis develop as a matter of course; or if they do not easily develop, they can be developed by various specialised mental exercises geared to awaken these potentials in the human mind. In this era of modernism when the physical science was considered the evaluating measuring rod for the validity of anything, Pratiharyas were suspect. And many Buddhists with modernistic leanings even thought that these were interpolated into the Buddhist scripture by overly nave simple village folks. Needless to say this was a result of the so called scientific education spawned out by modernism. But the beauty of science is that it moves on and does not remain static.

From the 18th century to the mid 20th century, science progressed in leaps and bounds to such an unimaginable extent that man thought science alone was the answer to all its questions. So the milieu developed in which whatever was scientific was true/ real/valid/non-superstitious and whatever was not scientific was untrue/invalid/superstitious. The progress of physics and other physical sciences was so mind boggling, that its dazzle blinded all those who were part of the era of modernism. But there was a flaw in this thinking and not only Buddhist but also many Hindu Swamis and Yogis also failed to see it. First of all only what can be measured can be studied by physics and such other physical sciences. Now there are many things which cannot and will never be measured like love/compassion/beauty, the splendour of the Himalayas and so on. We cannot possibly say that such things are unreal/untrue/superstitious. Secondly the physical sciences are limited by the type of instrument available. That means even those things which could be measurable like the chemical correlates in the brain to love and feel compassion were out of reach of the sciences in the 18th and 19th century. Now are we to say that these brain chemicals like dopamine, serotonin etc were all untrue/unreal/superstitious till the mid 20th century, and then they suddenly became real/true/scientific? Such type of thinking is absurd to say the least. Furthermore, science itself never claims what it cannot measure at the moment as superstitious. It is the half baked ultra-modernist types whose knowledge of science is limited to vague ideas and the enjoyment of consumerist goods produced by science that have these kinds of quaint notions. As early as 1950 Einstein declared that science cannot and will not answer all the questions and problems of mankind. This is true because rational linear thinking, on which science is based, is only one mode of thinking and knowing available to man. The world view made available through science is only one possible view amongst many other views. And this materialistic reductionist view of science is not only an artificial view extracted out of reality but also it is not more real than any other view.

Using the empirical reductionist positivism (reducing all things to empirically measurable things etc) modus operandi itself, we can question this style of absurd thinking that only what is empirically measurable is true/real/valid/non-

superstitious. The million dollar question is, "Is this hypothesis empirically measurable?" Since it is not, by its own logic falls apart. The central point of Werner Heisenberg in his various books like Physics and Beyond, Across the Frontiers etc is that physics can make only statements about strictly limited relations that are only valid within the framework of those limitations. He also says, "Science tries to give its concepts an objective meaning. But religious language must avoid this very cleavage of the world into its objective and its subjective sides: for who would dare claim the objective side to be more real than the subjective? (To be continued.) Issue 36: 1 - 7 October 2007 but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. Heisenberg warns that spirituality/religious experiences and science/mathematical knowledge are two different modes of thinking and should not be confused. He warns, "many modern creeds which claim that they are, in fact, are not dealing with questions of faith, but are based on scientific knowledge that contain inner contradictions and rest on self-deception." Heinrick Hertz, in his introduction to the Principles of Mechanics says, "a natural science is one whose proposition on limited domains of nature can have only a correspondingly limited validity; that science is not a philosophy developing a world view of nature as a whole or about the essence of things." Erwin Schroedinger, the Nobel Laureate of Physics in 1933 in his various books like My View of the World, Mind and Matter, Science and Humanism etc says, "I do not think I am prejudiced against the importance that science has from the purely human point of view. But with all that, I cannot believe that (for example) the deep philosophical enquiry into the relation between subject and object and into the true meaning of the distinction between them depends on the quantitative results of physical and chemical measurements with weighing scales, spectroscopes, microscopes, telescopes, with Geiger-Muller counters, Wilson chambers, photographic plates, arrangements for measuring the radio-active decay, and what not Further Schroedinger says, "The scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experiences in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red

and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight, it knows nothing about beautiful and ugly, good or bad,Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.Whence come I and wither go I? That is the great unfathomable question, the same for every one of us. Science has no answer to it. The well known Nobel Laureate of Physics in 1921, Einstein perhaps the most well known scientist of the 20th century says in his Ideas and Opinions: Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. Ken Wilber, a distinguished scientist in his own right and a prolific writer says in his Quantum Questions: Modern science, in its beginning, was characterised by a conscious modesty; it made statements about strictly limited relations that are only valid within the framework of these limitations..This modesty was largely lost during the nineteenth century. Physical knowledge was considered to make assertions about nature as a whole. Physics wished to turn philosopher and the demand was voiced from many quarters that all true philosophers must be scientific. This was the era named modernism, and we can see that the influence of modernism is found in almost all writing on religion, be it Buddhism or Hinduism or philosophy; during this period. Many Buddhist scholars of that period like Rahula Sankrityayana, Dr. Ambedkar are stalwarts of modernistic interpretation of Buddhism. Modernism lasted in the West till about the mid twentieth century when the cognitive revolution, threw modernism overboard and a new era of post modernism began in the west. Many writers like Ken Wilber are of the opinion that post modernism is also on its death throes in the West and it is looking for another world view. But alas Nepal, as usual always behind time compared to the rest of the world is still in the throttling grasp of modernism, although a smattering of writers talk about postmodernism, the brunt of the Nepalese weltanschauung (worldview) is still pretty much coloured by modernism, which was itself blinded by the view that the one and only truth/fact/reality were what was compatible with the empirical, reductionist positivism that believed that only what could be measured by scientific instruments was real. (To be continued.) Issue 37: 8 - 14 October 2007

A lot of spiritual principles are based on circular logic rather than simple linear logic alone. Today physics is undergoing a basic change, the most characteristic trait of which is a return to its original self limitation. This is the beginning of post modernism which began because of the cognitive revolution that took place in the mid 20th century. When research was done on cognition, new facts came into light which implied that the empirical positivism is true but not the whole truth says Ken Wilber. What began to be discovered was that, the so called objective observation of the world out there was not free from the observer (mind) and in fact we saw what the observer mind posited out there. The art psychologist Jerome Bruner and Leo Postman conducted an amusing demonstration experiment of this point. A series of cards were tachistoscopically presented to observers giving observers only milliseconds of exposure to the display of the cards and increasing exposure to the display of the cards and increasing exposure successively. The display consisted of both normal playing cards and ones in which colour and suit were reversed a red six of club for example. It was found that observers somehow corrected the wrong coloured playing cards and saw what the mind expected rather than what was out there. Thus the world out there is not as objective as modernism would like to think but depends a lot on the observing mind. Now this opens up a whole new weltanschauung. That is, there are many ways to understand/experience/ interpret/give meaning to the world and that no one particular view/meaning/ interpretation is more true/factual/real than any other. And this is the essence of the post modern thinking. A new logic called the modal logic came into existence. Jerome Bruner says in his book, Actual Mind Possible Worlds,.. In the new, more powerful modal logic, we ask of a proposition not whether it is true or false, but in what kind of possible world it would be true. Jerome further says.. Both science and the humanities have come to be appreciated as artful figments of men's minds, as creation produced by different uses of mind. The world of Milton's "Paradise Lost" (or Bhanubhakta's Alkapuri) and the world of Newton's Principia exist not only in the minds of men; each has an existence in an 'objective world' of culture what the science philosopher Karl Popper calls the world three. Robert Ornstein and many others brought out the fact the human brain was divided into two halves and each half more or less dealt with two different modes of knowing. (Robert Ornstein: The Metaphoric Mind/ The Nature of Human Consciousness) These two modes were named, the metaphoric mind and the

analytic mind. The left brain is linked with the right side of the body and with logic, analytical thinking, science, mathematics, linear thinking. Linear thinking means thinking in a straight line like 2 2 = 4 etc. But linear thinking is neither the only mode of giving meaning to the world nor is it the most accurate/correct/true mode. The right half of the brain is linked with the entire left half of the body and is also linked with what is called metaphoric thinking. Metaphoric thinking is linked with music, poetics, art, love, compassion, empathy, sympathy etc. It could also be called the intuitive mode. And spiritual experiences are based on this mode. Insight, which is the most used English translation for Vipassyana, does not depend on analytical linear thinking but rather on metaphoric thinking. An experiment was conducted in New York for kindergarten children when they were asked to tick-mark the correct answer to the question: Birds eat seeds and seeds eat birds. It was amazingly found that the vast majority of the children tick marked seeds eat birds. The experimenter thought that perhaps the children did not understand the question, so the experiment was done again with explanation of the question. But the result was still the same. After a lot of thinking the professors who conducted the experiment realised what the children had easily realised that it was equally true that seeds ate birds. When the birds die, they do fall on the ground and became compost for the seeds to eat. That birds eat seed is linear thinking which is correct but it is equally true that seeds eat bird but that logic is not linear logic but circular logic. Circular logic is also equally valid and true. A lot of spiritual principles are based on circular logic rather than simple linear logic alone. Now let us go back to Ken Wilber. The philosophic content of a science is only preserved if science is conscious of its limits. Great discoveries of the properties of individual phenomena are possible only if the nature of the phenomena is not generalised a priori. Only by leaving open the question of the ultimate essence of a body, of matter, of energy, etc., can physics reach an understanding of the individual properties of the phenomena that we designate by these concepts, an understanding which alone may lead us to real philosophical insight. (To be continued) Issue 38: 15 - 28 October 2007

Thousands of meditators around the world have remembered vividly incidents in their pa lives.

So things like rebirth, miracles, the laws of karma may not have been proven yet by 'science'; bu that does not warrant throwing them out of the window by calling them unscientific. Science ha

very little to do with these things and probably never will prove these things as either false or tru because, they do not belong to the field of science. And as we have seen, even according to to level scientists it is false to think/ believe that only the narrow and limited field that science dea with is real / actual / true / non superstitious. This is a kind of fallacious thinking wrought abou in the present day due to excessive outdated over-modernistic education which is already gettin to be out of date in the western world.

Since the time of the Buddha till now, for about over 2500 years, reports have come again an again from both Buddhist and non Buddhist sources of special humans possessing specia powers of the mind. Yes there have been fakes who have capitalised on the simple credulou minds; but as the Egyptian Sufi saint of the eleventh century EI Ghazali says, "If there are fak gold that itself is a proof that there is genuine gold. If there were no genuine gold there would b no fake gold."

In the Indian subcontinent it is not only the Buddhist literature spanning 2500 years of history bu also Vedic Hindu literature and Jain literature which speak of miraculous powers an remembering former lives etc. It is not a matter of one human or twenty humans but virtuall unaccountable records when we take into consideration all the Buddhist / Hindu / Jain record Such a vast array of records even if only anecdotal and not validated by scientific methods ju cannot be thrown over-board so easily. And it should not be too, as we have seen that th knowledge based on science is not the only true piece of knowledge we humans should treasure.

As far as rebirth or re-incarnation goes, Ian Stevenson (MD), the Head of the Department o Parapsychology of Virginia University has done 'scientific research' on this issue, conductin research all over the world from Alaska, Lebanon, India to Sri Lanka. By the so called 'scientifi research' it is meant research that is based on double blind methods and such other modu operandi used by science to prove any hypotheses.

He has come up with a huge four volume work doing research in cases from all around the world even amongst people who do not have any cultural background regarding reincarnation. Based o his record he says that we can definitely say that science cannot disprove rebirth.

In the context of Samatha meditation, it is possible to bring back memories of past life, just lik memories of this life. This is not easy, but even memories of childhood are not easy. Bu thousands of meditators around the world have remembered vividly incidents in their past live We are not talking about imaginations but memories. There is a qualitative difference i experience between a memory and an imagination. Every mentally healthy person can distinguis whether he is imaging or remembering. After all I remember a past event not a future event whil we imagine / fantasise the future. Besides the meditators remembering when they go into deep levels of Samatha / Samadhi there are hundreds of cases of young children all around the world who remember, their previous life their names, family names, city / village / town, the

details of their old street / house / rooms and even what was in the cupboard in the room. (To be continued) Issue 39: 29 Oct - 4 November 2007 Hypnotic trance facilitates revivification of lost memories Reincarnation Dr. Ian Stevenson has done a lot of research on such children and he has shifted fraudulent from the genuine. And he has come up with four huge volumes of genuine ones which he says cannot be scientifically disproved in any way. His four volumes are: Cases of reincarnation type: India; Cases of reincarnation type: SriLanka; Cases of reincarnation type: Lebanon and Turkey; and Cases of reincarnation type: Thailand and Burma. He has also written another book Twenty cases suggestive of reincarnation. Then again there is the world famous psychotherapist Helen Wembach, who also used over 20 years of her own clinical work in hypnotherapy. She too claims that even though she herself is a Christian whose beliefs contradict the idea of reincarnation and her training in psychotherapy did not in any way prepare her for this; cases she dealt with for over 20 years, overwhelmingly pointed rather clearly at cases of former lives. Hypnotic trance facilitates revivification of lost memories of this life especially those from birth onwards. Everything that the child sees, hears, smells, feels, remembers are stored in the subconscious/unconscious. These memories can be teased out into awareness through various methods like 'free association' in Freudian psychoanalysis, active imagination in Jungian analytical psychotherapy and hypnotherapy etc. When Helen Wembach used hypnotherapy, which is a powerful tool to bring out lost memories entrenched stubbornly in the subconscious, she often found that her patients went further than birth into former lives. She also found that if memories and wounds of former lives were healed the effect was seen in this life's mental life. These are records that cannot be easily explained away; as actual mental and physical healings had also taken place. I would like to recount the case of a multi-millionaire that Helen had dealt with. One of her patients was a millionaire who had suffered from strong pains in his right ribs. Being a millionaire, he had the best of doctors and his personal physician made him go through all the possible checkups possible at the time in the States. Since no physical cause was found in spite of repeated tests of various kinds, his personal physician finally suggested that it could be of a psychological

origin and he should try a psychotherapist as well. Then he met Helen. Helen started digging up his subconscious mind to cull out some experience / event in his childhood which could be the cause of his excruciating pain. Many physical pains and pathologies originate in some traumatic experience in childhood. The purpose of all forms of psychotherapy, be it Gestalt psychotherapy, Freudian psychoanalysis, Jungian Analytical psychotherapy, transactional psychotherapy or hypnotherapy or their combinations etc., is to bring the traumatic experiences hidden in the recesses of the subconscious to conscious awareness. In both Buddhism and all forms of psychotherapy, awareness is curative. If the root cause (usually traumatic experiences but also sometimes just plain old childhood confusions) is brought clearly in front, to be scanned by awareness, the process of being cured begins. As long as the root causes are hidden in the dark nooks and crannies of the subconscious mind, there is no chance that we can free ourselves from its grasp and all that it entails. That is why Smriti Samprajanya (mindfulness and comprehension) is of the utmost importance in the Buddhist path be it Sravakayana or Mahayana. Even in the loony bin, a person who has flipped out begins to get cured only when he himself becomes aware that he has flipped out. The loony bin is an extreme case where people whose neurotic tendencies have become psychotic; but in society even amongst those who are considered socially acceptable, same neurotic tendencies found in the psychotic to an uncontrollable level, is to be found in a lesser or greater degree. Just like the lunatic we too can get cured or be freed of our neurotic tendencies, only as and when we become aware of them within us. Thus awareness is curative and one of the purposes of most therapies is to bring the unconscious into awareness. This is called integrating the unconscious. The unconscious here means all the neurosis and complexes hidden within us. In Buddhist terminology, we can become free of our Klesha (emotional defilements) only if we are fully aware of the workings of the emotional defilements within us. That is why the Shasta (Master) prescribed living ones life in full mindfulness with comprehension - Smriti Samprajanya. Going back to the story of the millionaire; while fishing for early memories of childhood, in a hypnotic trance, he suddenly slipped into a dungeon in the Roman period. He started wailing and crying, holding his ribs. When asked what was happening he described that he was in a prison in Rome and a Centaurian was towering over him and kicking him to death. When asked where he was being kicked, he pointed at the same ribs which had been causing him trouble since a long time. Thus he died being kicked on his ribs. When he was brought back to the present, he was commanded that he would remember the incident clearly even after

he woke up. After he woke up from the hypnotic trance with full memory of the incident, it was found that he had 'miraculously' become free from the pain that had troubled him for such a long time. (To be continued) Issue 40: 5 - 18 November 2007 Death is not the end of the mental continuum but only a change of the mental continuum. Illusion of memory Now let us go back to Shamatha after this explanation of rebirth and reincarnation. There are many questions regarding reincarnation which has not been dealt with yet; but let it be said that the Buddhist concept of reincarnation is neither unscientific nor scientific nor as baseless as materialists think. Although Hinduism and Jainism also believe in reincarnation, the Buddhist view of reincarnation is not exactly the same as the Hindu, Jain system. Whereas in Hinduism and Jainism it is the same person or entity that is reborn again and again, the Buddhist view of Anatma contradicts such a notion. However, this does not mean there is no reincarnation at all in Buddhism. We shall discuss the various tenets of Buddhism later, however let me explain in short that it is not exactly the same person Hari Prasad or Ram Prasad who is born in the next life as one of the insights of proper Buddhist meditation is to see through the fact that 'Hari Prasad' is only a map of reality produced by culture / family / education / language / and the history of the person and not actually the territory itself. In fact as per Buddhism there is no territory of the map but only the map. This is the concept of Anatma explained from an existential dimension. Since there is no Hari Prasad in reality but only a conceptual map based on culture / family / education / language and the history; there can be no question of that Hari Prasad being reborn again. But then what is the meaning of reincarnation in such a case? For now, in short, reincarnation means simply the continuity of the mental continuum. Death is not the end of the mental continuum but only a change of the mental continuum. Since the mental continuum is a name for the flow, and since the mental continuum by nature changes second by second and does not remain the same there is no entity / thing / person who remains the same even second by second what to speak of after death. It is the illusion of memory which connects separate discrete mind moments and make them seem to be the same 'mindstuff. ' But if your Shamatha meditation practice goes deep enough then these memories

which are carried forward can be reawakened, and the person knows from her / his own memory the fact of reincarnation. This memory can also be brought out through hypnotic trance. A similar thing can be said of Riddhi Siddhis which is also another thing that the overly materialistic try to deny without any base. These parts bring us to another topic called in modern psychological research as altered states of consciousness. To understand the phenomena of Siddhi Riddhi (miraculous powers) and reincarnation, it is useful to understand the concept of altered states of consciousness. The mind has many altered states and what we call normal waking state is only one of the states of mind. It is certainly not more true, real, accurate or suggestive of reality than the other states of mind. Various states of mind have various properties which are not available to the normal waking state of mind. Even the fact that we call the waking state as normal is only a culturally ingrained idea and it is not in reality more normal than other altered states of mind. There are many kinds of altered states of minds which vary from what is considered as the normal waking mind. Hypnotic trance is a category of altered state of mind which differs from the normal waking state. I call it a category because within the categories there are many levels which are different from each other. If we were to give some degrees to the depth of hypnotic trance there would be a range one percent hypnotic trance to 100% hypnotic trance. What is available to a 98 100% hypnotic trance is not available to a 1 20% trance. At around 68 70% or so one could easily anaesthetise parts of one's own body so that it could be operated upon without anesthesia. That is simply not available to either the waking state or even 10 or 20% hypnotic trance. (To be continued) Issue 41: 19 - 25 November 2007 Einstein said that whenever he came up with a new theory, he used to go into a dream like state. Altered states of mind Similarly at 82% trance, recall of lost memories is easily accessible which is so useful to psychotherapy. This is called hyper amnesia while above 84% regression into childhood or past life is possible. These properties are not available to the common waking mind no matter how sharp or intelligent the person is. At around 80% the mind can control organic body functions like heart-beat, blood pressure, digestion etc. In all these are various levels of altered states of mind, many things are accessible which are not accessible to the mind in its humdrum waking state.

When we go off in a tangent into a day-dream we are again going into another altered state of mind. As we said earlier, there are many types of altered states of mind which are different from each other. For example, when we go off into sleep, we go through various levels of altered state. The first stage of sleep onslaught called the hypnagogic state is an altered state of mind which is different from the waking state. Actually the waking state itself is one state of the mind and is itself an altered state. It is not scientifically correct to say that the waking state is the normal state and all other states of mind are the altered states. Calling the waking state as normal and measuring all other states of the mind against it as altered state is based on conditioned ideas of what is normal and is thus scientifically unwarranted. In another neuro-scientific language what is called waking state (what most people consider as the normal state) the brain emits beta waves. Beta waves are rays ranging from 13 hertz upwards. The normal waking state ranges from 13 hertz to 25 hertz. This is the waking state of normal alertness. Once the hertz increases towards 25 hertz and above, states of anxiety and stress begin. The higher the hertz go the more stressed out and anxiety laden the mind becomes. It becomes more distraught, tensed up and is unable to focus. From 8 hertz to 12.9 hertz is the alpha wave range. When the mind is calmly focused and relaxed, it begins to dip between 8 and13 hertz. This is a relaxed but alert state. The state when the brain is emitting alpha waves is also called the super learning state because the mind is in a state where it can absorb vast amounts of information easily and quickly. Memory capacity is heightened. This is also the first stage of meditation and also the first stage of sleep onslaught. Most meditators are normally at the lower levels of this frequency which means from 8 to 10 hertz. When a person is in this level of altered state, the mind is relaxed. This is a very good altered state for lowering blood pressure and relaxing the mind, making it free from all tension, anxiety etc. In this state, the mind tends to be positive and all negative thinking disappears. Below 7.9 hertz to 4 hertz is theta wave state. This is a state of deep relaxation, deep meditation, increased memory and focus. This is a dream like state. When we are seeing dreams, the brain emits theta waves. This is also the state where creativity occurs. Einstein said that whenever he came up with a new theory, he used to go into a dream like state. Thomas Alva Edison also realised that he had in

hand a new invention, just after waking up from a deep sleep. This is the theta state. Transformation or change can take place easily in the theta state. This is also the state of deep hypnosis when suggestions given by the hypno-therapist are easily absorbed into the subconscious and thus changes in mental attitudes and behaviour are brought about. Creative visualisation as used in Vajrayana produce theta wave states quickly with a little amount of practice provided there is concentration. It is in such a state that the mind is receptive to creative intuition and insights and to transformation. The elaborate Mandala meditation of Vajrayana is based on this principle. (To be continued)

Issue 42: 25 November - 1 December 2007

Examining Zen meditation

In 1966, Akira Kasamatsu and Tomio Hirai made a study of Zen meditation in Japan in terms of the wavelengths etc. produced by the brain during Zen meditation. They asked the Zen master to categorise the level the 48 students had reached. These subjects were classified into three groups. Group one had 20 disciples who had meditated from one to five years. Group two consisted of 12 disciples who had meditated from five to 20 years and group three had 16 monks who had over 20 years of experience. Besides these, 18 others from age 23 to 33, and men aged between 54 to 60 years who had no experience in meditation were chosen as control subjects. It was found that in the Zen master, before he started meditation there was normal beta waves of the waking state. Within 50 seconds of starting meditation, the wellorganised alpha waves began in all the regions of the brain. Then after 20 minutes

or so, the brain waves began functioning between low alpha waves, going at times into theta waves. At the end of the meditation, alpha waves were seen continuously and two minutes later, alpha waves still persisted. This kind of similar pattern was found in another Zen master also. The result of the EEG study on the Zen master was divided into four stages: Stage I: a slight change which is characterised by the appearance of alpha waves in spite of open eyes. (In Zen as in most of Mahayana meditation methods, eyes are kept open unlike in Hindu and Theravadin methods where eyes are closed); stage II: the increase in amplitude of persistent alpha waves; stage III: the decrease of alpha frequency; and stage IV: the appearance of the rhythmical theta train which is the final change of the EEG during Zen meditation, but does not always occur. It is interesting to note that another study made of two Raja yogis - B.K Ananda, G.S. Chhina and Baldev Singh showed that the final stage of Kundalini yoga meditation was delta wave which is akin to deep sleep state where too delta waves predominate. This definitely shows that the Zen Samadhi and the Raja yoga Samadhi are not exactly the same. Then when other Zen disciples were tested and graded, it was found that there was a very close relationship between the master's evaluation of their stage and the degree of EEG changes in them. From these findings it was found that the degree of EEG changes during the Zen meditation of the Zen disciples were parallel to the disciple level in proficiency as categorised by the Zen master. (To be continued)

Issue 43: 3 - 9 December 2007 This is called habituation and is a good example of how the mind can block out what it doesn't want. Waves in mind Then we have the wavelengths from 3.9 hertz to 0.1 hertz which is called the delta waves which is the wavelength of deep sleep, lucid dreaming, and in this wavelength there is increased immune function. The HGH (Human Growth

Hormone) is released when the mind is in this state. This is probably the reason why yogis who practice going into Samadhi like Raja yogis and Shamatha yogis of Buddhism, seem to retain their health and youth for a longer period than normal. Although I have been saying that both deep sleep and Samadhi produce delta waves and likewise Zen masters made ingressions into theta waves; and that deep hypnosis and dream states also produce theta waves; it should be understood that these states are not exactly the same. Meditation at theta or alpha waves is not the same as either hypnosis at theta or alpha or hypnagogic and dream states at alpha and theta waves. It must be understood that research has distinguished these states; but how they are differentiated is too technical to go into an article like this. Electro-graphical difference exists between the theta waves etc. in sleep and the rhythmical theta train in Zen meditation and the catalyptic theta waves of a subject in deep hypnosis. Likewise differences exist in the alpha waves in the hypnagogic stage just before falling asleep and the alpha waves seen in the beginning of Zen meditation etc. One interesting experiment done by both the Japanese and Indian researchers on their subjects seems worth mentioning here to see the key difference between Buddhist mindfulness meditation and Raja yoga Samadhi type of Hindu meditation. The average human mind tends to block out any persistent sound like for example the rhythmic clicking of an object, after some time. This is called habituation and is a good example of how the mind can block out what it doesn't want. If an average person were to sit in a place and a clicking sound was to be made continuously he would hear the clicking sound and that would be registered in the EEG; but after some time the clicking sound would stop being registered. The person would stop hearing the sound that is measured by the EEG which stops registering the sound. It was found in Zen Masters in Samadhi that their mind remained open to all sounds and there was no habituation. No matter how long the clicking continued monotonously, the sound kept on registering in the mind of the Zen master as shown by the EEG. This means the Zen master's mind is always open and does not close automatically based on conditioned reactions or Sanskaras. On the other hand, the Raja yogi's mind blocked out the clicking sound right from

the beginning when in Samadhi. These two EEG findings point to the fact that what is called Samadhi in Vipassyana type meditation based on mindfulness are quite different from Samadhis based on Shamatha type meditation like Raja yoga, Kundalini yogas etc. This is what I have been distinguishing in this article. (To be continued) Issue 44: 10 - 16 December 2007 Suppression of emotional defilement is not freedom from emotional defilements.. Mind potential This detour into the altered states of mind and scientific studies into them, including the various levels of meditations, was mainly to show that various phenomena are possible in various specific states of the mind. Thus, just because what are called RiddhiSiddhis or Pratiharyas in Buddhist language are not available in the beta state or what is more commonly called waking state; it does not mean they cannot be available in other altered states. Many things are state specific and are not available to the ordinary waking state of beta waves. And most of all, it does not make them automatically unscientific as some writers have tried to posit. It must be reiterated that the Buddhist scripture are replete with such miraculous powers of the Buddha and his immediate disciples be these scriptures Mahayana, Theravada or Sarvastivadin. In fact one of the two major disciples called the Agra sravakas of the Buddha himself was very famous for possessing such miraculous powers. The life of the Buddha himself is also replete with manifestations of such abilities which are paranormal. And many other Arhats like Saagat, Aniruddha and Mahakashyapa were also endowed with such abilities. The Buddhist scriptures go into great detail into not only describing them but also categorising them and also explaining how they are obtained. As I have said, such abilities of the mind are developed through the type of meditation called Samatha in Buddhist terminology. In fact, these are only potentials found in the mind itself which are awakened or developed as the mind becomes more trained and cleaned of emotional defilements. The more the person is free from emotional defilements (Kleshas in Buddhist terminology) the more such potentials manifest. According to Buddhism even those who have very pure Shila manifest some such

capacities. But this is not really a new thing as Samadhi is deeply related to emotional defilements and that, in turn, is intimately related to Shila. It must be said that here, we are not talking of maintaining the Shila in a selfrighteous way by hook or by crook. Such suppression of emotional defilement is not freedom from emotional defilements, and thus even though the person seems to maintain his Shila in front of others, this is not true maintenance and will not contribute to a cool and quiet mind which contributes to Samadhi which awakens the paranormal potentials of the mind. If anything, such a person's inner state will normally be in a greater turmoil than that of the common man. A good clue to his inner turmoil, according to Gestalt therapy is that such a person is very self righteous and extremely critical of other peoples purity. In short his own impurity or inner turmoil, which he has learned to suppress so well that for all appearances he seems to be someone that is free of emotional defilement, is projected out onto the screen of the world out there. Thus he sees all others as impure; but in fact he is looking at his own emotional defilements. Needless to say such people will not have such paranormal capacities which are so dependent on the maintenance of a pure Shila. And that is not what is meant by maintaining a pure Shila. (To be continued) Issue 45: 17 - 23 December 2007 Psychic powers are not limited to the Buddha and Arhats Within your reach Pure Shila cools the mind, such a mind becomes soft, gentle, loving and understanding of the pains, sorrows and the human weaknesses of others; and certainly not a mind that is critical and sees only the loopholes and breaking of the Shilas by others. However this is not to condone losing Shila. In the journey of spiritual growth, Shila is the very foundation upon which all higher experiences of the spiritual path depend. Before we go into the details of the explanation of psychic powers and the like, as found within Buddhist texts, I would like to say that psychic powers are not limited to the Buddha and Arhats or Buddhist Mahasiddhas and yogis. Stories of the manifestation of psychic powers are to be found in abundance amongst Hindu yogis, Sufis, Christian saints and Jewish mystics of the Kaballa and the like, as well as in Taoists and Kahuna masters and Shamans all over the world.

If such things were fakes and totally fabricated, such stories would not continue through the ages, generations after generations in all cultures. These are not stray stories found here and there but across all cultures and across all times. And especially within Buddhism those who recounted such stories were highly educated scholars who had studied logic and philosophy etc. anywhere from 10 to 20 years and they were not simple country bumpkins. Such a phenomenal amount of stories across all cultures and times cannot be lightly waived away as superstitious stories. With this in the background we shall now go into the Buddhist classification of such phenomena according to the Abhidharma. The Abhidharma is that part of the Tripitaka which classifies into categories the Buddhist view of reality. The Abhidharma is that part of the Buddha's teachings which classifies his teachings into various categories and enlists its philosophical aspects. In short, it is the analysis of the Dharma. Dharma here in Buddhist terminology does not mean 'religion' as in Buddha Dharma or Hindu Dharma but rather phenomena. Thus the Abhidharma is that part of the Tripitaka wherein are recorded those teachings the Sakyamuni gave, in which he has analysed the phenomena and philosophical tenets (To be continued)

Issue 46: 24 - 30 December 2007 Learned Vedic Brahmins came to Buddha to ask questions, challenge him or to ask what he thought of certain ideas, beliefs, and practices in the Vedas. Teaching munificently The Buddha's teachings are recorded in three categories and those categories were made by the Buddha himself. These three categories are called the Tripitaka or the three baskets. One of the Pitaka is the Sutra Pitaka. The Sutras, within Buddhism are the records of the various teachings that the Master himself gave to various people like monks, nuns, lay women and lay men as he wandered up and down,

east and west, north and south of Northern India, and also in other parts of India, through miraculous projections. He taught for 40 to 45 years and all kinds of people came to meet him and ask questions; and they were answered. Learned Vedic Brahmins came to ask him questions, challenge him or to ask what he thought of certain ideas, beliefs and practices in the Vedas. And they left convinced that he was extraordinary or in most cases surrendered to him and became monks. Very old learned Rishis; who has special powers of clairvoyance, send their disciples to learn from him or to become his disciples, saying they were too old to travel from places like Maharastra, to where he was in present day Bihar, otherwise they would come themselves. Many Brahmins came to find out whether he was really a Tathagata - a Buddha, and either left convinced of his authenticity or became Bhikchhus, there and then. Many Sramanas of the time came to challenge him or ask him questions and remained as his disciples. It is recorded that one of the main sponsors and disciples of Mahavira was sent by Mahavira to debate with the Buddha about the interpretation of Karma but remained behind as his disciple. But the Buddha asked him to continue being a sponsor (Danapati) of Mahavira, the founder of present day Jainism. Many householder males and females and Bhikchhus asked him many questions and he answered them. He also kept giving teachings on various topics throughout his life after attaining enlightenment in Bodhgaya, called Vajrasana in Buddhist literature, till his Parinirvana under the Sala trees in Kusinagara. All these teachings were recorded in the Sutra Pitakas. There are also stories of how Vedic and Sraman ascetics of his time challenged him to debates and to competitions of miraculous powers; and again he either defeated them or they became his disciples. It is interesting to note that by far a greater percentage of his disciples were such Brahmins who had come to challenge him. (To be continued)

This definitely shows that the Zen Samadhi and the Raja yoga Samadhi are not exactly the same.

Marshland Flowers Part 3 Issue 47: 31 December - 6 January 2008 In the Mahayana Sutras, there are more collections of deeper level teachings on realisation Relying on meaning, not words The Buddhas main two disciples called the Agrasravakas, who are always portrayed standing at his two sides - Maudgalyayana and Sariputra, were both Brahmins. Another very famous disciple Mahakashyap, already possessed miraculous powers even before he met the Buddha, and already had one thousand disciples even before he met the Buddha. He too was a Brahmin as his name Kashyap implies. The Buddha defeated him both in philosophical debate and display of miraculous powers and he became a disciple of the Buddha, along with his one thousand Brahmin disciples. All such records are recorded in the Sutra Pitaka. There are the Mahayana Sutra Pitaka and the Sravakayana Sutra Pitaka. Of the Sravakayana Sutra Pitaka, today only that of the Theravada and the Sarvastivada remains intact. There are bits and pieces of Sutras of others like Mahasanghikas etc. too, available either in the original or in various translations. However, in the Mahayana Sutras, there are more collections of deeper level teachings on realisation, insight etc. mostly conducted in paranormal dimensions whereas the Sravakayana Sutra are a motley of mundane and philosophic topics, conducted mostly within normal dimensions. The second Pitaka is the Vinaya Pitaka which is a collection of the records of the rules made for the Bhikchhunis and Bhikchhus by the Buddha himself. Here too there were many, of which the Theravadin, the Sarvastivadin and the Mahasanghika have managed to survive to the present day. Most of Mahayana schools use the Sarvastivadin and Mahasanghika Bhikchhu Vinayas to make Bhikchhus. In ancient India, as recorded by the famous Chinese traveler Huen Tsang of the 6th / 7th century, there were also followers of Mahayana who followed the Theravadin Vinayas too. But today due to various historical flukes, no such Bhikchhus are

found. As the Buddha himself had given permission that if the Bhikchhu Sangha so deems it fit, it could change the minor Bhikchhu rules. So as Buddhism spread to far away lands where the climes and cultures were so drastically different from India, some of the rules of the Vinaya Pitaka had to be changed. It must be said that the Theravadin Sangha claim that they have not changed anything from the time of the Buddha; but most scholars do not agree with this. However, as the Buddha himself very clearly gave permission to change minor rules, and even if there are changes, it does not contradict the intentions of the Buddha. In fact, it goes along with the intention of the Buddha. In the Sutra, the Buddha has very clearly said, "Artha pratisharanam na vyanjanam" meaning, do not rely/depend on the words but rather on the meaning/intention. And this statement is found in Sarvastivada, Theravada and Mahayana Sutra Pitaka. (To be continued) Issue 48: 7 - 13 January 2008 The Buddha also warned very clearly that there are false Samadhis which do not lead to the enlightenment Undistorted teachings For example, in places like Tibet, Mongolia, Korea and Japan it would be foolish to continue wearing the scanty dress of the Bhikchhus, which the Buddha had devised for the hot climate of Madhyadesha (central north India); nor would it be sane to expect Bhikchhus to walk barefoot in such countries, as the Buddha had insisted upon the Bhikchhus of Madhyadesha. So these minor rules would have to be changed in accordance with the intention of the Dharma and the Buddha. To insist that Bhikchhus of Tibet walk barefoot would actually be going against the intentions of the teaching of the Dharma and Buddha. Then we have the third Pitaka which are more a collection of the logical and analytical, thus philosophical teachings of the Buddha. The Buddha defined clearly what enlightenment was and what false enlightenment was. He analysed and classified various levels of Samadhis and the elements found in them. He also warned very clearly that there are false Samadhis which do not lead to the enlightenment that the Buddha meant.

He broke down and classified all the elements of the world (Sansar) and of the sentient beings, material, non-material and mental. He classified Vipassyana and Samatha and their levels. All such things were recorded in the Abhidharma. So in the Abhidharma, we also find a very fine and detailed classification of what is today called the Psi phenomena. So these are the Tripitaka which consists of the teachings of the Buddha, as handed down from generation to generation. Various councils (Sanghayanas) were held at various periods of times to check and maintain the purity of the teachings, and to ensure no unnecessary false elements were allowed to enter the teachings. Thus even from the scholarly transmission point of view, the purity of the teachings were maintained as far as it is humanely possible. It can certainly be said that no major tenets of Buddhism were changed or distorted. Thus the major tenets of Buddhism like the four Arya Satya; the 12 chains of interdependence (Dwadasha nidana); Samatha and Vipassyana; the classification of universe (Sansar) as the Pancha Skandha (aggregates); 12 doors (12 Ayatanas); the 18 Dhatus; the 3 doors of liberation; the 8 freedoms; the teachings on Shilas, Samadhi and Pragya collectively known as Tri Sikchhya; i.e. the three teachings, etc. are all to be found in all forms of Buddhism. (To be continued) Issue 49: 14 - 20 January 2008 There are endless such Lokadhatus beginning and ending at any one time. No beginning, no end Whatever differences there are, are in the finer interpretation of these things and not in the basic tenets themselves. No forms of Buddhism believe in a god who created the universe, no forms of Buddhism believe in an eternal soul or Atma. No forms of Buddhism believe in an unchanging entity that transmigrates from one life to another. No forms of Buddhism believe that karma is given to one by some super power/ energy/ deity and can be changed by the grace of such a power. No forms of Buddhism believe that this universe, was created at a certain time but rather samsara is beginning less and endless. Actually this is intimately related to the principle that there is no creator god. I use the word creator god because nowadays many theistic systems have also been re-interpreted in a more mystical, experiential way by some of their supporters especially those who practice meditation in one form or the other. But it must be said that such interpretation of

god is not accepted by the mainstream theistic religious systems. While it could be said a stray few in all religious system had always interpreted god in a more mystical sense, it must also be said that those who interpret god in this way were either considered heretics or in some cases even put to the sword. Although such an interpretation of god is a step towards the Buddhist concept of enlightenment, it must still be said all such mystical interpretation of god still falls short of the Buddhist enlightenment. Even if god was considered more a mystical experiential experience, this god would still be an eternally existing entity which is very far from the Buddhist enlightenment which is the experience of the emptiness of all entities/dharmas. It must be said clearly that this emptiness is not the same as the emptiness found in many Hindu texts like the Vigyana Bhairaba Tantra etc. Within Buddhism there are infinite and beginning-less cycles of beginning and ending. We can only talk of a cycle beginning (created) but that is not the beginning of samsara/universe itself but the beginning of one small unit of samsara. One unit of samsara (may be a galaxy in modern term) called Lokadhatu begins and ends but there are endless such Lokadhatus beginning and ending at any one time. And even these Lokadhatus are not created by any creator of a sort but appear and disappear based on various principles/laws called 'Niyaama' which includes karma niyaams. When the power of the pull of the karmas of sentient beings and the other niyaams synchronise then a world system (Lokadhatu) appears (rather than created) etc. These niyaamas are more like the principles of gravity etc. which no one created. (To be continued) Issue 50: 21 - 27 January 2008

Everything arises through causes and conditions. A Paradigm Shift We do not need a being of any kind to create gravity. It is the law of nature that whenever there is some mass there is gravity. This is what Niyaam means in Buddhism. Everything arises through causes and conditions; and those causes and conditions themselves arise through other causes and conditions. Because of this

there can be no beginning. Therefore there can be no creation 'in the beginning'. About this there are no two minds within any form of Buddhism. Any system that believes in a beginning (and thus a creator) cannot subscribe to the principle that all things arise from causes and conditions. And without that, that system of thought does not and cannot fall within the paradigm of Buddhism. Many people get confused because many systems of meditation also use the word nondual like Buddhism and thus come to the conclusion that the final point 'non dual' is the same. But this is merely a confusion that arose due to the use of similar words. Actually the Sanskrit word used in Buddhism is Advaya while in monotheistic system, it is Advaita (Hinduism to be more specific); but when translated into English both are called non dual. This is a complex topic we shall deal with later. Let it be said that whereas most other religious systems are theistic (Taoism being the only exception). Buddhism is non-theistic. Here, non-theistic does not mean not believing in gods and goddesses and other realms of existence where they exist. That would be atheistic. Non-theistic here means, not believing in a single creator or any creator as such for that matter. In Sanskrit, we use the word Unishwarvadin. Iswhar meaning the creator God. However, Buddhism is not 'Nastik'/non-believer as some misled or illiterate Hindus would like to believe. Astik comes from the word 'Astha' which means belief. So Astik would mean 'believer' as opposed to 'Nastik' which would mean 'non believer'. While Buddhism does not accept the Vedas or any other scriptures and whatever comes within their paradigm, it does believe that man can be free from suffering and thus attain Mokchhya or Mukti. It does believe in karma and the cycle of existence, it does believe in other realms of existence; it does believe that man can attain enlightenment. Thus it is an 'Astik' system. In a sense, all systems believe their own tenets and thus are 'Astik'. But Buddhism is a paradigm shift from all other theistic systems, be they monotheistic or polytheistic. With this background now let us take up what the Abhidharma has to say about the psi phenomena. . (To be continued) Issue 51: 28 January - 3 February 2008 It is made possible by good karmas and a mind freed from lower mental impurities through practices of Samatha etc. Attaining divine ears and eyes In the Abhidharma we find the psychic power or psi phenomena divided into five categories. These are called Abhigyas which mean high knowledge or higher

knowing or higher cognitions. Abhi means special/higher and Gya means knowing. Firstly, the Riddhi-Siddhis: These are manifestations in the outside world and are different from the other Abhigyas. Riddhi-Siddhis imply controlling power over the subjective and the objective and it manifests by controlling both mind and matter, whereas the other four Abhigyas are related only with the subjective power of the mind. As this is a bigger topic we shall go into details of the Riddhi-Siddhis after we finish studying the other four Abhigyas first. The second Abhigya (Abhiyya in Pali) is known as Dibya Srota Dhatu, i.e. divine ear element. It is said that with a concentrated mind applied to Dibya Srota Dhatu, the purified hearing which surpasses human hearing is attained. And one can hear sounds of humans or Devas, whether far or near. The ability to hear sounds far away beyond normal human range within the human world or to even hear the sounds and voices etc. of Devas in various Deva Lokas and Brahma Lokas is what is meant by the Abhigya Dibya Srota Dhatu. This is the hearing capacity of the Devas that is why it is called Dibya Srota Dhatu. It is made possible by good karmas and a mind freed from lower mental impurities through practices of Samatha etc. With this pure and extended Dibya Srota, the Yogavachara is able to hear sounds whether produced on earth or in the various Deva realms of existence. There are various exercises given in various texts (Theravadin/Sarvastivadin/Mahayana) which are more or less the same, for the properly trained yogi with a pure mind to produce Dibya Srota if it does not appear spontaneously. The third Abhigya is called Parachitta Vijanana. It means knowing the mind of others. Having attained the Abhigya the yogi can know whether the mind of other person is with passion/emotional defilements, or free from passion. He can know whether other person's mind is filled with hatred/anger or free from hatred; whether the person's mind is filled with Moha (delusion) or free from delusion; whether the other person has achieved the correct Samadhis (Samyak Samadhi) or Mithya Samadhis, concentrated or not concentrated, emancipated (Mukta) or not Mukta etc. It is not only telepathy or mind reading though it would automatically be included within it. But it is more about the capacity to know the state of mind of another person as the above explanation makes it clear. This Abhigya cannot be gained by those who do not already have Dibya Srota Dhatu. This Abhigya can also be called Dibya Chakshu, i.e. divine eyes, or like the eyes of the Devas of various Devalokas. (To be continued) Issue 52: 4 - 10 February 2008

With such an Abhigya a person can remember ones past lives. The Buddha, Tathagata, the Dasa Baladhari, the holder of ten powers Again there are various exercises given in the various texts for the yogi who is ready. Ready here would mean a mind which is not tied by heavy Kleshas (though not free from the Kleshas completely), a mind which has attained high levels of Samadhis. Actually, as we have said before a mind that is heavily laden with emotional defilements (Kleshas) cannot possibly attain Samadhis (higher level of absorptions). The possessor of this Abhigya becomes essentially somebody who can help others and he can do that better than a psychotherapist can. He would be able to diagnose a person's state more accurately. This was a special Abhigya of the Buddha, which enabled him to preach the dharma with great success and most beneficial results because he could see through the mental state of his audience. It is one of the ten special powers of the Tathagata called the Dasa Bala. The Buddha Tathagata was called the Dasa Baladhari the holder of ten powers. All these ten or the special powers that only a Tathagata Buddha can have. No yogis no matter how advanced can have all ten of them. We shall talk of this later. Parichitta vijanana is not limited only to knowing human mind states but also the mind states of Devas and Brahmas. The next Abhigya is called Purvanivas Anusmriti Gyana. As the words imply, Purva means former, Nivas means place of existence, Anusmriti means recollection or remembrance. With such an Abhigya a person can remember ones past lives. How far he can remember depends on how advanced he is in Samadhi. He can even remember cycles of evolution of the universe of dissolutions, and evolution and dissolution again. He can remember that "In that one I had such a name, clan, caste and experience pleasure or pain and how I died. Having died, I was born here etc. etc. There are six classes of men who may possess this Abhigya: i) Sramanas (ascetics) holding other views called Tirthikas in Buddhism. They specifically mean Hindus and Jain yogis. They are called Tirthikas because they believe that various Tirthas (pilgrimage spots) purifies ones sins (Kleshas) which is something the Buddha emphatically denied. ii) Sravakas who are the ordinary disciples of the Buddha. iii) Mahasravakas, the special disciples of the Buddha. iv) Agrasravakas who are the great disciples of the Buddha. Every Buddha has two great disciples. Sakyamuni's Agrasravakas were Mahamaudgalyayana and Sariputra. More will be said on the special capacities when the time comes. (To be continued)

Issue 53: 11 - 17 February 2008 The capacity of the Buddhas is unlimited. Endless recollections v) Pratyekabuddhas are more advanced than the Sravakas. They appear only when the teaching of the Buddha has been completely lost. But they are below the levels of a Samyak Sambuddha (the fully enlightened Buddha). As Sakyamuni's dispensation still exists strongly, there are no Pratyekabuddhas. vi) The Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. The capacity to see far becomes more as we climb up from the Tirthikas to the Buddha. The Hindu and Jain yogis may be able to remember thousands of Kalpas but they have their limits as the mind is not completely free from emotional defilements. The Sravakas may be able to remember up to 80 thousand Kalpas, Agrasravakas etc. even more than that and even more for the Bodhisattvas but there are no limit to the capacity of the Buddhas. We must remember that when the Buddha began his long journey to become a Buddha (three to four asankhya kalpas ago one asankhya kalpa has 60 zeroes), he was already a powerful Rishi called Bhikchhu Sumedha who had all the siddhis riddhis already. These siddhis riddhis became refined through the kalpas of practice. So how can we now expect ordinary yogis to have the same power as the Buddha. Not even the Devas in any realm of existence can come anywhere near the Buddha. There are special exercises in various texts to develop the power of purvanivas anusmriti, if the yogi is a fit vessel. It must be said that some of the Abhigyas can be achieved through drugs (ausadhi) and mantras too but the strength of such remembrance and the distance in past time will be far below those who have attained it through samadhis and also they will be less permanent in the case of drugs. This is the proof of rebirth within Buddhism. The Buddha's past life has given by the Buddha himself is recorded in the Jatakas. The stories of the Jatakas seem to have influenced the making of similar genre of literature in almost all religious systems of the Indian subcontinents and further on. (To be continued)

Issue 54: 18 - 24 February 2008 With this knowledge one can realise the operation of the law of karma.. Practical benefits This kind of insight gained by remembering ones own past lives or the past lives of others is a prominent feature of Buddhist literature. It is illustrated in the Jatakas and the life stories of Buddhist Arhats, Mahasiddhas and lineage masters. Memory of past life can also be achieved by other techniques, one of which is past life regression through hypnosis and the other is a technique called Jati smarana gyana. This is the technique of tracing events backwards. One tries to trace back the events of the day then slowly extend it to two, three hundred days, one year, ten years, 20 years and back to birth and onwards to next life. This method can be used without attaining Samadhis. Certain individuals, generally children remember their past lives, but generally such remembrances are feeble and sometimes not fully accurate and also they tend to fade away. Dr. Ian Stevenson (MD), the Head of the Department of Parapsychology of Virginia University has four huge volumes of records of such children from all over the world from Alaska, Lebanon, Turkey to India, Sri Lanka etc. And as I said before these are well researched, scientifically shifted materials that cannot be denied easily as the research method applied by Dr. Ian Stevenson (MD) is impeccable. The Purvanivasanusmriti gained by meditation has practical benefits in many ways. With this knowledge one can realise the truth of rebirth, the operation of the law of karma, the history of the macro cycles and micro cycles of evolution and involution of world systems. It is of the greatest help for cultivating Maitri (loving kindness), Karuna (compassion), Mudita (empathy) and Upekchhya (equanimity). These are called the Chatur Brahma Viharas and are a very important meditational group within Buddhism especially in Mahayana/Bodhisatwayana. This group of meditation has been copied wholesale in the Patanjala Sutra. According to the famous scholar Dr. S. N. Gupta the Patanjala Sutra is nothing but a rehashing of the Buddhist Astangika Marga. Today almost all Hindu meditation methods link themselves with the Patanjala Sutra.

Purvanivasanusmriti also helps a lot in gaining insight into phenomenal existence (Dharma) which is the main objective of Vipassyana because someone that can see all these can clearly see the changes of time, he can see nations arising and ceasing, civilisations arising and ceasing, world systems (Lokadhatus) and bigger world cycles (Trisaahasra mahasaahasra lokadhatus) arising and ceasing; just as a Vedanaanusmriti vipassyin can see his micro level Vedana arising and ceasing. And indeed that is what Vipassyana is all about. (To be continued)

Issue 55: 25 February - 2 March 2008 The Four Noble Truths which is the very foundation of Buddhism and its practice and in itself is the whole teaching of the Buddha in a nutshell. Degrees of emancipation Vipassyana is to see or gain insight into the fact that all Sanskrita Dharma (conditioned phenomena) are constantly changing and are therefore impermanent (Anitya/Anicca in Pali); and because they are Anitya they are Dukha (sorrowful or sorrow producing or better still unsatisfactory) and because they are impermanent and unsatisfactory (Anitya Dukha) they are neither me nor mine (Anaatma Anaatmiya). Kaya (the body), Vedana (the feeling sensation), Chitta (the mental continuum) and the Chaitta dharma which are the four used in the Smrityupasthaan Sutra as Alambana (objects of meditation to gain insight (Vipassyana) into the way phenomena (dharmas) exist). It is only such an insight that can liberate and no other methods of meditation can liberate. We shall go into greater details about Vipassyana and the difference between Shamatha type meditation and Vipassyana type meditation, later when the time comes. But Purvanivasanusmriti also helps in the realisation of the Four Noble Truth (Chatwari Arya Satyani), which is the very foundation of Buddhism and its practice and in itself is the whole teaching of the Buddha in a nutshell. The Four Noble Truths was the first teaching the Shasta (master/teacher) gave and it was in Sarnath to the five who had abandoned him in the middle of his endeavours because he started eating. When a person moving on the Sraavakayana path has his first glimpse of enlightenment, he experiences in his own mental streams the sixteen aspects of the Four Noble Truths.

This is the first glimpse of enlightenments according to the Sraavakayana system like Theravada. If one properly practices the Vipassyana of the Theravada system, this is what he will experience. He will not experience the Atma gyana of the Hindus or Jains nor god realisation of some Hindus or Christians. An understanding of this is very crucial to the correct understanding of Buddhism. This glimpse is technically called Srotapatti and the person is thence forth a Srotappanna. Srota means the stream, i.e. the stream that leads to final emancipation (Mukti/Mokchhya) and Apatti is falling into or entering. So it literally means entering into the stream that leads to or flows towards Arhathood which is the final emancipation (Mukti/Mokchhya). However there are still two more stations or degrees of emancipation called Sakridaagaami and Anaagaami before Arhathood is attained. Sakridaagaami means once returner. The person will return once more to the human realm before he attains the Anaagaami or the higher Arhat stage. The Anaagaami is the non returner. He will not come back to the human realm anymore but until he becomes an Arhat he may be reborn in the Deva or Brahma realms and go on to attain Arhathood. But if he attains Arhathood here he has no more birth. This becomes his last birth. (To be continued)

Issue 56: 3 - 9 March 2008 Buddhist enlightenment is the experience of the emptiness of all entities/dharmas. Interpretation of God Whatever differences there are, are in the finer interpretation of these things and not in the basic tenets themselves. No form of Buddhism believes in a God who created the universe, no forms of Buddhism believe in an eternal soul or Atma. No form of Buddhism believes in an unchanging entity that transmigrates from one life to another; or that karma is given to one by some super power/energy/deity and can be changed by the grace of such a power. No form of Buddhism believes that this universe was created at a certain time. Samsara is beginning-less and endless. Actually this is intimately related to the principle that there is no creator God. I use the word creator God because nowadays many theistic systems have also been reinterpreted in a more mystical experiential way by some of their supporters, especially those who practice meditation in one form or the other. But it must be said that such interpretation of God is not accepted by the mainstream theistic religious systems.

While it could be said a stray few in all religious system had always interpreted God in a more mystical sense it must also be said that those who interpret God in this way were either considered heretics or in some cases even put to the sword. Although such an interpretation of God is a step towards the Buddhist concept of enlightenment, it must still be said all such mystical interpretation of God still falls short of the Buddhist enlightenment. Even if God was considered more a mystical experiential experience, this God would still be an eternally existing entity which is very far from the Buddhist enlightenment which is the experience of the emptiness of all entities/dharmas. It must be said clearly that this emptiness is not the same as the emptiness found in many Hindu texts like the Vigyana Bhairaba Tantra etc. Within Buddhism there are infinite and beginning-less cycles of beginning and ending. We can only talk of a cycle beginning (created) but that is not the beginning of Samsara/universe itself but the beginning of one small unit of Samsara. One unit of Samsara (maybe a galaxy in modern term) called Lokadhatu begins and ends but there are endless such Lokadhatus beginning and ending at any one time. And even these Lokadhatus are not created by any creator of a sort but appear and disappear based on various principles/laws called 'Niyaama' which includes karma niyaams. When the power of the pull of the karmas of sentient beings and the other niyaams synchronise then a world system (Lokadhatu) appears (rather than created) etc. These Niyaams are more like the principles of gravity etc. which no one created. (To be continued) Issue 57: 10 - 16 March 2008 Buddhism believes that man can be free from suffering and thus attain Mokchhya or Mukti. Buddhism is not Nastik We do not need a being of any kind to create gravity. It is the law of nature that whenever there is some mass there is gravity. This is what Niyaam means in Buddhism. Everything arises through causes and conditions; including those causes and conditions themselves arise through other causes and conditions. Because of this there can be no beginning. Therefore there can be no creation 'in the beginning'. About this there are no two minds within any form of Buddhism. Any system that believes in a beginning (and thus a creator) cannot subscribe to the principle that all things arise from causes and conditions. And without that, that

system of thought does not and cannot fall within the paradigm of Buddhism. Many people get confused because many systems of meditation also use the word nondual like Buddhism and thus come to the conclusion that the final point 'non dual' is the same. But this is merely a confusion that arose due to the use of similar words. Actually the Sanskrit words used in Buddhism is Advaya while in monotheistic system is Advaita (Hinduism to be more specific); but when translated into English both are called non dual. This is a complex topic we shall deal with later. Let it be said that whereas most other religious systems are theistic (Taoism being the only exception). Buddhism is non theistic. Non theistic does not mean here not believing in gods and goddesses and other realms of existence where they exist. That would be atheistic. Non theistic here means, not believing in a single creator or any creator as such for that matter. In Sanskrit, we use the word Unishwarvadin. Iswhar meaning the creator, God. However, Buddhism is not 'Nastik'/non-believer as some mislead and unread Hindus would like to believe. Astik comes from the word 'Astha' which means belief. So Astik would mean 'believer' as opposed to 'Nastik' which would mean 'non believer'. While Buddhism does not accept the Vedas or any other scriptures and whatever comes within their paradigm, it does believe that man can be free from suffering and thus attain Mokchhya or Mukti. It does believe in karma and the cycle of existence, it does believe in other realms of existence; it does believe that man can attain enlightenment. Thus it is an 'Astik' system. In a sense, all systems believe in their own tenets and thus are 'Astik'. But Buddhism is a paradigm shift from all other theistic systems, be they monotheistic or polytheistic. With this background now let us take up what the Abhidharma has to say about the psi phenomena. (To be continued)

Issue 58: 17 - 23 March 2008 Higher knowing In the Abhidharma we find the psychic power or psi phenomena divided into five categories. These are called Abhigyas which mean high knowledge or higher knowing or higher cognitions. Abhi means special/higher and Gya means knowing etc.

1. The Riddhi-siddhis: These are manifestations in the outside world and are different from the other Abhigyas. Siddhi-riddhis imply controlling power over the subjective and the objective and it manifests by controlling both mind and matter, whereas the other four Abhigyas are related only with the subjective power of the mind. As this is a bigger topic we shall go into details of the riddhi-siddhis after we finish writing on the other four Abhigyas first. 2. The second Abhigya (Abhiyya in Pali) is known as Dibya Srota dhatu, i.e. divine ear element. It is said that with a concentrated mind applied to Dibya Srota dhatu, the purified hearing, which surpasses human hearing, is attained. He can hear sounds of both humans and Devas whether far or near. The ability to hear sounds far away beyond normal human range within the human world or to even hear the sounds and voices etc. of Devas in various Deva Lokas and Brahma Lokas is what is meant by the Abhigya dibya srota dhatu. This is the hearing capacity of the Devas that is why it is called Dibya srota dhatu. It is made possible by good karmas and a mind freed from lower mental impurities through practices of Samatha etc. With this pure and extended Dibya srota, the Yogavachara is able to hear sounds whether produced on earth or in the various Deva realms of existence. There are various exercises given in various texts (Theravadin/Sarvastivadin/Mahayana) which are more or less the same, for the properly trained yogi with a pure mind to produce Dibya srota if it does not appear spontaneously. The third Abhigya is called Parachitta vijanana. It means knowing the mind of others. Having attained the Abhigya the yogi can know whether the mind of other person is with passion emotional defilements or free from passion emotional defilements. He can know whether other person's mind is filled with hatred anger or free from hatred anger, whether the person's mind is filled with Moha (delusion) or free from delusion, whether the other person has achieved the correct Samadhis (samyak samadhi) or Mithya samadhis, concentrated or not concentrated, emancipated (Mukta) or not Mukta etc. It is not only telepathy or mind reading though it would automatically included within it. But it is more the capacity to know the state of mind of another person as the above explanation makes it clear. (To be continued)

Issue 59: 24 - 30 March 2008

No yogis no matter how advanced can have all ten of them. The Buddha the holder of ten powers

This Abhigya cannot be gained by those who do not already have Dibya srota dhatu. This Abhigya can also be called Dibya chakshu, i.e. divine eyes, or like the eyes of the Devas of various Devalokas. Again there are various exercises given in the various texts for the yogi who is ready. Ready here would mean a mind which is not tied by heavy Kleshas (though not free from the Kleshas completely), a mind which has attained high levels of Samadhis. Actually, as we have said before a mind that is heavily laden with emotional defilements (Kleshas) cannot possibly attain Samadhis (higher level of absorptions).

The possessor of this Abhigya becomes essentially somebody who can help others and he can do that better than a psychotherapist. He would be able to diagnose a person's state more accurately. This was a special Abhigya of the Buddha, which enabled him to preach the dharma with great success and get most beneficial results because he could see through the mental state of his audience. It is one of the ten special powers of the Tathagata called the Dasa bala.

The Buddha Tathagata was called the Dasa baladhari the holder of ten powers. All these ten are special powers that only a Tathagata Buddha can have. No yogis no matter how advanced can have all ten of them. We shall talk of this later. Parichitta vijanana is not limited only to knowing human mind states but also the mind states of Devas and Brahmas.

The next Abhigya is called Purvanivas anusmriti gyana. As the words imply, Purva means former, Nivas means place of existence, Anusmriti means recollection or remembrance. With such an Abhigya the person can remember the past lives of oneself. How far he can remember depends on how advanced he is in Samadhi. He can even remember cycles of evolution of the universe of dissolutions, and evolution and dissolution again. He can remember that, "In that one I had such a name, clan, caste and experience pleasure or pain and how I died. Having died, I was born here, etc.

There are six classes of men who may possess this Abhigya: i) Sramanas (ascetics) holding

other views called Tirthikas in Buddhism. They specifically mean Hindus and Jain yogis. They are called Tirthikas because they believe that various Tirthas (pilgrimage spots) p sins (Kleshas) which is something the Buddha emphatically denied. ii) Sravakas who are the ordinary disciples of the Buddha. iii) Mahasravakas, the special disciples of the Buddha. iv) Agrasravakas who are the great disciples of the Buddha.

Every Buddha has two great disciples. Sakyamuni's Agrasravakas were Mahamaudgalyayana and Sariputra. More will be said on the special capacities when the time comes. v) Pratyekabuddhas are more advanced than the Sravakas. They appear only when the teachi the Buddha has been completely lost. But they are below the levels of a Samyak Sambuddha (the fully enlightened Buddha). As Sakyamuni's dispensation still exists strongly, there are no Pratyekabuddhas. vi) The Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. (To be continued) Issue 60: 31 March - 6 April 2008 Limitless capacity

The capacity to see far becomes more as we climb up from the Tirthikas to the Buddha. The Hindu and Jain yogis may be able to remember thousands of Kalpas but they have their limits as the mind is not completely free from emotional defilements. The Sravakas may be able to remember up to 80 thousand Kalpas, Agrasravakas etc. even more than that and even more for the Bodhisattvas but there is no limit to the capacity of the Buddhas. We must remember that when the Buddha began his long journey to become a Buddha (3 4 Asankhya kalpas ago one asankhya kalpa has 60 zeroes), he was already a powerful Rishi called Bhikchhu Sumedha who had all the siddhis riddhis already. These siddhis riddhis became refined through the kalpas of practice. So how can we expect ordinary yogis to have the same power as the Buddha? Not even the Devas in any realm of existence can come anywhere near the Buddha. Again there are special exercises in the various texts to develop the power of Purvanivas anusmriti, if the yogi is a fit vessel. It must be said that some of the Abhigyas can be achieved through drugs (ausadhi) and mantras too but the strength of such remembrance and the distance in past time will be far below those who have attained it through samadhis and also they will be less permanent in the case of drugs. This is the proof of rebirth within Buddhism. The Buddhas past life as given by

the Buddha himself is recorded in the Jatakas. The stories of the Jatakas seem to have influenced the making of similar genre of literature in almost all religious systems of the Indian subcontinents and further on. This kind of insight gained by remembering ones own past lives or the past lives of others is a prominent feature of Buddhist literature. It is illustrated as I said in the Jatakas and the life stories of the Buddhist Arhats, Mahasiddhas and lineage masters. Memory of past life can also be achieved by other techniques, one of which is past life regression through hypnosis and the other is a technique called Jati smarana gyana. This is the technique of tracing events backwards. One tries to trace back the events of the day and then slowly extend it to two, three hundred days, one year, ten years, 20 years and back to birth and onwards to next life. This method can be used without attaining samadhis. Certain individuals, generally children remember their past lives, but generally such remembrances are feeble and sometimes not fully accurate and they also tend to fade away. Dr. Ian Stevenson (MD), the Head of the Department of Parapsychology of Virginia University has four huge volumes of records of such children from all over the world from Alaska to Lebanon to Turkey to India, Sri Lanka etc. etc. And as I said before these are well researched, scientifically shifted materials that cannot be denied easily, as the research method applied by Dr. Ian Stevenson (MD) is impeccable.

Issue 61: 7 - 13 April 2008

The Purvanivas-anusmriti gained by meditation has practical benefits in many ways. With this knowledge one can realise the truth of rebirth, the operation of the law of karma, the history of the macro cycles and micro cycles of evolution and involution of world systems. It is of the greatest help for cultivating Maitri (loving kindness), Karuna (compassion), Mudita (empathy) and Upekchhya (equanimity). These are called the Chatur Brahma Viharas and are a very important meditational group within Buddhism especially in Mahayana/Bodhisatwayana. This group of meditation has been copied wholesale in the Patanjal Sutra. According to the famous scholar Dr. SN Gupta the Patanjal Sutra is nothing but a rehashing of the Buddhist Astangika Marga. Today almost all Hindu meditation methods link themselves with the Patanjala Sutra.

Purvanivas-anusmriti also helps a lot in gaining insight into phenomenal existence (Dharma) which is the main objective of Vipassyana because someone who can see all these can clearly see the changes of time, see nations arising and ceasing, civilisations arising and ceasing, world systems (Lokadhatus) and bigger world cycles (Trisaahasra mahasaahasra lokadhatus) arising and ceasing; just as a Vedanaanusmriti vipassyin can see his micro level Vedana arising and ceasing. And indeed that is what Vipassyana is all about. Vipassyana is to see or gain insight into the fact that all Sanskrita Dharma (conditioned phenomena) are constantly changing and are therefore impermanent (Anitya/Anicca in Pali); and because they are Anitya, they are Dukha (sorrowful or sorrow producing or better still unsatisfactory) and because they are impermanent and unsatisfactory (Anitya Dukha) they are neither me nor mine (Anaatma Anaatmiya). Kaya (the body), Vedana (the feeling sensation), Chitta (the mental continuum) and the Chaitta dharma which are the four used in the Smrityupasthaan Sutra as Alambana (objects of meditation to gain insight (Vipassyana) into the way phenomena (dharmas) exist). It is only such an insight that can liberate and no other methods of meditation can liberate. We shall go into greater details about Vipassyana and the difference between Shamatha type meditation and Vipassyana type meditation, later when the time comes. Purvanivas-anusmriti also helps in the realisation of the Four Noble Truth (Chatwari Arya Satyani), which is the very foundation of Buddhism and its practice and in itself is the whole teaching of the Buddha in a nutshell. Issue 62: 14 -20 April 2008 In the Mahayana path, the first glimpse of enlightenment is attained when the person has a direct non-conceptual experiential glimpse of emptiness (Sunyata). Glimpse of enlightenment The four noble truths was the first teaching the Shasta (master/ teacher) gave and it was in Sarnath to the five, who had abandoned him in the middle of his endeavours because he started eating. When a person moving on the Sraavakayana path has his first glimpse of enlightenment, he experiences in his own mental streams, the 16 aspects of the four

noble truths. This is the first glimpse of enlightenment according to the Sraavakayana system like Theravada. If one properly practices the Vipassyana of the Theravada system, this is what he will experience. He will not experience the Atma Gyana of the Hindus or Jains nor God realisation of some Hindus or Christians. An understanding of this is very crucial to the correct understanding of Buddhism. This glimpse is technically called Srotapatti and the person is thence forth a Srotappanna. Srota means the stream, i.e. the stream that leads to final emancipation (Mukti/Mokchhya) and Apatti is falling into or entering. So it literally means entering into the stream that leads to or flows towards Arhathood which is the final emancipation (Mukti/Mokchhya). However there are still two more stations or degrees of emancipation called Sakridaagaami and Anaagaami before Arhathood is attained. Sakridaagaami means once returner. The person will return once more to the human realm before he attains to the Anaagaami or the higher Arhat stage. The Anaagaami is the non returner. He will not come back to the human realm anymore but until he becomes an Arhat he may be reborn in the Deva or Brahma realms and go on to attain Arhathood. But if he attains Arhathood here he has no more birth. This becomes his last birth. The steps, the realisation and the final emancipation according to Sraavakayana are totally different from any other non-Buddhist systems as can be seen from the above explanation. But this is only the result of the Sraavakayana path. The Bodhisatwayana/Mahayana path again is a little different from the above, if not totally different. In the Mahayana path, the first glimpse of enlightenment is attained when the person has a direct non-conceptual experiential glimpse of emptiness (Sunyata). As you can see this cannot really be equal to the realisation of the Atma as some Hindu Saints/Yogis/Paramhamsa have tried to posit in the past. Sunyata is a synonym for Anatma but there are two levels of Anatma. One is the gross Anatma (no-self) which is the negation of I and me. But Sunyata is the subtle Anatma and therefore not only merely the negation of I and me but also the negation of real existence, inherent existence, true existence of all dharmas including the fabricated self or Atma. (To be continued)

Issue 63: 21 -27 April 2008 Samyag Dristi

In the Buddhist experience, the experience of an Atma is sheer fabrication and thus it leads to bondage. This non conceptual experience of Sunyata is called the first Bhumi when the Bodhisatwa has his/her first glimpse of emptiness (Sunyata) non conceptually. Then there are ten such Bhumis (stages or steps) before the Bodhisatwa becomes a Buddha. Through such a knowledge the practitioners gain insight (Vipassyana) into the reality of impermanence (Anitya), suffering (Dukha) and non ego (Anatma) and non substantial existence (Sunyata). Then the fifth Abhigya is known as Chyuti-utpaada gyana. This is the knowledge of the passing away and the rebirth of sentient beings. This is also called Dibya Chakchhu gyana. This is a little different from the above Abhigya. The above was more about seeing the past, while this one is related more to seeing the future. In the Digha Nikaya of the Theravadins and the Dirgha Agama of the Sarvastivadins, the Buddha says, With his mind thus concentrated he applies and directs his mind/thought to the knowledge of the passing away and rebirth of the sentient beings. With his Dibya Chakchhu which is purified and surpassing human sight, he sees sentient beings passing away and being reborn again, low or high, good or bad appearance, in happy or miserable existence, according to their karma. He fully realises that those sentient beings who are given to evil conduct in deeds, speech and thoughts, who are revilers of the noble ones (Aryas = Arhats, Bodhisatwas etc.) who are of false views (Mithya dristi, i.e. wrong views) acquire the karma of their false views. Correct view is very important as karma, that is, ones actions depend heavily on ones views. For example, if a person is of the view that killing goats to various deities is good for the goat and for him/herself, s/he will definitely sacrifice goats to various Devi devatas. If s/he is of the view that killing other sentient beings is a heavy bad karma no matter for whom it is done, s/he will not sacrifice animals to any deity. That is why Samyag dristi (correct view) is very important in Buddhism. Those beings with wrong views after the dissolution of their bodies after death have been reborn in Durgati (lower realms) in hell. But those sentient beings who are given to doing good karmas in words, deeds and thoughts, who do not revile the Aryas (noble ones), who have Samyag dristi and who acquire the karma of their right views, at the dissolution of the body after death have been reborn in a happy existence (Sugati) in the world of the Deva lokas (heavens). Because this is similar to the sight of the Devas (gods) it is called Dibya Chakchhu

and it is very useful to gain Samyag dristi as the person can see for him/herself how those who have lived a life of bad karmas based on wrong views fall into lower realms, and those who have lived good lives with good karma based on Samyag dristi, attain the higher realms. Again, the various texts prescribe various exercises to attain this psychic power. (To be continued)

Marshland Flowers Part 4 Issue 64: 28 Apr- 4 May, 2008 Freedom from emotional and conceptual defilements This is the major reason why Buddhism does not consider a yogi with mighty powers equal to an Arhat or a Bodhisatwa or a Buddha. Now there is also a sixth Abhigya which is considered the last and the highest Abhigya but not part of the five we have talked about so far. All the above five Abhigyas are lower Abhigyas and are considered lowly in all forms of Buddhism. But this last Abhigya, called Asrava Cchaya Gyana (knowledge of the extinction of the outflows) is considered the real Abhigya (or Siddhi Riddhi) in Buddhism. Asrava means the outflow of mental defilements (emotional and conceptual defilements). When we have emotional and conceptual defilements they are always flowing out from our subconscious mind through verbal or non verbal expression. These Asravas remain even in yogis who have attained high Samadhis and various Riddhi Siddhis Praatiharyas. This is the major reason why Buddhism does not consider a yogi with mighty powers equal to an Arhat or a Bodhisatwa or a Buddha. Even such a yogi, no matter how charismatic and mind boggling, still has not destroyed the Asravas. Only an Arhat, an 8th Bhumi (level/stage) Bodhisatwa and above, and the Buddha who is even above a tenth Bhumi, has totally destroyed all Asravas. This brings us to the big question, how are the Asravas totally destroyed? This brings us to a very important issue within Buddhism which is missing in non Buddhist systems or at least it is not clear enough. According to Buddhism there are two major types of meditation systems and they

do not produce the same results. One of them, which usually comes first in the Buddhist texts, is Samatha meditation and the other is Vipasyana meditation also called Vidarshana meditation. To understand Buddhism and its correct view, it is of utmost importance to understand these two types of meditations very clearly and to be able to distinguish between these two. Vipashyana is the Sanskrit word used in the Sarvastivad and Mahayana Vajrayana schools while Vipassana is the Pali word used in the Theravadin School and it is closely linked with what is called mindfulness meditation but is not limited to that. Mindfulness is called Smrityupasthan in Mahayana and Sarvastivadin texts while it is called Satipatthan in the Pali Canons of the Theravadins. We shall go into greater details with Samatha and Vipasyana later on but here we shall deal with them in short as the occasion demands it. Issue 65: 5 11 May Samatha The mind remains the same without thoughts, concepts, Kleshas changing or disturbing it. Samatha comes from two words. Sama which means quiet, tranquil and etymologically it is linked with the English word, 'same'. It means the mind remains the same without thoughts, concepts, Kleshas changing or disturbing it. But here the mind remains the same because it is focused on the same thing with a high level of concentration; so the mind remains the same (Sama), with the same Alambana (object grasped for meditation even if it is an objectless object) for two four eight ten hours or even days. This kind of meditation when it reaches a certain depth (depth here does not mean how many hours s/he remains absorbed in the Alambana (object of focus) but rather deeper levels of absorption) is called Samadhi. Although the words Samadhi is used in the Hindu and Jain systems too, the Buddhist classification of Samadhis are far more detailed and refined. While the Hindu Samadhis are classified into Savikalpa (also called Sampragyata which means with a thought or focus, i.e. Alambana) Samadhi and Nirvikalpa (Asampragyata) Samadhi, which means without any thought or object of focus

(Alambana); the Buddhist classification is far more complex. It must be remembered that the Patanjal Sutra upon which virtually all forms of present day Hindu meditation is based, is, according to Dr. Surendranath Das Gupta in his A History of Indian Philosophy, merely a re-hashing and Hinduisation of the Buddhist eightfold path (Astangika marga). But even though Buddhist concepts, ideas, categories were taken as the very name Astanga yoga from the words Arya Astangika marga, it still seems to be a mixed pot pouri of ideas picked up from here and there. For example, even though the word Chatur Brahma Vihara is found in the Patanjal Sutra no Hindu commentary including Vatsaayan seems to know what it is or what kind of meditation it is. And the Savikalpa and Nirvikalpa Samadhis are just a rather rough categorisation of Rupa Samadhi and Arupa Samadhis taken from Buddhism and given new names. But the Rupa Dhyanas have four levels of Samadhi (sometime considered as five depending upon how it is distinguished) called first Dhyana, second Dhyana, third Dhyana and fourth Dhyana where breathing stops. And the Arupa Dhyana are also divided into four levels. All these are missing in the entire Hindu systemisation of Samadhis. The Arupa Samadhis are without any object of focus; but they are more or less the same level as the fourth Dhyana. However they do get more and more refined. Issue 66: 12 18 May Cutting the roots of Kleshas Riddhi Siddhis are not a proof that the person is enlightened But what is most important to understand is that even after achieving the highest Arupa or Nirvikalpa dhyana, the Asravas (emotional defilements) are not destroyed but only blocked or stopped like a dam stopping water (technically called Viskhambana). And for the present day Indo Nepali public it must be emphasised that it is merely blocked for the time being, even in those who show manifestation of Siddhi Riddhi Pratiharya. According to Buddhism Siddhi Riddhis can be a part of both enlightened beings who have attained Asrava cchaya (destruction of emotional defilements, intellectual defilements) as well as of those who have only attained high stages of

Samadhis but have not yet attained Asrava cchaya. This is a point Buddhism is emphatic about and also a point most Indo Nepalis are blissfully ignorant of. Riddhi Siddhis are not a proof that the person is enlightened which in Buddhism means that s/he has attained Asrava cchaya Gyana. So no amount of Samatha Samadhi no matter how deep will bring about Asrava cchaya. But it can produce various manifestations of Riddhi Siddhi. It does not matter if the person went into deep Nirvikalpa Samadhi for fourteen day or so during which time even flies were fooled that the body was dead, etc. When coming out of the Samadhi s/he comes back with all his/her emotional and intellectual defilements. They are not cut or destroyed because nothing or no modus operandi has been employed to cut or destroy them. If just remaining in an unconscious, thoughtless void was enough to cut or destroy Asravas, then every person goes into that state for some hours when they enter deep sleep (Susupti); but nobody comes back from deep sleep finding himself/herself free from Asrava. So just extending that state to more hours or days surely cannot help. Nor does arriving at a super conscious state do much in this case as that super conscious state is always present in all humans and in spite of it all humans are still afflicted heavily with Asravas. So just practices that still the mind and take it into deeper and deeper levels of quietness may bring peace and tranquility to the practitioner but that is not the same as Asrava cchaya and no such practice no matter how esoteric or secret or known to only a chosen few, they will not and cannot possibly produce Asrava cchaya. Simply an absorbed state of mind, whatever the mind be absorbed in, be it on some super conscious state or on some external or internal object or objectless or thoughtless; such absorption Samadhis such Samatha type Samadhis only suppress the emotional defilement but do not even touch the intellectual defilement.

Issue 67: 19 25 May The six Abhigyas In Buddhism, if Siddhis are ever used it is always used as means to goad on intimate disciples and never as a public display. Emotional defilement is called Klesha Avarana; and intellectual or conceptual

defilement is called Geyaavarana. Geya means the known or knowledge of the known and Avarana means covering, something that blocks or hinders. These two must be cut off at the root and totally destroyed before a person can be called enlightened or an Arhat or a Buddha in the Buddhist sense. We have seen that reaching deep levels of Samadhi does not cut these off at the roots. Nor does attaining Siddhi Riddhis automatically cut these off at the roots. But more about these two defilements later as it is crucial to understand them to understand the Buddhist path and fruits. As we have seen, the sixth Siddhi or Abhigya called Asrava cchaya gyana is considered as the highest Siddhi in Buddhism and a Siddha in Buddhism always mean someone who has attained the sixth Abhigya, at least to some degree if not completely, as is necessary for complete enlightenment. In fact from the time of the Buddha himself, Buddhism has not only kept the other Siddhis at a lower rung of the ladder but has always been suspicious of people who use the lower Siddhis unscrupulously. If it is ever used it is always used as means to goad on intimate disciples and never as a public display. There is a wonderful story about this at the time of the Buddha himself. Most of the Buddha's disciples were endowed with all the six Abhigyas. We shall talk more about them later, but for a small taste, it is said that Maudgalyayana went bodily up to Indras Deva loka. Indra saw this Bhikchhu and mistook him for some ordinary Bhikchhu with some Siddhi Riddhi, so Indra wanted to impress upon this Bhikchhu how great he was. So he took him to his fabled garden which is famous and then proceeded to take him to his fabulous palace, the fabled Vajayanti Prasad. Indra thought the Bhikchhu would be so impressed with this splendour that he would be awestruck. But the Arhat Maudgalyayana read his mind and thought to himself, I must teach this King of the Devas a lesson. So when they arrived at Indra's fabulous palace, Indra showed him proudly his palace. Maudgalyayana quietly went to the base of the palace and pushed his big toes against the foundation and wiggled it so that the huge palace shook like a toy. Then Indra realised that this is no ordinary Sraman and paid great respect to him.

Issue 68: 25 May 1 June, 2008 Samatha and Vipassyana

According to all forms of Buddhism there is only one way 'Ekayano Maggo' Going back to the topic of the Buddhist attitude towards Siddhi Riddhis, we have a story of another Brahmin disciple of the Buddha Bhaardhwaj Pindola. One day he found a big crowd gathered and went to see what the hue and cry was all about. He saw that some competition of Siddhi Riddhi was going on. There was a long pole on top of which was an object and it was declared that whoever can bring that object down without climbing the pole or touching it in anyway would be the winner. And the winners Guru would be announced as the greatest Guru. Bhaardhwaj saw that many yogis tried but could not get the job done. So he thought, why not do it and show the world that the Buddha was indeed the greatest teacher. So Bhaardhwaj flew up to the sky and took the fish out from the top of the pole without even touching the pole. All those present were awestruck and announced in unison that the Buddha was indeed the greatest teacher. Later some Bhikchhus who had seen this told the Buddha that he was proclaimed the greatest teacher because of what Bhaardhwaj did. When Buddha heard this, he called Bhaardhwaj and asked him if the story was true. When Bhaardhwaj proudly proclaimed that it was true, Buddha chastised Bhaardhwaj for doing such a thing and proclaimed that from now onwards let it be known whosoever uses Siddhi Riddhi to impress others is not a disciple of the Buddha. This incident has defined forever the attitude of Buddhism in all its forms towards Siddhi Pratiharya. Now how is the sixth Avigya called Asrava Cchya Avigya attained? According to all forms of Buddhism there is only one way 'Ekayano Maggo' as it is said in the Pali Satipatthana Sutta. And that way is Vipassyana in Sanskrit/Vipassana in Pali. Let us now go into Vipassyana. Let me reiterate that all forms of meditation, no matter to which religious system it belongs can be categorised into basically two major types or categories. These two categories are (i) Samatha and (ii) Vipassyana. We have touched upon Samatha meditation already; but let me recapitulate some of its salient points, before we go into Vipassyana. Samatha meditation is any form of meditation which fixates the mind on one object, or idea, or thing, internal or external, real or imagined. This means keeping the mind fixed or trying to keep the mind fixed so that all other thoughts or movements of the mind is either eliminated or reduced to a great

extent to the exclusion of the object of fixation (called Alambana in Buddhist terminology).

Issue 69: 2 8 June Samyagdristi the correct view It is very important to understand that refutation of others views is neither negative criticism nor demeaning others point of view. The very first verse of the Patanjala Sutra 'Yogas chittavritti nirodha' (yoga is the stopping of the movements of the mind or thoughts) shows that the Patanjala Sutra and all systems based on it belong to the Samatha category. When I say all systems which subscribes to the Patanjala Sutra, it means virtually all Hindu meditation system existing today in the Indian subcontinent. One may think the Vedantic meditation on the witness/Sakchi (called Sakchi abhyasa in the Vedantic system) after listening to the teacher, analysing the teachers ideas and meditation (called Sravan/mana/chintana) is an exception; but it too is a Samatha type of meditation and cannot be put in the Vipassyana meditation category. To understand why the Vedantic sakchi abhyasa (witness meditation practice) is not Vipassyana we first need to understand clearly what Vipassyana is and why it is the only way to what Buddhists call enlightenment. Let me reiterate clearly here that people have the freedom to give the appellation enlightenment to whatever they wish; but they should not confuse themselves and others in imagining that their enlightenment is the same as the Buddhas enlightenment. The purpose here is not to demean whatever others call enlightenments but to distinguish between them and the Buddhist enlightenment. Which is the higher form or the true enlightenment is for the individual to discern and ascertain for herself/himself. Refuting others view is an old tradition that has continued in the Indian subcontinent even before the time of the Buddha and this has continued through the centuries within Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism. It is very important to understand that refutation of others views is neither negative criticism nor demeaning others point of view. The philosophical schools in the Indian subcontinent continued to grow and refine itself exactly because of this culture of refuting the others views and validating

ones own views in a systematic, logical and coherent method through centuries after centuries. It is unfortunate that after the Islamic invasion of the Indian subcontinent this aspect of the culture slowly began to wane and because of that many in the Indian subcontinent today, do not know how to distinguish between critical refutation and negative criticism. But such an ascertainment can be made only if an accurate depiction is made of what the Buddhist Enlightenment is and what is not. Although to the Buddhist all over the world this has always been clear, as Buddhism has a long tradition of studying and analysing what it calls the wrong views (Mithya dristi) and what it calls the correct view (Samyagdristi) it seems to have been lost within the Indian subcontinent to a great extent. Issue 70: 9 15 June Correct interpretation of Buddhism No Hindu scholar, Pandit or Yogi from as early as 3rd century till today seems to have really understood what the Buddha really taught. This tradition, where other non Buddhist traditions of the Indian subcontinent is analysed, still continues in Tibet, China, Thailand, Burma, Sri Lanka, Mongolia etc. This is very much a culture of the Indian subcontinent; so the tradition of the study of the other tenets does still continue within Hinduism too. However, since Buddhism vanished from the major parts of the Indian subcontinent, the interpretation of what Buddhism and Buddhist enlightenment is, become completely Hinduised; and it was given a lower status than the Vedantic views. Many Sadhus and Paramhansas claimed that Buddhism was just a variation of the Vedanta and that the Buddhists did not understand Buddhism. Some called it Nihilism and thus put it in the category of rank materialists like Charvak and the like; because they grossly misunderstood the Sunyata of Buddhism. A thorough and unbiased study of the refutation of Buddhist tenets by Vatsayana, Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya, Yamunacharya, Madhwacharya, Bhaskaracharya etc; show very clearly that they completely distorted the Buddhist view by giving it a Hinduised interpretation and then refuted their made up Buddhist views and thought they had refuted Buddhism. No Hindu scholar, Pandit or Yogi from as early as 3rd century till today seems to

have really understood what the Buddha really taught. A good example of modern Hindu scholars who just followed the footsteps of their ancestors as far as the Buddhist goal is concerned, is the famed scholar and statesman, the ex president of India, Dr. S. Radhakrisnan. Another Indian Guru who unwittingly gave Hindu interpretation to Buddhist teaching even though he was trying to favour Buddhism is another well known personality, Sri Rajneesh. Till date most Hindus of the Indian subcontinent are completely muddled up as to what Buddhism is; while all the Pandits/scholars/Yogis believe that the Buddha did not teach anything new than what is found in the Vedas and Vedantas. I call this Hindu hubris, and it is based on the rather limited belief that what the Hindus themselves believe is the only possible truth and there can be no other possibilities. Nobody with any common sense from the ancient times till now can possibly deny that the Buddha was one of the greatest masters to appear in the firmament of the Indian subcontinent, if not the greatest (Sankara himself has called the Buddha as the greatest yogi ever to appear in the Indian subcontinent). To think what he taught even though it seems to be different, is nothing but a rehashing of Vedic/Vedantic lore, is the blind spot, the hubris. This has prevented Hindus of the Indian subcontinent, since the 11th century onwards after Buddhism vanished from India, from truly understanding Buddhism. So much so that even Rajneesh who wanted to favor Buddhism vis a vis Hinduism completely interpreted Buddhism in a Hindu way.

Issue 71: 16 22 June Anatma/Sunyata Buddhist scriptures repeat again and again that its basic tenets are based on Anatma and Sunyata and not on Atma/Braman or any eternally existing entity. A clear example of how Rajneesh did not understand what Buddhism really taught is his interpretation of Tilopa's 'Gangama' (Mahamudra instruction to Naropa) where he thinks Tilopa teaches Naropa the Vedantic Sakchi/witness to Naropa. Evidently Rajneesh had no idea what emptiness meant in Buddhism. He interpreted the thoughtless awareness/witness/Sakchi as the no-mind (Achitta in Vajrachedika Sutra) of Zen. This is a phenomenon, no Indian master who has not studied with genuine Buddhist masters, has been able to transcend.

Since no Indian masters or their Nepali followers have actually studied Buddhism at the feet of an authentic lineage Buddhist master, their interpretation of Buddhism is based on their knowledge of Sanskrit or their reading of English translations of Buddhist texts by scholars who have translated Buddhist texts on the basis of their own knowledge of Sanskrit or Tibetan etc. Needless to say it is very easy to derive Hinduistic meanings when reading such books; after all, the mind gives the meaning it is conditioned to give, to things it experiences. And this is what all teachers of Hindu background have done to date. They have all given Hinduistic Atmavadin/Bramanvadin (oriented towards the Atma/Braman of Hinduism) interpretation in spite of the fact that all the Buddhist scriptures repeat again and again that its basic tenets are based on Anatma and Sunyata and not on Atma/Braman or any eternally existing entity. This difference is not merely a matter of difference in words or a different way of saying the same thing or difference only in philosophy or in Darshan as most Hindus would like to put it. As it is very important to distinguish these two views to properly understand Vipassyana we shall go a little into its details here before we elaborate on Vipassyana. All forms of Hindu systems aim at the realisation of the Atma (self) and through it the Braman (which can be described as a sort of cosmic self/over self/super self beyond the little self or ego). In his Dig Drishya Bibek (distinguishing the seer and the seen or the watcher and the watched) Shankaracharya has made it very clear that the Atma of the Hindus (and the Jains for that matter) is the watcher or witness that knows or watches or witnesses all events and even internal mental thoughts.

And his Tatva Bodha (knowing the Tatva/reality) he has defined this Atma as Sat Chit Ananda which means existence consciousness bliss. He has again in the same text defined sat/existence as that which remains unchanged / same in the three times. (Atma kah?...What is Atma? Sthula sukchma karana shariradhya atirikta: panchakoshaatita sann avasthatraya sakchi sacchidananda rupah). That which remains in the form of Sat Chit Ananda, which is beyond the gross, subtle and causal body, the witness/watcher of the three states of waking, dreaming and deep sleep and which is beyond the five sheaths. .

Issue 72: 23 29 June The major issue This point makes the difference in the direction the meditation takes and finally the goal realised. Then again Sankaracharya says in the same Tatva Bodha in verse 26 Atma tahrikah? What is called the Atma? And answers, Sacchidananda swarup, i.e., that whose form (swarup) is Sat Chit Ananda. Then he goes on to say, Sat kim (what is sat) and answers, Kala trayeapi tisthatiti sat, i.e., that which remains the same, unchanging in all the three times is sat (truly existent). The three time means it is the same thing or entity unchanged in anyway in the past, present and future. Before we go further we need to make it clear that this is the major issue that Buddhism has with all forms of Hinduism or Jainism (or for that matter any forms of religious beliefs which believe in an unchanging entity called a soul that survives death etc.) We shall deal with this sat atma (a really, truly inherently existent Atma) in greater details as that in crucial to understand the crux of the matter related to Vipassyana and Buddhism. Let me reiterate here that this is not merely a difference in words but this point makes the difference in the direction the meditation takes and finally the goal realised. Sankaracharya goes on to define 'chit' of sat chit ananda. Thus, Chit kim? (What is Chit?) Gyanswarupa which means that which is the form of knowledge. Knowledge means the knower in the Vedantic context as is made clear in Dig Drishya Vivek (discriminating the watcher and the watched), the Laghu Vakya Vritti (the short commentary on the words)/ the Vakya Vritti (the commentary on the words. The words here means the four Mahavakya The four great words of the Vedas which are used to point out the Atma/self), the Atma Gyanopadesh (the instructions on the knowledge of the self) all of Sankaracharya and all the Upanishads of the Veda. Although I have quoted Sankaracharya, according to Dr. S P Radhakrishnan (the ex-president of India and a great Hindu scholar), there is no form of Hinduism today which does not take the Sankara view of the Vedanta as the ultimate goal of

Hinduism, albeit various schools have modified it to fit in their own system. So the shortest way to understand most of Hinduism is to understand Sankara, although the (Dvaitavadin) dualist Madhava School and the Visistadvaitavadin (special Monistic school of Ramanujacharya differs from Sankaras Monism (Advaitavadin) view quite drastically we cannot possibly go into all the details and the difference and the attempts to integrate the two modes (dualistic and Monistic) here, as that would require a book by itself. So I shall agree with Dr. Radhakrisnan and compare only the Sankara view of Hinduism with Buddhism. Anyway, in one sense the Dvaitavadin (dualism) of Madhvacharya, the Vishistaadvaita (special Monism) of Ramanujacharya, the Bhedaabhedavaada (different and same ism) of Bhaskaracharya etc are even more drastically different from Buddhism than Sankaras view. Of all forms of Hinduism those who subscribe to one form or the other of Monism (Advaitavad) come closest to the Buddhist view of Advaya (non dualism). Issue 73: 30 June 6 July, 2008 Samyagdristi Both Sankara and Buddhism agree that one needs to have the correct view... Before we can proceed, we need to clarify many points before things can be clear to the layman. Monism or the Advaitavada of Sankaracharya or Shaivism or Shaktism is the view that there is one ultimate primordial first cause of all things which is ones true self. This is the primordial thing (Mahavastu), the first cause of all things from which everything appears and disappears into. How they appear and disappear is again interpreted slightly differently by the different schools of Hindus. Sankara, say they appear and disappear as an illusion and this is called the Vivartavada (illusionist) interpretation. Some like the Shaktas and Kashmir Shaiva say the coming and going of all things is more like a modification of the primordial matter and this is called the Parinamvada. However, they all agree that this primordial matter/thing (Mahavastu) is ones own true self (Atma Brahman).

And one is liberated only by the knowledge of this primordial thing which is called self knowledge. Here, it is important to distinguish Sankara from some of the Yoga schools in that Sankara does not agree that practicing yogas of any kind alone can lead to self knowledge (Atma Gyan) which liberates. So we have the Vichara Marga of Sankara which posits that unless one distinguishes through analysis (Vichara) as laid out in the Upanishads; the false, impermanent [anitya] (the world) and the true, permanent[nitya] (Atma), just going into samadhi alone does not and cannot liberate a person. This is a crucial matter in the Sankar Vedanta and some followers have even taken it to the extreme by declaring that only fools (Mudhas) practice meditation and the various yogas and Samadhis, and that the wise using only her/his Viveka (analysis) to distinguish the Atma (self) from the non self (Anatma) and recognising the self/Atma, attains liberation. So ignorance (Agyan/Avidhya) is the non realisation/non recognition/not knowing the Atma/self which is ones own true self; and liberation is attained by knowledge (Gyan) which is the recognition, knowing of ones true self. Here Sankara is similar to Buddhism in its tenet that unless one has the correct view (Samyagdristi) one cannot attain enlightenment by means of meditating. Merely meditating would be Samatha meditation within the Buddhist context. So both Sankara and Buddhism agree that one needs to have the correct view (Samyagdristi if we were to use Buddhist terminology) if one is to be enlightened (Bodha which is commonly used by Buddhist and Hindus). Samyagdristi is the first part of the Astangika Marga as prescribed by the Buddha. But now we come to the crux of the matter. What is this Samyagdristi? This is where Buddhism parts from all forms of Hinduism and Jainism and for that matter all other religious system which posit an eternal unchanging self/Atma/soul.

Issue 74: 7 13 July A very simplified version of Sankara Vedanta Sankaras Vedantic view has been interpreted with slightly different nuances by his own disciples or their disciples

What the Buddha meant by Samyagdristi is drastically different from what Sankara and the rest of Hinduism, no matter how different or similar to Sankara, mean by Samyagdristi. Hinduism does not use the word Samyagdristi but it does have what it calls the correct view. And what is the correct view of Sankara? That only Atma Gyan can liberate. This Atma is Sat Chit Ananda; and the watcher/witness (Drasta/Sakchi) of the three states etc., about which Sankara talked about. (Not recognising Pratyabhigya, is the word used in the Kashmir Shaivism). This Atma/self is ignorance; and knowing/recognising it, is self knowledge (Atma gyan) which produces liberation. In the Kashmir Shaivism, this self is called Shiva or Sambhavi Vidhya. Now I want to make it clear that I have presented a very simplified version of Sankara Vedanta and many sophisticated factors involved have not been mentioned in this article. The Vedanta is a very sophisticated system and such a short article as this cannot do full justice to it. But for our purpose, just this much is enough. In fact if we go into the detailed sophistication of the Vedanta, it actually goes even further away from the Buddhist correct view. In all forms of Vedanta, recognising the watcher/witness/knower (Drasta/Sakchi/Gyata) of the three states of dreaming, walking and deep sleep, which is beyond the five sheaths of body (Pancha kosha) and beyond the gross subtle and causal body, as ones own true/self is considered as Atma gyan. And the practice is to continuously affirm that you are that (Tut tvam asi), that this witness/watcher (Sakchi/Drasta) is ones own Atma (Pragyanam Braman = that which knows is the Braman); Ayam Atma Braman (this self is the Braman) and I am the Braman (Aham Bramasmi). In this system, the practice of any kind of yoga meditation Samadhi is of value only in so far as it helps to quieten the thinking mind so that the Sakchi/Drasta can be distinguished more easily from all that which is not the Atma (Nityanitya vivek - distinguishing the eternal and the impermanent). All systems within Hinduism which calls itself Advaita (monistic/non dualistic) prescribes to the view of Sankara which I have presented above, in one form or the other. Sankaras Vedantic view itself has been interpreted with slightly different nuances by his own disciples or their disciples; so it should not be a big surprise if the Shaivadvaita system of the Kashmir Shaiva school is a slightly different form

of the above and they do not agree with Sankara in all points. Likewise, the same can be said of Shaktaadvaita of the Shakta Sampradaya; and even schools of Kabir and the like. The meeting point of all these Hindu or semi Hindu system is that they all believe that this watcher/witness/knower (Drasta Sakchi Gyata) which is the ultimate knower of all outer and inner events/things/etc is the ultimate Atma (self which is eternal, unchanging i.e. Sat)

Issue 75: 14 20 July Watcher/Drasta While the Sankara Vedanta calls the witness, the Atma; other systems of Hinduism have their own names for it. Even Sri Rajneesh (Osho) who attempted to interpret Buddhist scriptures could not go beyond this ultimate watcher (which is a very Hinduistic notion). In spite of his attempt to present Buddhism to the Indian subcontinent (and the world at large) in a favorable angle; all he did was re-interpret the various Buddhist Sutra and Sastras in a Hinduistic way, without ever realising it. This consciousness/watcher, the Chit of Sat Chit Ananda is a very important aspect of the Hindu view. This can be seen not only from Sankaracharyas writings which I have illustrated above; but also from those texts of Hindu background which have attempted to refute the Buddhist view. In most of them, we find that they have completely misunderstood the emptiness of Buddhism and they try to show that a liberation that is empty and unconscious cannot be the real liberation and liberation by nature must be of the nature of knowledge (Gyanamaya). Such Hindu writings show a clear misunderstanding of the purport of Sunyata/emptiness in Buddhism or for that matter impermanence, non self, and Dukha. We have dealt with the Chit aspect of Sat Chit Ananda; and now finally as this really existing watcher (Sat Chit) is without thoughts, it is bliss (Ananda). Although there are many other view within Hinduism besides the Advaita view of Sankara and those influenced by it, they are, first of all, further away from the Buddhist view as their view entails a belief in a supreme god from whom the watcher/or individual self sparks out etc.

Secondly, since most learned Hindu scholars like ex-president Dr.Radha Krishnan, Dr. S.N. Das Gupta, Swami Vivekananda, and many others consider the Sankara Advaita Vedanta view as the acme of Hindu view; I feel it sufficient to compare only this view with the Buddhist view to show how the two are totally different systems of meditation/action/ and experience, if not contradictory. While the Sankara Vedanta calls the witness, the Atma, other systems of Hinduism have their own names for it. For example, the Kashmir Shaiva School calls this knowledge Shambhavi Vidhya instead of Atma Gyan, but in essence they are talking about the same watcher/Drasta; and some other systems call this same watcher, Para Vidhya or Para Samvit. There are hundreds of other names given to this watcher in the various sects of Hinduism; just as Paraa in the mantra systems which goes from outer sounds Vaikhari to Madhyama (inner sounds and lights) to Pasyanti (the watcher of all these sounds and lights) to final Para which is the super conscious macrocosmic watcher by itself. But we need not go into all of them as that would entail writing a book, which is not our purpose.)

Issue 76: 21 27 July Crux of Buddhism Recognising the watcher as the truly existing ultimate substance and identifying oneself with it will only lead to further continuity of Sansara, not liberation. Now all these systems claim that watcher/witness is your real nature (Tat tvam asi = That thou art) and to continually affirm I am that (Aham Bramasmi = I am the Braman) until I identify fully and completely with that watcher/witness etc. All Hindu meditations are geared towards helping the person to realise or recognise this watcher and finally to merge ones self into this watcher or to completely identify oneself with it. With this background let us compare this view and its meditation and its goal with the Buddhist view, meditation, goal. We have seen that in the Hindu system, ignorance (Agyan) is not to recognise or know this watcher which is ones true self as opposed to the false self called ego (Ahamkara). According to this system,

liberation is attained by recognising this watcher within and identifying oneself with it until one is fully identified with it. And all meditation is used to help in this process. Sankara is very clear that just meditating alone without the correct view is not enough. He says in his Tatva Bodh (knowing the Tatva/principle) Nityanitya Vivek, there should be the distinguishing of Nitya (the unchanging) and the Anitya (the changing). Those systems which do not agree to this cannot be called Advaita (monistic/non dual). Before I begin the view of Buddhism, I want to distinguish between Monism which is the view of the Advaita Vedanta and non dualism of Nagarjuna. Although some writers have also used the word non dualism for Sankaras Advaita; that creates a lot of confusion. The Websters New Collegiate Dictionary defines monism as a view that there is only one kind of ultimate substance. This is exactly the Sankara Vedanta or any other form of Advaita within Hinduism. This ultimate substance is the watcher, the super-conscious substance, Braman/Mahavastu. Now the Advaya (sometimes also called the Advaita of Nagarjuna) is not a monistic view in the sense neither Nagarjuna nor any form of Buddhism posits one ultimate substance in any form. In fact if we were to express the Buddhist view in an over simplified way, we can say that the correct view of Buddhism is to see/recognise that there is no one ultimate monistic substance anywhere to be found. Note that Buddhism does not say that there is no awareness etc., as some Hindu critique of Buddhism have implied in their refutation of Buddhism; but rather that, that watcher/awareness is not the ultimate substance and furthermore neither recognising that watcher nor becoming one with it liberates man. In fact according to Buddhism recognising the watcher as the truly existing ultimate substance and identifying oneself with it will only lead to further continuity of Sansara, not liberation. To understand this point of view is to understand the crux of Buddhism and thus to see how Buddhism is poles apart from any system which expounds any kind of one and only ultimate substance, conscious or unconscious and that virtually includes must of the worlds religious systems.

Issue 77: 28 July 3 August, 2008 Difference in Karma No one is high or low by birth, but becomes high or low by virtue of his/her qualities (Guna) and hard work. We have been talking about Samatha and in the context of Samatha we started talking about Riddhi Pratiharya (Riddhi-Siddhi as it is popularly known in the Hindu culture). In the explanation of Riddhi Pratiharya we said there are five main types of Aviggya which are called worldly Pratiharya (Laukik Pratiharya) and there is a sixth Aviggya which is the knowledge of the extinction of Asava/Klesha (emotional and intellectual defilements). In Buddhism this fifth is the only true Siddhi, all the rest are only like a childish play. In the context of the sixth Aviggya, we came upon the logic of correct view (Samyag Dristi) and Vipassyana. To distinguish what is meant by the correct view in Buddhism we went into details to clarify the non-Buddhist Advaita Vedantic view, so that it can be seen clearly what is not the Buddhist view. I have taken great pains to distinguish the Vedantic Advaita view so that it can be clearly distinguished from pure Buddhist view, like a piece of hair being extracted from butter. There are many other Hindu-Jain views too, but they are so drastically different from the Buddhist view that I do not feel the need to elaborate or distinguish them. Hinduism as a whole believes in a creator-god. Buddhism believes all such beliefs are mere wishful thinking. Hinduism believes in castes and classes as ordained by some divine power (specifically Brahma in the Vedic system itself but in Hinduism later, it gets a bit mixed up with other ideas). In Buddhism, there are no castes or class differences and whatever differences there are between men is a result of each persons own karma and certainly those differences are not permanent or given by some divine agent. They were created by ones own actions (Karma), so one can change it without any special divine beings will. So, those differences can be changed through the Karma (further actions) of the individual.

To believe that a Brahmin or a Chettris child is of higher level even if it has an IQ of 70 or 80, while a so called lower caste persons child is a lower being even if it has an IQ of above 130 is absurd to not only Buddhism but also to any rational, thinking person. No one is high or low by birth, but becomes high or low by virtue of his/her qualities (Guna) and hard work. And it is the qualities that a sane society should value and not some imagined high birth. Not everybody is an Einstein or Picasso, Tansen or Edison, Devkota or Beethoven. We cannot possibly say millions of other people are equal to them and therefore we/the society shall not honour them in the name of equality. However, Einstein and Beethoven were not born to any specific caste.

Issue 78: 4 10 August Wisdom matters, not caste or class Why cant he (a washerman) be a guru if he has Gyana (Wisdom)? No statistics have shown that certain castes have produced more Einsteins, given equal opportunities. It may be true to some extent that in the Indian subcontinent there have been more Bramin scholars than non Bramins in the past; but that is because of the blind caste system which ensured that only Bramins got the chance to study and the lower castes were discouraged to the point of being punished or excommunicated from the society if they even attempted to be scholars. Why, barely 30 or 40 years ago my own grandparents told me I shouldnt study the Bhagavat Gita otherwise I would go mad and that it should be left to the Bahuns. To Buddhism, all such notions are blindness. That is why the Buddha purposely ordained the haircutter of the Sakyas, Udayi before the other Sakyas, (the ruling Kshetriyas) so that they would be forced to respect them. In Buddhism, amongst Bhikchus, it is the rule of seniority that whoever is ordained first must be respected by those ordained later. Once, when the Buddha was going down the street, a lower class sweeper saw him coming and backed off in fear because the Buddha was of a high princely class. This was due to fear of coming close to the princely class. But the Buddha went close to him and told him, he need not fear him. The Buddha did not treat his own

son Rahula in any special way or any differently from other Bikchus. Rahula, who was an Arhat and had all the qualities, did not become Buddhas heir in power either. However, belief in class and caste seem to be human follies prevalent everywhere. Even in some communist states whose principles are supposed to be classless and finally stateless, we find brothers and sons are chosen as heirs instead of those who really have the qualities. In the Indian subcontinent this folly appears to have grown out of control and has spread like cancer. And sad to say it still influences the thinking of even the so called educated. I remember a long debate with the famous Hindu Swami, Khaptad Baba, who was supposed to be a medical doctor who could not accept the fact that the Balyogeshwar group had made a Doma (washerman) a guru across the border in India Pithoragada. He kept saying How can a Dom be a spiritual guru? And I kept asking him Why cant he be a guru if he has Gyana (wisdom)? and the only answer he could repeat was, How can a Doma have Gyana? When I pointed out to him that most of the famous Rishis (seers) were born of fisherwomen or born in other similar castes, he just gave me a nervous laughter as his reply. Issue 79: 11 17 August Disease of mankind Indeed, for as long as human beings or all societies are not freed from greed, hatred, from clinging to me or mine, and conditioned ideas (Sanskaras); the production of a classless society is only a dream. Mere intellectual acumen and knowledge does not free men from these afflictions. While social changes from the outside do contribute to the upliftment of man in many ways, it alone does not liberate man from his negative qualities. Man also needs an inner transformation without which all outer transformation are only extraneous and does not free him. The change must come from within first. For example, we cannot have a peaceful society or peace in the world when individuals in the society are not at peace even within their own selves. For individuals to be at peace, they would first have to learn the art of freeing

themselves from greed, hatred, passion and clinging to their self (Atman) and clinging to conditioned ideas, which separate man from man and breed hatred for the other castes or classes. They would need to free themselves from inner insecurities, complexes, neurosis and conditioning (Sanskar). Without being free from ones own inner turmoil, one cannot be peaceful in ones social interactions. Society is made up of individuals. There is no such thing as a society without individuals as there are no forests without trees. Trying to make a forest of sick trees into a botanical garden, surrounded by high walls and guards and other material trappings to surround it only covers the illness of the trees. It does not transform the forest. The disease of mankind is inside the man. What is seen outside is manifestation of his diseases. So merely changing the outer conditions will help only so much and not more. A miser will continue to be a miser even if he becomes a millionaire. The miserliness does not go away if he becomes rich. He will just become a miserly millionaire. Likewise, an angry person will not cease to be angry if he becomes the richest person overnight. His money and all his comforts will not free him of his anger. So it is with all other conditionings. This is not to say that there is no value in uplifting society in whatever ways in its external conditions. There is definitely great value in it which cannot be under estimated. But mere external physical changes do not bring peace to man. There is an entire different world to which man belongs which will not be touched or is barely scratched by only external changes; as all forms of psychotherapy have proven amply. Even multi-millionaires are not happy or at peace with themselves and with the world; and some of them have committed suicide. The American statistics show that millionaires form the highest category among those who commit suicide. Why would someone who has everything be so unhappy so as to take ones own life? This gives rise to the question whether a society could really be peaceful if all its members became multi-millionaires and had all the physical comforts at their disposal.

80. Balanced growth Acharya Mahayogi Sridhar Rana Rinpoche

Once outer hunger is appeased, inner hunger must also be taken care of, for a man to be happy. Do people really need money, the dream house and other consumer goods that advertisements have conditioned them to believe are necessary for their happiness? Do we need an unhappy, apathetic society which has only its material needs fulfilled or should we aspire towards a peaceful society that is free from greed, hatred and other emotional defilements, at least to some extent? This is not to say that inner development excludes material development but both ought to complement each other. As the Buddha said hunger is the greatest disease and the Dharma cannot be taught to a hungry stomach. Every individual needs food, shelter, money etc., but Dharma (the need for peak experiences and self actualisation, inner growth and transformation) is also one of the needs that should be fulfilled. Once outer hunger is appeased, inner hunger must also be taken care of, for a man to be happy. It is only after this that a man can be creative. When individuals in a group are at peace, we have a peaceful group. And when a group in a society is at peace, we have a peaceful society. There can be no peaceful society when individuals are not at peace with themselves. This peace by its very nature cannot be forced or bribed from the outside. Only inner work, inner change/transformation can bring it. It is also true that this inner work cannot be fully successful as long as external social conditions are not salubrious to it. We cannot undertake inner transformation of the individuals in a society where hunger is rampant or suppression of freedom, of growth and everything these entail take place! So there must be a balanced growth on both sides. It is the inner growth and the

freedom of man from his inner chains basically that Buddhism deals with. Although all forms of religions basically attempt to do exactly that in various ways, i.e., provide peace to man, the methods have been different. At one level, all religious systems are the same in that they all prescribe not to steal, not to murder, etc., and that is the first step to inner peace. This is the Shila aspect of the Buddhist three trainings. As the Buddha said, "Sarva paapasya akaranani kushalasya upasampadaa." - not doing evil and doing good works. Without this society cannot exist. Although it seems simple, it is normally very difficult for man to follow it because of his own internal conflicts which have not been resolved. So we need police to police the society. But as long as nothing is done to take care of these inner conflicts police will always be required. The more people in a society become free from these inner conflicts the less we need the police. As long as there are police in any form there is no stateless society. This is a very simple equation. Even if everything physical has been provided, as long as inner conflicts are not resolved, even a multimillionaire will steal from a supermarket. So we need resolution of inner conflicts of the individual and not only merely of external circumstances/ situations/ conditions (which of course are necessary) as some rank materialistics envision.

81. Calming the mind

The more regularly one meditates the more relaxed one's physical-mental system becomes. We also need to calm the mind, and meditation in all and sundry forms be it Hindu, Sufi, Jain, Taoist, Hashidic, Kahuna or Christian meditation, all do this work. Without a pacified mind there is no contentment and peace, even if all the physical and material needs are met. Merely following injunctions of not killing, not stealing etc., can pacify mind only so much. Beneath, the inner waves of the mind are still running wild. And as long as the mind is running amok, it can easily break out into unsocial behaviours like stealing, looting, killing etc. So the Buddha said, So Chitta Paryopadapanam bring the mind under control, to pacify the mind.

This is where meditation comes into play. There are two major categories of meditation: Samatha meditation and Vipassyana meditation, according to Buddhism. All forms of religion are similar and produce almost the same results as far as Samatha meditation is concerned. It is not only that ancient religious schools say meditation is of great value; but today modern brain science also has discovered the immense value of meditation for relaxation, stress release, development of capacity to handle stress, creativity and general health. It would be utter nonsense to claim that only Buddhist meditators produce all the above results. All forms of Samatha meditation produce the same results. In scientific terminology all Samatha meditations take the mind from beta waves which are the brain waves produced when we are in our so called 'normal' day to day activity; to alpha waves, which means the mind is relaxed. In such a state, the stress accumulated during the day is released or the mind is prepared and fresh to deal with the stress life presents to all individuals. The world renowned Dr. Herbert Spencer MD calls it the relaxation response. Regular meditation produces what is called the relaxation response which means the mind is trained to respond more and more quickly to relax when one meditates regularly. The more regularly one meditates the more relaxed one's physicalmental system becomes. Needless to say the more relaxed one is, the more peaceful one will be, with less outside irritants affecting one's nerves. As I mentioned earlier, no particular Samatha type meditation is more effective than the other in producing this response. All religious systems have one form or the other of Samatha meditation. Even prayers can quieten the mind to some extent but not to the same degree as meditations. But sometimes prayers can be so deep that they become a form of lower level meditation.

82. Deep levels of relaxation

Such experiences are often mistaken for spiritual experiences or in some cases even claimed to be enlightenment. Even in Samatha meditation there are degrees. The deeper the level of absorption (Samatha) the deeper the level of relaxation response produced in the neuro-bio chemical system of the body and thus in the mind, which is undeniably

interdependent on and interlinked with the neuro-bio-chemical body. In scientific terminology, alpha waves begin to form at 14 hertz and go down to depths of 8 hertz. So if you close your eyes and relax you will start sinking towards 14 hertz. But you probably won't be able to sink below 13 hertz or so by just closing your eyes and relaxing, you need methods devised through thousands of years to sink all the way to 8 hertz and even below that. The upper echelons of the alpha waves can be achieved easily by a lot of methods and they are all as effective as other methods. Usually, people who have been stuck in the beta wave mode are normally stressed out and have never/seldom experienced even the upper alpha modes of relaxed state (14/13/12 Hertz or so) feel profound release; if through any one of the ancient or recently developed method of meditations, they manage to enter the realm of alpha waves. Such experiences are often mistaken for spiritual experiences or in some cases even claimed to be enlightenment! After years of regular dedicated practice, you can manage to have even more profound states of relaxations and deeper experiences provided the method is correct. Let it be said that even those deeper experiences are far from enlightenment! As you go deeper into various levels of deeper Samadhi, you sink into theta brain wave patterns. From theta at 8 hertz, you can go deeper and deeper into relaxation all the way up to 4 hertz. But that requires a good technical method and a good technician (that is what a qualified guru is about) to arrive at such deep levels of relaxation. At such levels, profound catharsis can take place which is more complex than the laughing or crying types of catharsis that takes place in the outer alpha levels brought about by most meditation methods. Obviously, again, we need a good technician (which is what a guru is also, although not limited to that alone) to deal with it properly. As the person goes into deeper levels of Samadhi, he enters the delta brain wave levels. Delta waves range from below 4 hertz to 1 hertz. But delta levels are available only to Samatha meditations. The Vipassyana meditators never enter the delta level. At the delta level, all thoughts subside and the mind enters peaceful sleep like state somewhat akin to the deep sleep without dreams. At such a level the entire neural system is replenished, refreshed and recharged. Experiments have been done on Indian Kundalini Yogis and it has been found that they enter delta wave states when they are in their deepest Samadis as I have mentioned before.

83. Suppressed Kleshas

Even if the person reaches a high state of absorption in the watcher, like with all Samatha meditation techniques, the Kleshas, clinging, grasping, neurosis of the mind are only submerged or stopped under the waves of bliss, they are not uprooted. Only the most advanced Samatha meditators reach this stage. This is the Nirvikalpa Samadhi of the Hindu Kundalini yoga, where the person is literally dead to the world for a long period. Even flies are said to be fooled and enter the person's nostrils. By Kundalini yoga, we mean the type that Santa Gyaneswar has described in the Gyaneshvari Gita and not the types of the so called Kundalini yoga prevalent in the market today. Such bazaar - Kundalini types could hardly take you to the first levels of alpha waves, leave alone the deep levels of delta waves. In the Gyaneswari, Santa Gyaneswar explains that when the Kundalini begins to rise up, the skin, nails and hair of the person begin to melt away. The person begins to look like a leper and that is why it has to be practiced away from the society with the support of those who know about the process. It is said one should not keep a mirror with oneself as looking at oneself in such a condition would disturb or frighten the meditator profoundly and the shock may unbalance him so much that he may go crazy. But as the Kundalini rises higher up, the entire body is rejuvenated; and balding, graying hair becomes black again and the tone of the skin becomes like that of a sixteen year old. These are just some of the outer symptoms while the mind goes through various levels of Samadhi. In my personal talks with the famous Khaptad Baba, he explained that it was the only real Kundalini yoga and that he himself had experienced all that was written by Sant Gyaneswar. Needless to say no such results external or internal has been heard or seen regarding any of the so called Bazaar Kundalini yoga methods, created by smart marketing managers. This delta level is also entered by Buddhist Yogavacharas who enter the fourth Dhyanas and their corollaries the four higher levels of formless Dhyanas - the infinite expanse of empty space, the infinite expanse consciousness, the no

remainder and finally the neither perception nor non perception states of deep meditation. However, when one enters the delta levels through whatever technique, all neurosis, clinging, grasping are only smothered by the peaceful delta waves. The body feels very peaceful, all neurosis, Kleshas seem to go away but actually they have only been suppressed and have not gone away. This is true even in the practice of becoming the watcher (Sakchyaabhyaas) as posited by Sankara Vedanta. Even if the person reaches a high state of absorption in the watcher, like with all Samatha meditation techniques, the Kleshas, clinging, grasping, neurosis of the mind are only submerged or stopped under the waves of bliss, they are not uprooted. The Buddhist word for such suppression is Biskhambana which technically means blocking.

84. Ignorance innate clinging to I and mine

The neurosis have only been thoroughly suppressed temporarily and can come out any time given the cause and conditions. So the neurosis (Kleshas) are only blocked from being manifested but not really destroyed and thus the person is not really free from it. Thus such a person is not even a Srotappana; forget the higher stages of the Buddhist enlightenment like the Arhat or the Buddha. Hindu mythical stories (Puranas) more than amply testify to the fact that seers (Rishis) who were supposed to be in deepest Samadhis for thousands of years and so on often flared up in anger, destroyed cities and were ridden with emotions like jealousy etc. Since ignorance which in Buddhist terminology is the innate clinging to the concept of self (Atman) and mine (Atmiya); and all the neurosis that branches out of it is are only suppressed and not uprooted in even deepest levels of Samadhi. So, no matter how blissful the person is, he is not liberated yet at the deepest levels and thus is not enlightened. This ignorance is technically called Sahaja Atman Graha. Here we are talking about deep levels of Samadhi which reach delta levels, forget about the superficial practices which heighten awareness and make mind thoughtless temporarily which

is mistaken for the 'no-mind of Buddhism' by many who have no real knowledge of Buddhism. Needless to say such practices can take you only to the surface levels of alpha waves, which is just the beginning. Many are led to believe that such awareness without thoughts is the enlightened state. Well, it must be said clearly that this is not Buddhist enlightenment. And people who have reached the genuine Samadhis have not yet freed themselves from hatred, passion, self clinging and so on. They have only been thoroughly suppressed temporarily and can come out any time given the cause and conditions. If a person is fully enlightened these are uprooted and cannot appear again no matter what the outer circumstances are. There is more to be said about this later as this is a very subtle point and crucial to understand correct Buddhism. So the big question is: what is the method of uprooting the root of ignorance and all that goes with it? The Buddhist answer to this is Vipashyana called Vippassana in Pali. It is called Lhagthong in Tibetan, Kuan in Chinese, Kan in Korean, Khan in Japanese. Before we go to Vipassyana, I would like to finish a related topic to meditation and the human need to search for some higher thing - be it called god, Tao or enlightenment. The world renowned psychologist Maslow called this the highest need of man and called it self actualisation needs. It is important for ultra materialists to know that hunger and shelter and status etc are not the only basic needs of man. Man has an inherent need for self actualisation - to seek for something higher than the material world. For any society to be at peace and to be a successful society, this need must be provided for. These needs are as important and as pressing to man as his hunger and shelter needs.

85. Hard wired into brain

Man does not live by bread alone as Christ said. Any materialist who thinks man will be satisfied once his lower basic needs are satisfied does not understand the modus operandi of the human system. After his basic needs are met, man will by his very nature seek satisfaction of his higher needs and that according to Abraham Maslow is self actualisation needs. Man does not live by bread alone as Christ said. After he gets bread, he looks for something

that is more fulfilling thatenriches his life. He yearns to enrich his experience. Just more bread or better quality bread or more butter does not fulfill that need. This is what ultra materialists need to realise. Self actualisation need is not satisfied by the attainment of luxury; if anything added luxury only aggravates the need for self actualisation. Ample proof of this is the high rate of suicides among multi-millionaires who find that their ultimate need is not satisfied with all the material goods and comforts that money can buy. Around the mid 80s, I remember a young girl of 18 who had won millions of dollars in the American lottery. Her name and interview appeared in The Times and Newsweek. Around six months later, both the magazines reported she committed suicide. If material needs are all that man needs to be happy and satisfied in life, this girl had it all and that too at an early age. That she committed suicide proved money did not make her happy. Man has basic needs for what Maslow calls peak experience or flow. These are as basic as food and shelter, and man can never feel fulfilled until s/he has access to it. This is not only an unproven hypothesis but proven through hard statistics and hard core sciences like the brain science. Brain neurologist Andrew Neuberg and Eugene Daquili and others have shown that man is neurally wired to seek for the higher experiences. They have written a book, Why God Won't Go Away. Here, God does not necessarily mean some Creator God with a white beard sitting up on his throne looking down on man. What they mean is that man is neurally wired to seek for higher experiences, mystical experiences, peak experiences, the flow etc. It is a hard wiring that will not go away by whatever external threats that try to deny or control it; just as the need for food and shelter does not go away even if a gun were pointed at it. Both these needs are hard wired into the neural system and so needs to be fulfilled. This wiring, by the way, is not found in animals but only in humans so it is a sign of higher evolution which would mean that those who show signs of spiritual needs of any kind and follow up on it are moving forward in evolution while those who forcibly deny any kind of spiritual aspirations are regressive to the needs of evolution. And this is exactly what/how/why religious systems developed - to fulfill this need. All religious systems fulfill these needs to some extent or the other. But there are degrees of the flow, degrees of letting go, of self actualisation etc.; and here we have differences in various systems. The method to achieve flow/self

actualisation/letting go/ etc., in all systems is more or less through prayers and meditations of different kinds.

86. Different peaks Although one can climb up different paths, it does not necessarily reach the top of the same mountain. A man who has never experienced a peak experience in his life or experienced flow is a poor man even if s/he has all the material riches. Needless to say, people who spend their life suffering from hunger, selfish needs, greed, hatred and the like cannot experience flow or self actualisation or peak experiences. That is why all religious systems have these injunctions - not to kill, not to steal etc., as their basic tenets. But these are just the foundations; they do not necessarily provide peak experiences on their own, although it has its social values. If such injunctions did not exist in any form, a man could just move around freely and do what s/he wished, meaning what his or her ego wants at the moment, and there would be no stable society as such as there would be no reason to worry about the social implications of one's actions. It is also very important to understand clearly a point in which there has been a lot of confusion, especially, in the religious milieu of the Indian subcontinent. It is true that there are many paths and it also true that these various paths do benefit man in various ways; but all paths do not reach the same goal and they do not necessarily take one towards the same goal. There seems to be an unconscious tendency within Hinduism that all religious systems ultimately teach the same thing - that there are many paths leading up to the top of the same mountain. And the implication within Hinduism and those influenced by this kind of thinking is that - that mountain is the Hindu - Vedic mountain, as if there was no possibility of existence of any other mountain. This logic is fundamentally flawed in many ways. One flaw is that it presumes all paths are climbing the same mountain, which is just an assumption, not a proven fact. Wherever you dig, you may find 'water' but all water from different wells are not necessarily exactly the same. Water from different places would taste different and have different qualities.

Although one can climb up different paths, it does not necessarily reach the top of the same mountain. One cannot claim that all peaks of all mountains are the same. Another flaw in this thinking is the unconscious assumption that all systems lead to the same place where 'my' systems leads. In other words, there cannot be any other system besides 'my' system and therefore other paths are mere variations or branches of the path 'I' follow. It is like claiming, the human mind cannot possibly develop any other path and goals than the ones that 'I' know or the one 'I' follow. This form of thinking is a very subtle form of intolerance disguised as ultimate tolerance! This is not to say that no other paths but Buddhism can give peace to mind to its practitioners. Far from it; but the goal of Buddhism goes beyond just peace of mind. Within the Indian subcontinent after the 19th century, after Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and Vivekananda, the concept that all paths lead to the same peak began to spread and today virtually every Swami, Paramahamsa etc., claim that all paths lead to the same goal which means (and this has been explicitly said) that Buddhism and Hinduism both lead to the same place. This tendency had already begun in the Yoga Vashistha which claims that the Vigyan of the Vigyanvadin and the Sunyata of the Madhyamika is the same as the Brahman of the Vedas etc. Now let us analyse such statements. These statements and such others made by latter day Swamis mean that the Brahman of the Veda/Vedanta is the one and only highest truth and that the meaning of Sunyata or Vigyan is Brahman as the Hindus believe it. It does not by any means mean that the Braman which is Sat-Chit-Anand (Satmeans really existing in the three times) is Sunyata (not really existing) in the Buddhist sense.

87. Sunyata (Emptiness)

If we were to accept Brahman as not really existing then Sankaracharya, Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya, Bhaskaracharya, Nimbarkacharya, Yamunacharya would all collapse. No Hindu who has understood what Brahman/Atman means would or could agree it does not really exist or it has no real existence. So what is the meaning of Sunyata or the Sunya which is the same as the Braman of the Vedas/Vedantas according to the Yogavashitha? It means, Sunyata (emptiness) does not really mean what the Buddhists mean it to be but is really what Hindus mean it to be. Such thinking is totally unfair to the Buddhists.

In the subcontinent Hindus want to be friends of Buddhists but go around trying to force their theories (Siddhantas) down the throats of Buddhists without even realising it. Many Swamis do not seem to realise that when they say Buddhist Sunyata and the Hindu Braman are the same thing; they are in effect trying to force the Buddhists to become Brahmanvadins by giving a Hindu interpretation of Sunyata. Virtually every Hindu or Hindu oriented guru has done this over the last two centuries. And they don't seem to realise this is not really being tolerant of Buddhism but is rather trying to force Buddhism within the Bramavadin banner, which anybody who has studied even a little of Buddhism can tell is not true. Because of this many Hindus fail to understand why Buddhists do not agree when they say Brahman and Sunyata are the same and they only differ in words. We shall see later why they cannot be the same. But here the point we are driving at is different. This is not tolerance at all, as a lot of Hindus think it to be; but rather a forced distortion of Buddhist views to fit within the Hindu views and thus a subtle form of intolerance of other views which do not fit within 'our' paradigm. How would Bramavadin Hindus think or feel if a Buddhist said that the Hindu view of Brahman actually means there is no - Atman (Anatman) and Brahman actually means there is no really existing ultimate thing anywhere, there is no ultimately unchanging sub-stratum to this universe, therefore what the Hindus mean by Brahman is what we mean by Sunyata? This new definition of Brahman/Atman contradicts the entire Prasthan Trayi (the three pillars) which are the Bhagwat Gita, Brahman Sutra and the Upanishads. All three say the Brahman/Atman is something unchanging that remains so in all three times (past, present and future) and it really exits (Paramaartha Satta). The Buddhist Sunyata, if it is understood properly is exactly the opposite. Sunyata is not a thing like Brahman nor is a super thing (Mahavastu) beyond thing and non thing. It is the mode of existence of all phenomenons (Dharma Sthiti). Brahman cannot by any definition be called the mode of existence of all phenomena or Dharma Sthiti. The way all things exist is that they do not have any real existence. That mode of not having real existence (not Sat) of all phenomena is the Sunyata of all things. It is not the substratum like Braman from which all phenomena arise and subsides. It is not an existent thing (Sat) like Brahma/Atman, but rather is a description of the mode of existence of all phenomena, the description of the way all phenomena exists.

88. Brahman and Sunyata Brahman is a thing or super thing (Mahavastu); Sunyata is the mode of existence of things (phenomena) and not any kind of thing or super thing. The reason why a

lot of people are fooled is that sometimes similar words are used to describe both the Brahman and Sunyata. But no matter how similar the words used, Brahman is an ontological entity (Tatva Shastriya Vastu). Sunyata is not an ontological entity but only an epistemological fact (Gyana Shastriya Tathya). That there is really an existing unchanging substratum called Brahman/Atman to this evanescent world (Samsara) and that is the essence of this ephemeral world cannot be said to be the same thing as there is no eternal unchanging substratum to this evanescent world and that fact is the essence of that ephemeral world. These are not only two different things but to a degree even contradictory. So how can Brahman and Sunyata be just two different things of the same thing? How can the Bhagavat Gita which teaches the Brahman be saying the same thing as the Buddhist Sutras and Shastras which teach Sunyata or Nirvana, which is the extinction of any unchanging Self or Super Self? The Nirvana or the Dukha Nirodh Satya of The Four Noble Truths (Chatvari Arya Satyani) does not teach that the realisation of any kind of Brahman/Atman is the Dukha Nirodh Satya (The truth of extinction of sorrow), but rather such beliefs is the cause of Dukha (sorrow). Now to elaborate on the second part related to the mix up. To say the Hindu method and the Buddhist method does not lead to the same goal does not automatically imply that the two are enemies and have nothing in common at all. All religious systems all over the world have many things in common but that does not make (1) Hinduism and Buddhism one and the same, (2) the goals of the two the same (3)Buddhism a branch of Hinduism. Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism all developed within the Indo-Gangetic civilisation and thus have more in common with each other than with other non Indo - Aryan religious systems. However that does not make them exactly the same, nor does it mean they have the same goals. Jainism and Hinduism believe in an Atman and thus Atman Gyan as the means of knowledge and the method of freeing oneself from sorrow (Dukha). This Atma-Gyan (self knowledge) means knowledge of the eternal unchanging self that we truly are but still there are significant differences between Hinduism and Jainism! Some people confuse the Heya, Heya Hetu and Hana, Hanopaya found in Hindu philosophy as the same as the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism and thus conclude it is the same teaching because the meanings of the words seem to be similar. Firstly, the entire concept is copied from Buddhism as these words and concepts appear only at a much later date. Secondly, similar concepts exist in all other religious systems not only in Hinduism but even a little enquiry shows that it is exactly where Hinduism and Buddhism differ on each of the four counts!!

89. Meaning, not words, are important

That what is to be dropped, to let go, in all religious system is Dukha (sorrow) but the cause of that Dukha (Heya hetu) are not the same. The cause of sorrow of man in Christianity is, not surrendering to Christ as the one and the only son of God; in Islam it is not surrendering to Allah - the one and only, but rather to various idols; in Hinduism, it is clinging to Anatman (all that is not Atman); or in some forms of Hinduism it is just like Christianity or Islam in that the cause of Dukha is not surrendering to Krishna or somebody else; while in Buddhism it is clinging to Atman (the concept that there is a truly existing self). Likewise the Hana (the state of being free from Dukha) is something all religious traditions have as a part of its goal; and the definition of what is true freedom/sorrow are defined differently in each system. It is important to understand there are many types and many levels of freedom from Dukha and they are not necessarily the same - in terms of level or quality. And again, the way (Marga) or Hanopaya (the method of reaching the goal - freedom from sorrow) are again very different in all systems. In Christianity, it is surrendering to Christ; in Islam it is surrendering to Allah; in Hinduism it is realising the Atman (one's true self) etc. But all of these are drastically different from the way Buddhism advocates and that is to realise Anatman (that there is no really existing self/Atman anywhere to be found) which is the opposite of realisation of the Atman as posited by Hinduism! As the Buddha said - depend on the meaning, not on the words; and this is common sense! Those who advocate that the Heya, Heya hetu, Hana, Hanopaya are the same as the Buddha's four noble truths have fallen for mere words. Even the medical sciences and Ayur Veda have their own forms of truths but that doesn't mean Ayur Veda or for that matter the medical sciences are the same as Buddhism or are a branch of Buddhism. All forms of present day Hinduism believe firmly in a creator - God - Ishwar. Jainism normally does not have such a concept. The Tirthankaras like Mahavira are enlightened beings who have freed themselves from Samsara but they are by no means considered God, the creator of the Samsara/world. But Buddhism is even further away from Hinduism in that it neither accepts Atman (supreme self) nor an Ishwar (creator-God). Both concepts according to Buddhists are products of Mithya Dristi (false/ignorant/misleading views/concepts). So enlightenment in Buddhism is neither seeing that imagined eternal unchanging self as one's true nature or seeing God or God realisation.

90. Swarupa Now, I will clarify the use of word Swarupa/Atman and the difference in its meaning and its ultimate goal. According to Jainism and Hinduism one's essence

(Swarup) is the Atman. To Hinduism and Jainism, our true essence is the eternal, unchanging self/Atman/Brahman but when Buddhism uses the same word essence (Swarup), it means that our true essence (Swarup) is the fact of selflessness or 'no self' or absence of any eternal, unchanging self or Atman. In correct Buddhist terminology Anatma/Anatta in Pali is our Swarup. So the word Swarup (self-essence - sometimes translated as True Self) has a contradictory meaning in Hinduism and Buddhism. The Swarup of Buddhism is Anatma or Sunyata which are synonymous. Sunyata is a deeper level of Anatma. Therefore Sunyata can never be the same as the Brahman- Atman of Hinduism as the Yoga Vasistha would like to have it. This also brings into question the date of the Yoga Vasistha. It is supposed to be the teachings on Vedanta that Vasistha gave to Rama. Now, if Vasistha and Rama were before Buddha how can the Vigyanvad and the Sunyata of Buddhism be mentioned by Vasistha to Rama? The Buddha himself has mentioned the name of Vasistha as an ancient Rishi (seer) so definitely he is older than the Buddha. The Buddha mentions Rama in the Jatakas, which also would imply that Rama should be older than Sakyamuni. But the story given by the Buddha about Rama seems to be older than any form of Ramayana existing. It seems to be the prototype on which the Hindus build their longer versions later on in history. Rama in the Jatakas is definitely older than even Valmiki Ramayan which was written much later than the Buddha's time. In it, Rama is a former life of the Buddha himself when he was still a practicing Bodhisattva (still a long way in terms of time, in becoming a Buddha) but the motifs and themes are very similar to what is known as the Ramayan today. We have Vasistha teaching Rama that the Vigyan/Chitta of the Vigyanvadas and the Sunyata of the Sunyavadins (both of them Buddhists) mean exactly the same Brahman of the Veda/Vedantas. We also have the Valmiki Ramayan in which Rama is supposed to have told Jaivali (in Jaivali Prakarana Ayodhya Kanda) that the Tathagata is a thief etc. Either these words and concepts were added later to those writings or these were written after the Buddha in the name of Vasistha, Valmiki, Rama etc. I leave this for the scholars to decide. However the story of Rama in the Jataka is definitely older than the Valmiki Ramayan which is the oldest Hinduised Version of Ramayana.

91. Artilces from issue 91-105

Before I go into the similarities and closeness that exist between Buddhism and Hinduism, I would like to digress to a related point related to the Nepali context. In the Nepali context, the Hindus of Nepal have been trying to woo the Buddhists as belonging to the same fold by claiming and sometimes trying to force it down that Buddhism is the same religion and not different from Hinduism, actually a branch of Hinduism. None of those Hindus seem to realize that when they say that Buddhism and Hinduism are the same religion, to the Buddhist, it sounds too much like saying there are no differences and our goals are exactly the same. Sounds very tolerant at the outset but such a concept is extremely intolerant to the minority when said by a majority, especially when it is clear that the meaning of same here is that your views, philosophy, goals, practices are the same as ours, or a branch of ours or even in some cases, developed as a deviant off shoots of ours. Mark you its not the other way around that our Brahman is empty, does not have real existence, but rather your Sunyata has the same meaning as our Brahman which is really existing and any other interpretation of Sunyata is a mistake on the part of Buddhist who didnt understand Buddha. Anyway this is what Swami Vivekananda and many other Paramahansa implied or even said explicitly. That the Buddhists didnt understand the Buddha was implied as early as 300 AD by Vatsayana when he tried to read the Atman in the Bharhara Sutra of the Buddha, in his own writings. Needless to say this kind of an attitude will not endear any genuine Buddhists. If the Hindus want to befriend Buddhists, they should learn to respect the Buddhist views and accept it as the Buddhist view as a first step, rather than trying to forcibly gobble up the major differences in the name of oneness. Even Sankaracharya did not accept many other Hindu views as the same as his view/goals and refuted them in his Sariraka Bhasya.(his commentary on the Brahman Sutra) and in his commentaries on the Bhagvat Gita and the Upanishads. Do the Hindus really expect Buddhists to calmly accept that there is no difference between the views of Hinduism and Buddhism? Ramanujacharya did not accept Sankhara's views and goals as his views and goals, Madhvachary did not accept both of the above. Bhaskaracharya even went so far as to call Sankaracharya a crypto-Buddhist (Prachanna Bauddha) and refused to accept him as a genuine Hindu because his views and goals seemed too close to the Buddhist views and goal and further away from what Bhaskara called Hinduism.

So if the Hindus of Nepal want to befriend Buddhist who are the second biggest

group in the country, they should stop all such strong arm tactics and accept the Buddhist culture, goal as alternative view, culture, goal that grew out of the culture of the Indian Subcontinent as much as did Hinduism and Jainism. Judaism, Christianity and Islam evolved out of the Semitic Culture and have many things in common by virtue of that but still are by no means the same nor can we say Christianity or Islam are but branches of Judaism simply because Judaism is older or even that they are deviant versions of Judaism. Similarly, Buddhism , Hinduism and Jainism evolved out of the Indo Aryan and Dravidian Cultures of the Indo Gangetic planes of the Indian Subcontinent and thus do have many similarities by virtue of that; however, they are not the same or branches et al. As I have mentioned earlier we shall go into the similarities later on. We can say that Buddhism and Hinduism and Jainism are like three different fingers growing out of the same Palms (the palms being a metaphor for the Indo-Aryan-Dravidian Cultures and not Hinduism or even Vedicism/Brahmanism). This where most Hindu layman and Scholars err! They tend confuse the entire Indo-AryanDravidian Culture to be automatically a synonym for Hinduism which is unwarranted culturally and historically. It must be understood that at the time of the Buddha and before that the Vedic system was only one of the various streams of religious systems competing with many other Sramanic streams already existing in the Indian subcontinent even before the Indo Aryans migrated into the Indo Gangetic planes bringing their Vedic Brahmanism along with them!! Some Fundamenalist Hindu scholars do not agree that the Indo Aryans migrated into the Indo Gangetic planes but were always there!! But the historical proofs and even the satellite readings of the beds of the Sindhu ( Indus) river seem to be against their interpretation whereas they have only Pauranic Myths to rely upon which are usually very contradictory! But even if we were to concede to this unfounded idea and say that Vedic Brahmanism was always there in the Indo Gangetic planes it would still be only one of the many streams of religious thoughts vying with each other at the time of the Buddha or earlier. And mind you, we are the Vedic system and not Hinduism of which there is no records at the time of the Buddha or the older contemporary Mahavir. We have already gone into details about how Hinduism as it is called now developed out of the interaction of Buddhism with the older Vedic system and so we shall not go into it again. However if Buddhism cannot be said to be either the same as or a branch of the Vedic system how can it be the same as or a branch of Hinduism which evolved in the Indian Subcontinent after the Buddha? Buddhism is a continuation of the Shramanic stream that already existed in the Indian Subcontinent. We shall go later into more details to see how there are internal evidences that most of what is considered as Ancient Scriptures by the Hindus (and assumed that they are older than the Buddha by most Hindus

,Laymen and Scholars) such as The Bhagawat Gita, the Brahman Sutra , the Valmiki Ramayana, the Yoga Vashitha , The Astavakra Gita and a whole host of such other Shastras are actually much later than the Buddha. In 1977-78, during the Panchayat period, I had a strong argument with the CDO who was a Brahmin, who was forcing the people of Thak Khola, Mustang, to use names like Hari Prasad instead of Tsering Dorje etc., all in the name of unity. I told him there should be unity in diversity and unity does not mean forcing all other ethnic cultures to abandon their religio-cultural system and taking up Brahmanic culture. I told him we should give equal status to all religio-cultural system within Nepal and not try to make or force them to be one. I added that this will back fire once these people become aware and educated. But he did not agree with me. This is the type of mistake the Hindus of Nepal have been making with Buddhist ethnic groups and are still making it. Even after Nepal has become a Republic, the Bramin-Newar dominated politicoadministrative system seem to be blissfully unaware that more than 15 percent of Nepali citizens are Dorjes and Ang Tserings whose culture and language is TibetoBurman and religion is Buddhism. Because the Newars have been living in the capital and have been strongly influenced by the Bramanical cultures for centuries in spite of the fact that their language too is Tibeto-Burman;most non Tibeto Burmans think that Nepali Buddhism is limited to Newars. This is totally false. The Newar Vajrayana is very much part of our Nepalese culture as a whole and is very rich and certainly something all Nepalese should be proud of; however, it is important to understand that the Buddhist Newars are only a small percentage of the Buddhist population of Nepal and by no means represent all of Nepalese Buddhism. First of all, the Newars form 5.48 percent of the Nepali population according to the statistics of 2058. Of these, only one or two percent of those Newars are Buddhists, which means the Newar Buddhists are less than one percent of the Nepali population whereas the Himalayan and sub Himalayan ethnic groups who follow the Tibetan form of Buddhism in one form or the other are more than 10 percent of the total population according to the statistics, but I personally believe more than 20 percent of the population belong to the ethnic groups who are Tibeto Burmans and follow Tibeto-Burman religio-socio-cultural forms. All of these use scriptures written in the Tibetan script even if their links with Tibet have been severed a long time ago. And to this group belong the Tamangs,Gurung, Magars and those who still speak a dialect of Tibetan and still have marriage links across the border with

Tibetans (just as our Madhesi groups have linguistic and marital links with Indians across the borders) like the Sherpas, the Dolpopas, the Yolmopas, the Humlis, the Lepchas, the Lopas (more commonly known to the Kathmanduites as the Mustangis), the Nubripas of Athara Saya Khola called Nubri in local Tibetan language, the Lungpas, the Gungthangpas and others. This whole religio-socio-culture is a sleeping snow leopard which is beginning to wake up in the new Republican Nepal. It is indeed wiser for the Brahmanic-Newar dominated politico-administrative system to wake up to this fact and give this large part of Nepal who form the majority of the Buddhists of Nepal due credence and respect which has been drastically lacking for centuries, before the snow leopard wakes up on its own and begins to demand its rightful place in Nepal, like the Madhesis did. And to be sure it is awakening!!

Simply because the Newar Buddhists had the facility of living in the capital and thus had the facilities to organize themselves according to the politicadministrative systems throughout the Panchayat system and thus have Buddhist organizations accepted by the politico-administrative systems since the Panchayat time,it doesn't mean that 1) these organizations also represent the majority of the Buddhists or 2) even represent the Tibeto-Burman Buddhists. And just because the Chinese are having trouble in Tibet with Tibetans, it doesnt mean our own pure Nepalese Tibeto-Burman groups should also be suppressed or their religious sentiments not given credence at all. In a Republic we cannot afford to do that as they did during the Panchayat period. If the same attitude continues in the Republic then what is the difference between the Republic and the Panchayat system? My Guru of Dolpo, Khentin Rimpoche told me that until the East-West highway was made they had to go down to Nepalganj and cross over the border to India and go to Raxaul to cross over to Nepal again to go to Kathmandu. Whenever they crossed the border, they were always ill treated and even when they showed their citizenship, they were called Tibetans and that there citizenship were false etc. etc. If this same stupid attitudes of Brahmin-Newar administrators persists, you can be sure that the Madhesi forum will not be the only Forum!!

106. No Title

So far the language barriers have made these Tibeto -Burman groups unaware of what is going on. Because of the same language barrier the Bramin-Newar groups think most of these other Tibeto-Burman groups (usually given a blanket name BHOTE and that too mostly derogatively) are unlettered and uneducated.This is not accurate. Due to the pervasive influence of Buddhism, there are very few Tibeto-Burmans of the cis-Himalaya who cannot read the Tibetan script. I have personally seen even yak-herders who could read the Tibetan script. We cannot consider them unlettered simply because they cannot read Nepali or English.And there are many more so called Bhotes who are more well versed in their own Buddhist scriptures than are most Bramins and Newars in their own scriptures.Many ancients from upper Mustang like Lobo Khenchen and Dolpo like the Sarvagya (Kunkhen) Dolpopa and many others from other parts of the cisHimalayas have been considered as great Panditas in Tibet itself. But of course the Bramin-Newar dominated Nepalese politico-administrative systems were blissfully unaware of them from ancient time to today - Republic or no Republic. However the Republic is still too young to be blamed so hopefully there will be more awareness and knowledge of a big chunk of the Nepali populace neglected so far, in the future. My purpose of writing this deviation is to make the general public aware that the form of Buddhism practiced by this Tibeto- Burman group has also suffered equally along with them in being accepted as a part of Nepali culture. The form of Buddhism practiced by this group of over 10 percent of the Nepali populace is Vajrayana of the Himalaya which as I've said is popularly known as as Tibetan Buddhism all over the world now. The form of Buddhism traditionally practiced by the Newar Buddhist populace is also Vajrayana. The Newar Vajrayana is based on Sanskrit texts coming from ancient India, while the Himalayan Vajrayana is based on Tibetan translations of those same Sanskrit texts that the Newars use. However, there are cultural innuendoes and nuances added to both the versions, that seem to give them different flavours. This cultural difference is not a non-Buddhist accretion; but rather a thing that the Buddha himself approved of. In the Udumbarika- Sihanada Sutta, the Buddha has explicitly said that whoever took up Buddhism need not change their cultural elements as long as the cultural element does not clash or contradict the correct view of Buddhism. So we find many Hindu elements in the Newar Vajrayana and a few Bon cultural elements in the Tibetan and Himalayan Vajrayana. However, the Newar Vajrayana followers not only do not understand this but think that Tibetan Vajrayana is totally different

form of Buddhism. We find the worship of the Nat spirits in Burma started by the Bikchus chanting the Paritta Suttas and we find Sri Lankan Buddhists worshipping Kataragama and other forms of Vishnu etc.however the Newar vajrayana followers not only do not know or understand this fact, but think that the Tibetan Vajrayana is some totally different form of Buddhism. In fact most Newars and Newar organizations believe that the Buddhism of Kathmandu valley is Vajrayana and the Buddhism of Tibet and the cis-Himalyas is Mahayan. This is completely baseless and shows how much these Newar organizations really understand the cisHimalayan Buddhism.

107. Real Impurities

Passion, anger, delusion are the real dust and the wise expel these dust, dirt. This is the reason why Newar organizations cannot represent the entire Nepali Buddhism - even more so if they are of Theravadin organizations who naturally fail to understand the cis-Himalayan Buddhist sentiments. No matter how pure or correct Theravada may be, it was imported into the valley at the time of Juddha Shumsher and made headways into Newar Buddhism in the last fifty or so years and this is not part of the cultural heritage of Nepal yet. And as far as Himalayan Buddhism goes Theravadin organization are even further away than the Newar Vajrayana in terms of understanding what it really is, let alone represent it. To date, only a small percentage of Newar Buddhists who are themselves a very small percentage of the general Newars have become Theravadins. And that's a rather small percentage. So the sentiments and the organization of the Theravadins or with Theravadins bent do not and cannot represent the general Buddhist populace. Nor do their ideas, beliefs and sentiments represent the ideas , beliefs and sentiments of the vast majority of Vajrayana practitioners of Nepal who are of Tibeto- Burman stock. Those in the politico-administrative power should become aware of this fact.Today there is The Nepal Buddhist Federation (Nepal Bauddha Mahasangha) which genuinely represents the Himalayan Vajrayana and which also automatically represents the greater percentage of the Nepalese Buddhists. With this in background let us now turn to proper religious topics. Before we end the topic on Samatha and begin the topic on Vipashyana, I would like to finish the

part of Siddhi Pratiharya of which we had said we would deal later. The first of all the six Avigyas is called Riddhi (Riddhi Vidha in Pali) and are of eight different kinds. It is said in the scriptures 1. Being one he becomes many; having become many he becomes one. This is the capacity to be many as many as thousands with the same form as the original person. The story of the Arhat Chudra Pantha, a disciple of the Buddha is a well known example of this in all Buddhist traditions. He was said to be very slow witted and was unable to attain the first enlightenment called Srotapanna The Buddha gave him a piece of cloth to contemplate on. As he kept handling it, it became more and more dirty. He realized that the clean cloth was made dirty by his body and through that he contemplated on the body and that gave him insight (Vipashayana) in to the five aggregates { pancha skandha}. At that moment the Buddha uttered to him these words: Passion( Kama -Cchanda) is the real dust not dirt. Passion is indeed called dust. The wise expelling the dust abide in the teaching of him who is free from dust. Anger( Dvesha) is the real dust not dirt. Wrath indeed is called dust. The wise expelling this dust abide in the teaching of him who s freed from dust. Delusion( Moha) is the real dust, not dirt. Delusion is indeed called dust. The wise expelling the dust abide in the teaching of him who is free from dust. At the end of the stanza, Chudra Pantha Attained Arhathood, the highest level of enlightenment of the Sravakayana. To cut a long story short, it is said that the next day he filled the monastery with a thousand monks all like him. But a branch of this psychic power is the capacity to make various different types of forms performing different actions at the same time. The great Sakyapa founder, Sachen Kenga Nyingpo was said to be giving the long Lamdre teaching simultaneously in Dolpo in Nepal and in Sakya in Tibet at the same time for over a month or so. A part of this Riddhi Siddhi is the ability to become many different things at the same time like a tiger, a man, a bird or a snake and even inanimate objects like a bridge a slab of stone or a pool of water at the same time making them perform many actions.

108. No Title

The second Karmapa is said to have turned into a huge elephant flying in the sky while Phagpa Rinpoche of the Sakya lineage cut his own limbs, the two hands and two legs and the trunk and each became the five Buddhas; both did this in the court of Kublai Khan and Marco Polo had recorded these incidents in his travelogue. Phagpa Rinpoche is the seventh in the line of the Sakya and is the Guru that took our famous Arniko to China to the court of Kublai Khan as part of his entourage. Likewise we have many stories of similar Riddhi Siddhis of the Buddha himself. One story goes: The daughter of King Mandarva of Sagala State by the name of Khema was one of the queens of King Bimbisara of Magadh (present day Bihar). She was renowned for her beauty and being proud of her own beauty, she had no wish to go to meet the Buddha who was her husband the Kings preceptor (Guru /Kalyanamitra). She knew that the Buddha was in the habit of preaching that beauty is only skin deep. But she heard the Venubana park (the Bamboo Grove park) had been greatly improved and was looking so picturesque that even the gods and goddesses were attracted by it. She therefore had a strong urge to visit it and went to the park where the Buddha was then in residing. King Bimbisara, who himself had attained the first degree of enlightenment called Srotappatti (stream entering) had told the attendants to make sure that she didnt come back without meeting the Buddha and paying her respects to him. She dared not disobey the King and approached the Buddha before she left for the park. The Bhagawan with his supreme powers created a scene in which a lovely woman more beautiful than the queen was fanning him. As the queen watched this extremely beautiful woman fanning the Buddha ,the woman gradually become older and older and finally slumped down on the ground and begin to moan, her ravishing beauty gone. The queen was not the least startled by the extraordinary sight. The Buddha then preached a sermon to her and she became an Arhat a woman who had attained the full enlightenment of a Sravaka. She entered the holy order of nuns and became a Bhikchuni. Many times the Buddha while remaining in one monastery projected himself to give teaching to those who were ready to realize the truth.

The second riddhi-siddhi is He could become visible or invisible at will. When a yogi wishes to render himself/herself or others visible at a distant place or make a hidden thing visible, he produces visibility, dispels darkness, reveals what is hidden and brings into sight what is not seen. The Buddha himself is said to have performed this riddhi on many occasions. Once when he was invited to Saketa (Ayodhya) which was situated at a distance of seven leagues from Sravasti, the Buddha decided that the citizens of Saketa should see the citizens of Sravasti and vice versa. He once made it visible to people all the worlds from Brahman Loka to Avici the lowest hell realm. It is said that the Thera Dhammadina of Talangana Monastery in Sri Lanka opened the world when he was preaching the Apannaka Sutta at the Tissa Mahavira so that the audience saw downwards as far as Avici and upwards as far as the Brahman Loka (world). And further more, he who wishes to perform the miracle of invisibility turns light into darkness, makes what is seen unseen, what is open hidden and what is visible invisible. Thus he can make himself or others invisible to others. Vaka Bramah was the chief of the first realm of the higher gods (Devas i.e., he was the head of the first of the or the lowest level of the Brahman lokas where the Devas called Brahmas reside. He was of the view that his realm was the highest and that he himself and his realm was everlasting. This is a common delusion that most gods and goddesses have according to Buddhism. He did not know that there were many other Brahman Lokas above his. The Bhagawan (The Blessed One) visited the Brahman Loka and in the midst of an assembly of Brahmas pointed at the Vaka Brahma, There are realms of higher gods above yours and the whole of all the Brahma Lokas including yours is not permanent. Then the Bhagawan (Chomden-de in Tibetan) continued his discourse to the Baka-Brahman by saying, I know how you have come into being and what your powers are. But there are higher gods superior to you in status and power. Finding that all his views were wrong Baka wished to show his own powers and said, I will make myself invisible. He made several attempts to make himself invisible in front of the Buddha but without success. The Bhagawan then said, I will now show you that I can make myself invisible, and instantly the Buddha disappeared from view and continued to preach to him a sermon while remaining invisible. In another story we find that the Buddha made Yasha invisible. Yasha was the first child of Sujata who had offered Kheer (milk and rice porridge) to the Mahasatva (The Great Being the most senior of all sentient beings including all the gods and

goddesses even before becoming the Samyag Sambuddha ) on the very day he was to become the Samyag Sambuddha (T he Perfectly Enlightened One). Yasha had been brought up in great luxury, just like the Buddha himself had been. Three different mansions had been provided for him for three different seasons (cold, wet and dry). But waking up one night he found his palace attendants, female musicians asleep in unseemly conditions; and deeming the scene to be a cemetery, he went out from his house and the city to the Deer Park ( Mrigadava) in Isipatana that very night. Yasha came into the presence of the Bhagawan and after hearing the sermon from him was established in the state of Srotapati; in which the person has his/her first glimpse of the Nirvandhatu. Yashas father went in search of his son and came to the Buddha. The Buddha made Yasha invisible with his supernatural power and assured him saying, You will find your son. Then he preached to Yashas father and he too became a Srotapanna. The the Bhagawan made Yasha visible again and as a result Yasha ordained as a monk at his own request. 109. Fine differences in interpretation In a time of famine the Thera Cula Samuddha in Tambapanni (Sri lanka) took 700 monks for alms to Pataliputra (Patna) in India early in the day crossing the ocean as easily as if it were a small ditch. The Thera Tissa Gutta of Sri Lanka acted similarly when having bathed in the evening, he thought of saluting the Bodhi tree in Bodhgaya and drew it near. In the story of subduing Angulimala in the Majjhima Nikaya 86, the Buddha made a short distance into a long one, so that no matter how fast Angulimala ran after the Buddha, and although the Buddha was walking in slow composed gait, Angulimala could never reach him; and the Buddha always remained far from Angulimala. In the case of the rich miser already mentioned above called Matsarya Koshiya, Mahamaudgalayana made the small quantity of cake that the miserly millionaire cooked on the fifth floor all for only himself not willing to share even with his own family, into vast quantities enough to feed 500 monks. With this Siddhi one cannot only increase the quantity but also change quality such as changing a sweet thing into something not sweet. For instance the Thera Maha Anula had seen a number of monks who had collected alms obtain nothing but some dry food and had sat down by the side of the river to eat it. He then turned the river water into cream and the Sramaneras (attendant semi monks) took them by the cups and gave it to the assembled monks. So these are the principle kinds of psychic powers mentioned in various Buddhist

texts. We have now completed the explanation of Shila and Samadhi and need to go to the subject of Pragya which is the last remaining part of the Tri Sikchya (three Training) which is one way to understand Buddhism. But here, we are still talking mostly of the Sravakayana and have not yet started the explanation of Mahayana. However these parts are common to Sravkayana, Paramitayana and Vajrayana. All forms of Buddhism have the Tri Sikchaya (three training) in common, however there are fine differences in the way these three are interpreted. For example in the Sravakayana system like the Theravada etc., the Shila is unbreakable. Under no condition is one allowed to break the Shila, but in the Bodhisatvayana (which includes both the Paramitayana and Vajrayana) Shila not only can but should be broken if it helps other sentient beings. Even the Theravada text, the Harita Jataka says that a Bodhisatva can break all his Shila except the Shila of truth (Satya) if he feels that it helps other sentient beings. But in the Mahayana tradition even Truth Shila is not considered unbreakable if it helps other sentient beings. There is a popular story used in all Mahayana tradition that elucidates this difference in attitude and interpretation of Shila between the Sravakayana and Mahayana systems. The story goes: a man and his beautiful wife got into a fight and the man flew into a rage and ran after her with a knife intending to kill her. She ran away and he followed her into a forest and lost sight of her. The woman rushed past a Sravaka Bhikkhu meditating on Asubha Bhawana (on the repulsiveness of a human body male or female according to as whether the meditator is a male or female) and a few minutes later the enraged husband reached the very spot and shouted at the monk demanding to know if he saw an extremely beautiful woman running past and which direction did she go. The Bhikkhu, true to his training replied very truthfully, "I do not know about a beautiful woman but a skeleton did rush past in that direction" and pointed out the direction the woman had gone just a few minutes ago!The man ran towards that direction, caught up with his wife and killed her. The story tries to teach Mahayana students, no matter if the story was true or not, in such a situation, a Mahayana monk would have lied and pointed towards the wrong direction so that the woman's life would have been saved. In that case, the man would have run on and on and exhausted himself and his rage would eventually have subsided .That is why the Avatansaka Sutra says one must know when to keep Shila and when to break it. And this verse is chanted everyday in most of the Zen monasteries in the Far East. 110. No Title We find that Shila of some kind or Samadhi of other kind are found in all

traditions; but they are not exactly the same as in Buddhism nor do they play the same kind of role as in Buddhism. But when we come to Vipashyana; then we find that this is unique to Buddhism. If one asks what new thing did the Buddha teach, then we have to say it is Vipashyana. The major principles of Buddhism like impermanence, sorrow, no- self, emptiness are based on the insights gained through Vipashyana. The major principles of Buddhism are not decrees made by some God or even the Buddha himself but rather principles based on the insights of Vipashyana. That is why the Buddha always said Ehi passiko which means come and see for yourself. Over 2600 years the principles of Buddhism has been proven valid in each generation. There has never been a generation where those who practiced Vipashyana said that there was something not impermanent, that there was a truly self existing (Atman), or that this Atman (really existing, eternal self) or the things of Samsara gave true happiness. Also historically no other teacher, prophet or scripture/ text taught any form of Vipashyana. This is what the Buddha discovered which had been lost before him. When we say it had been lost before Sakya Muni rediscovered it, we do not mean it existed in other systems before and was lost and rediscovered. We mean it vanished along with Buddhism as taught by Kashyapa Buddha and remained lost not only in the Indian subcontinent but also everywhere else. Amongst the three trainings (Tri-Sikchya Shila, Samadhi, Pragyya) Vipashyana is related to Pragya. Vipashyana is the method to awaken Pragya. As we said before Shila is required to cool the mind of emotional defilements; but Shila can cool it only so much. Then we need Samadhi through the practice of Samatha to cool the mind even further. As we said earlier on, without a certain degree of cooling the mind through the practice of Shila, it is impossible to attain Samadhi. Samadhi is not merely the ability to concentrate the mind. Any normal mind with normal amount of emotional defilements common to the human mind can achieve some degree of one pointed concentration called Ekagrata. One pointed concentration is still very far from Samadhi and it does not develop into Samadhi unless and until the mind has freed itself or stopped gross mental defilements to quite a great extent. Samadhi is the changing of the family of the mind called Gotra and not merely the ability to concentrate. However, it must be very clearly stated that according to Buddhism, Samadhi is not enlightenment. This is something even Sankaracharya of the Hindus would agree to. However, what is meant by enlightenment in the Sankara system is also not what Buddhism calls enlightenment. This will become clearer as we begin to

understand Vipashyana. But according to Buddhism Samadhi is a pre-requisite for enlightenment. For the Buddhist enlightenment, the development of Pragya is required. Without it there is no enlightenment within the Buddhist system as a whole - be it Sravaka system like the Theravada or the various Mahayana systems like the Zen or Tien Tai or the branches of Vajrayana. All forms of Buddhism believe in the necessity of developing Pragya in order to attain enlightenment. But for Pragya to develop, we need a strong foundation of Shila and Samadhi. Without Samadhi, Pragya tends to become mere intellectual, conceptual understanding that does not liberate. So just going into deep Samadhi of one kind or the other does not by itself liberate, even if the person can enter into deep Samadhi and remain in it for 14 days or whatever. Such Samadhis can and may give psychic powers called Siddhi Riddhi but does not by itself liberate and such capacities to go into such deep Samadhis are not themselves the same as the enlightened state. Now the method of awakening or developing Pragya which liberates is the meditation called Vipashayana. So now we need to understand those two words - Pragya and Vipashyana.

111. Strong foundation necessary for correct interpretation

Without a proper understanding of these foundations of Tantrayana, Tantrayana is prone to be easily misunderstood When we come to Tantrayana, these steps become even more important. The Hevajra Tantra says very clearly that before a person is given the empowerment (Abhishekh/ Wang) of Hevajra, he should study and practice the Vaibhasika (the tenets of the Abhidharma etc., then the Sautrantic (the tenets of the essence of the sutras), the Yogachar (Chittamatra) and Madhyamika etc., properly. Now the practice of these tenets means Vipashyana. Without a strong base like this, the empowerments of Hevajra/ Chakrasamvara/ Kalachakra etc., can be very misleading. Without a proper understanding of these foundations of Tantrayana, Tantrayana is prone to be easily misunderstood, as the commentaries on the Hevajra tantra, Chakrasamvara tantra etc., say very clearly. It is only once this foundational Sravakayana and Paramitayana Vipashyana has been done after studying and contemplating that the true purport of Tantrayana or Dzogchen and Sutra Mahamudra can be truly understood. It is only when one has made this strong foundation can one truly understand that Dzogchen or Sutra

Mahamudra or Tantrayana methods are also profound methods of Vipashyana. Unlike the Sravakayana and Paramityayan Vipashyana, many aspects of Dzogchen or Sutra Mahamudra (often just called Mahamudra) or Tantrayana cannot and should not be disclosed; except to only those who have had the pre-requisite empowerments from an authentic lineage Master. There is a profound reason for this secrecy which is based on a deep level of psychological understanding of how the unconscious mind works. It is certainly not the case that it is kept secret because it is something shameful etc., as some Sravakayanis are wont to interpret. When a thing is kept secret its power at the subconscious level is made stronger and if it is let out, the power also fizzles out. There are also other para-dimensional reasons it is not only a commitment for the practitioners but also towards the guardian deities (Dharmapalas) to keep such profound teachings secret. I shall now divert away from this and shall attempt to explain these things to the extent it is allowed in terms of modern language. If a person wants to experience and understand these things more profoundly, it cannot be done through articles like these or even through books but must be gained through empowerments (Abhishek/wang) transmission( Agama/loong) and instructions ( Upadesha / Tri) by a qualified authentic lineage Master. Here, I shall attempt to merely introduce the basic concepts. First we'll deal with Sravakayana Vipashyana of Laos, Thailand, Burma, Sri Lanka; then we shall deal with the Paramitayana system of China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam and then finally with the Vajrayana methodology of Nepal, Tibet, Mangolia, Central Asia. But before we describe the various Vipashyana methods we need to understand the path that the Buddha taught and how each of these Yanas are following the principle of the path that the Buddha taught. There are many ways the Path can be divided, but I have followed one particular methodology which divides the Path of the Buddha into four by - lanes.

112. Escapism -not the way out of the truth of suffering

Even though pain, stress, sorrow are hounding us every moment, we refuse to face this fact. The way we deal with this psychologically is by escaping. We run away from it constantly and that is how we humans 'solve' it.

Before going into these four by-lanes, let us take the teaching of the Buddha first. What did he teach? Again we can answer this question from many angles but in this context what comes to mind are the Four Noble Truths (Chatwari Arya Satyani). In one way we can say that the Four Noble Truth is a succinct capsule of the entire teachings of the Buddha. What are the Four Noble Truths? They are: 1. The Truth of Suffering (Dukha Satya) 2. The Truth of the Cause of Suffering (Samudaya Satya) 3. The Truth of the Cessation of Suffering (Nirodha Satya) 4. The Truth of the Way/ Path (Marga Satya). Now why are these called Noble Truths(Arya Satya) as opposed to just truths? They are called so because they are truly understood and experienced fully only by Aryas (Noble Ones) and not by ordinary people (Prithagjanas). Who are Aryas? Within Buddhist context, those who have experienced: sorrow (Dukha), impermanence (Anitya), non - self (Anatma) or emptiness (Sunyata) directly, non conceptually (Avikalpa); can be called Aryas. More technically, in the Sravaka tradition, such a person has entered the 'Stream' (Srotapanna) and is called a Stream Enterer (Srotapanna) and in the Mahayana tradition (and some Sravakayana traditions like the Sarvastivadins), the person is said to have entered the Path of Seeing (Darshana Marga) and is said to have become a first level Bodhisattva (Pratham bhumi bodhisattva). That means, ordinary people like us (Prithagjanas) do not and cannot fully understand these four Noble Truths; and that means that they are not as simple as they seem at the outset; but are much more profound than what most people take them to be. However, even ordinary people like us can get some kind of conceptual understanding of these four Noble Truths ;which we shall go into now. The first Noble Truth which is the Truth of Suffering is extremely profound not only psychologically but also epistemologically and soteriologically. Many who do not understand this point do not understand why the Buddha put forth this point as the first truth in the first teaching he gave at Sarnath to the group of five disciples (Pancha Vargiya). Many who totally misunderstood this point even go so far as to say that the Buddha was pessimistic. If not understood properly, it does seem like that too, to casual readers. But in reality the reason is very profound. Even though pain, stress, sorrow are hounding us every moment, we refuse to face this fact. The way we deal with this

psychologically is by escaping. We run away from it constantly and that is how we humans 'solve' it. Needless to say, this is not the solution. Escapism never really solved any problem let alone the problems of the human situation. Let us take a unit of our life to see this predicament. When you are sitting very comfortably, the truth of sorrow seems to be a very distant thing, not really having any relevance to you at the moment. But as you just sit comfortably, the very act of sitting comfortably slowly becomes uncomfortable. Finally, it starts getting quite uncomfortable. This is the truth of sorrow. The comfortable sitting itself without changing anything else becomes an uncomfortable sitting. What then do we do? How do we deal with it? Another point is that this mode of solution is so internalized, so automatic that it is unconscious. We do not even consciously think about the solution that we use. It is solved unconsciously. And how is that? We shift our posture unconsciously so that the pressure is relieved. Now let us analyze this modus operandi.

113. What we resist, persists

Every person must first have insight into the fact that there is sorrow in this world and accept this fact for what it is before we can eliminate it. First of all it is largely unconscious. Most of the time, we are not even aware that we have done this. Secondly, we just avoid the pain by moving away from it in short, escapism. We escape from one pain by moving into another pain without even realising it; without even being conscious that we are doing it. Now, because we never face it, we never know it, we never understand it for what it is, therefore we will never have the correct knowledge to really eliminate it or make it cease. Secondly, the so called solution we have been using does not only not solve the problem as such but itself becomes the same problem that we tried to escape from in the first place. The new posture or position of sitting which we adopted to solve the first painful situation of sitting itself will begin to be painful like the first one in time. And again, of course, we unwittingly try to escape from this second pain by shifting our position again into yet another new posture which itself will become as painful as the first one, given time. So, is this really a solution? But this is what all humans like us doing constantly at the intellectual, emotional, physical and psychological level in fact at every level

of our existence. This is so ingrained in us that most who take up any form of spirituality, including Buddhism, use high sounding names of techniques to just to escape from the pain problem rather than facing it. But if we never ever face the problem how can we possibly know it for what it is? And if we dont know what the problem really is, how is it possible to ever solve it? If you are always running away from it the tiger in the forest, you do not really solve the problem, do you? The one and only way to solve it ( you have no alternative to run away from this forest of Samsara) is to face it and understand it and know it for what it is and then deal with it appropriately; that is, either cage it or shoot it. Since you are always in the forest and have no other alternative, just escaping away from the tiger does not really free you. It can at the most be only a temporary relief. But that is how we all have been dealing with the man eating tiger. The Buddha recognised this predicament clearly and this is the reason why he put the truth of sorrow as the first truth. He did not put forth this truth as the first Noble Truth because he was pessimistic, or had a pessimistic view of the world. He was a doctor, psychotherapist( and he himself called himself a doctor), with profound insight into the human predicament. So he emphasised that every person must first have insight into the fact that there is sorrow in this world and accept this fact for what it is before we can eliminate it. We must become fully aware of the whole mechanism, which is unconscious at the moment before we can even dream of becoming free from the whole mechanism. And given the human tendency to block this fact out, to avoid it ,to keep unconscious, it was paramount that this fact of sorrow be emphasised and brought to the fore. And that is what the Buddha did. And this is an integral part of freeing oneself from any problems. As Jung said, what we resist, persists, and as all psychotherapists of any form know that we cannot possibly become free from any psychological problem unless we bring it first to awareness.

114. Awareness itself is curative

It is a fact of life that all things change and nothing is permanent.

If a thing remains hidden at the unconscious level, it remains very powerful and can have tremendous power over us. And this is a fact all forms of psychotherapy agree to. The objective of all forms of psychotherapy, be they Gestalt psychotherapy, transactional psychotherapy, psycho synthesis, Freudian psychoanalysis, Jungian analytical psychotherapy, hypnotherapy, peak state therapy; the first step is to bring it into awareness what has remained unconscious till now; so that we can become free from it. Often, just bringing the event memory, complex neurosis into awareness is itself enough. As the founder of Gestalt psychotherapy said, Awareness itself is curative. But this was a fact the Buddha had already applied practically 2500 years ago. Smriti-Samprajanya is the Sanskrit word used for what is loosely translated today into English as mindfulness. The Buddha prescribed mindfulness meditation to see through the suffering pervasive in every aspect of our existence which we, as we have seen, tend to avoid seeing, by keeping it unconscious. But now we know, as long as we keep it unconscious, we cannot be free from its clutches. Just becoming aware of this fact which we tend to keep unconscious hoping somehow it will either go away or perhaps it will not affect us, goes against any hope of curing it. But Buddhism does not stop there. It has infinite skillful means to take this thorn out of our flesh. But that takes us now more to the path itself which is the fourth noble truth. Now, coming back to the truth of suffering, when Buddhism is talking about eliminating suffering, it is not so much the suffering like headaches or stomach aches but suffering at a deeper level which is more constant but hidden and so more powerful. Within all forms of Buddhism: Sravakayana, like Theravada; Paramitayana, like Tien Tai or Zen; or San Lun schools of China/ Japan/ Korea; or the Vajrayana of Tibet, Mongolia, Central Asia and the entire northern cis-Himalayan regions from Kashmir through Nepal to the Burmese border suffering is divided into three forms. The first form of suffering is called suffering of suffering (Dukha Dukhata). This is the kind of suffering most people think of when they think of suffering - as the pain of a raw wound or when you break your arm or legs. This is the grossest form of suffering and the easiest to deal with or cure. And this is not a major issue when Buddhism talks about suffering. There are two more subtler forms of suffering which are more pervasive, constant and unconscious; and it is these two types that Buddhism talks about. The second type is called the suffering of change (Parinam Dukhata). This suffering of change

is not only more subtle and therefore unconscious but also more pervasive in our lives. Most people do not even become aware of it unless it is pointed out to them and even then, they tend to forget it easily. Now, what is suffering of change? It is a fact of life that all things change and nothing is permanent. Our body changes, our thoughts change; emotions, feelings, everything we hold on to changes. All material things, our possessions change. Things, people, ideas, concepts that we like changes. A youthful, beautiful body becomes old and weak. Black hair becomes grey; smooth soft skin wrinkles up; loved ones die; my much admired shiny car or TV breaks down. What do all this mean? It means, since they are not permanent, everything that gives me some sort of happiness will change and then that very thing itself will become a source of my suffering. Because all phenomena (dharmas) are impermanent, they will eventually become the very source of my suffering even if at the outset they seem to be giving me some kind of happiness.

115. Cognitive restructuring

As long as we are not aware of this mechanism, we cannot become free from it. Whatever is impermanent can never be the source of real happiness. Whatever happiness it gives can at best be only temporary and that very thing will be a source of my pain or suffering. Since all phenomena (dharmas) are impermanent, there is nothing that we know of that does not cause this kind of suffering. Now, even though everybody knows at one level that all phenomena are impermanent, at yet another level we live our lives and suffer as if we do not believe that all phenomena are impermanent. We hold on to things we are attached to as if they are not impermanent. Although at an intellectual level most of us do understand that all that we cherish are not permanent; and so will not last; yet at an emotional level we cling to them as if somehow they will last. And this is what causes our suffering because all impermanent things will eventually be destroyed, will perish or break down. And when that happens, the very thing that seemed to give us so much pleasure, happiness becomes the cause of our pain and suffering. I suffer when those I love

die. I suffer when my Mercedes is hit by another car or when my favorite TV channel gets disturbed and so on and so forth. This is the second kind of suffering, the suffering of change which is missed out by most people. It is only with full awareness and mindfulness that one can ever begin to become aware of this kind of suffering. Otherwise most so called normal humans don't even become aware of this suffering. However, as we have seen, not being aware of this suffering is really not being under its control, not being pressured by it, etc. In fact, according to all forms of psychotherapy, it is exactly because we are not aware of the pervasion of this that it becomes even more powerful. A large portion of our lives and a big part of our creative energy is tied up in trying to escape from this suffering in an effort to hopefully eliminate it. We humans use up our creativity to create all kinds of escape mechanisms from this sorrow which does not leave us really but becomes only temporarily alleviated. And it comes back with a vengeance and again we have to use our creative energy to avoid it or escape from it again. As long as we are not aware of this mechanism, we cannot become free from it. Even our modus operandi to escape only adds to the angst in the long run. So what does Buddhism do about it? In modern psycho therapeutic language, Buddhism tries to bring about what is technically called a cognitive restructuring towards all things to which we cling to, hoping they will give us happiness or will alleviate our suffering. How does cognitive restructuring help us? First of all, we believe that all those things out there will give us happiness. Even though intellectually all humans would easily accept that all things, people, experiences etc., are impermanent; emotionally, we do not act, react, behave as if they are impermanent. We emotionally behave as if all those objects, people, experiences are or will be the sources of permanent happiness. 116. Renunciation is not everything

What needs to be renounced is our Kama Sankalpa, not the objects of the world out there. Impermanent phenomena (dharmas) can never give us permanent happiness. Even though we know it at an intellectual, rational, logical level; it is known only at the surface level of our being. At the inner gut level, we emotionally seem to know, to

feel that those objects are not really impermanent. So it is not enough to rationally know that all phenomena are impermanent. We have to see them as such at a gut level. We have to feel it fully that all phenomena are impermanent and thus the source of suffering. And this seeing is what Vipashyana is all about. It is this seeing that all phenomena (dharmas) are impermanent, sorrow producing and neither self nor mine that is called vipashyana. Just looking at phenomena, be they sensations (Vedana), feelings or whatever is not Vipashyana per se but only a step towards Vipashyana. When we gain insight (Vipashyana) into this fact, automatically, a cognitive restructuring at the deepest level of our experience/being takes place. Until this emoto- cognitive shift takes place, one does not become free from sorrow. Now let us look at the whole process from another angle. As long as we have an emotocognitive perspective or view that dharmas are not really impermanent, and that they really do exist; we cling to them as the source of lasting happiness. But since none of the phenomena are really permanent or truly existing, when they change or are destroyed in anyway, those very so called permanent source of happiness becomes the source of pain or sorrow. We cling to them or hold on to them exactly because our emoto-cognitive perception of them makes us believe that they will give us permanent happiness or satisfaction which implies that we see them as permanent and really existing; because only a thing that does not change can possibly give us unchanging satisfaction. But the reality is otherwise. Whether we like it or not, all phenomena change and thus are impermanent and do not have real, true existence; so when they ultimately do change, the mind feels it like a tragedy has happened. Some people take this to mean Buddhism teaches us not to enjoy life in anyway at all or to stop going after the good things of life and thus they decry Buddhism as life denying. We need to clarify this point clearly. First of all, it is not true that Buddhism tells you to renounce everything as a part of its path. Although some Buddhists do use renunciation as a major part of their path and thus renounce everything possible; and that is fine too; this is not the one and only path taken by all Buddhists; as we shall see later when we come to the Marga Satya (the truth of the path), the fourth of the noble truths. However, the Buddha has made it very clear in the Anguttara Nikaya that it is not

the objects out there that is the cause of your suffering but your attachment, clinging, craving towards it that is the cause of your suffering. And thus, it is very clear that he did not ever teach that renouncing the world out there or renouncing the good things of life is the Path. He is very clear that it is your (Kama Sankalpa) clinging, craving, grasping on to those objects that is the cause of your suffering. So it is this Kama Sankalpa that must be renounced, let go of, be relinquished. Even if we let go of objects, our Kama Sankalpa for them is not renounced. Even if we go into the deepest forest or the caves in the Himalayas, our mind goes with us and our Kama Sankalpa goes with us. So, what needs to be renounced is our Kama Sankalpa, not the objects of the world out there. You can run away from all objects of the world out there but will continue to have the craving for them. And that is not true renunciation. (To be continued). 117. True enjoyment of life What the Buddha taught is a true way to celebrate every moment of your life, not a negation of life. You can be swimming in the middle of all the objects of desire and have no attachment or clinging to it and that is true renunciation. However, it must be said that for some people renouncing the objects themselves does help in the real renunciation of the Kama Sankalpa. So, this is a very individual thing. Actually, if you renounce your Kama Sankalpa towards all objects of the world then you are free to enjoy them without any fear and hope or clinging to them in the hope that it will last; or fear that they might go away. Then we enjoy it while it is there and when it goes away, you enjoy its absence too. This is what the Buddha meant by: When seeing, just the seen; when hearing, just the heard... (drishte drista matram bhavishati, srute..) which is an oft repeated statement in the Zen Buddhist tradition - as when sitting, just the sitting; when walking, just the walking... Then you are free to enjoy every moment freely without hope and fear (hope that it will last forever or fear that it might go away). And this is the true enjoyment of life (a true celebration of life, of this moment); also called drishta dharma. What the Buddha taught is a true way to celebrate every moment of your life, not a negation of life; a true celebration of what every moment presents, not a negation of what is presented. It is the ordinary mind under the influence of ignorance that negates the moment in front of us in search of our imagined happiness and thus

misses out on the real world. We are constantly hankering after a past memory or an imagined future and continually missing out on the only reality which we have which is the present moment. This constant hankering after memories of the past or craving for an imagined future is what is meant by Kama Sankalpa. This is also called Trisna which means thirsting or craving; and this is the eighth factor in the chain of 12 interdependent origination. (Dwadas nidan). It is that which ties us to samsara which is a synonym for suffering So what the Buddha taught was not life denial but rather the true way to live life fully with all its richness. If there is outer renunciation of objects, as there is in the Sravaka system, it is always as a means to weaken the Kama Sankalpa and not as a thing to hold on to as something great in itself; not something to glorify. If that happens, then the renunciation of the outer worldly objects itself becomes an object of Kama Sankalpa. In that case, it defeats the purpose and just becomes another source of further clinging. Thus the act of renunciation gets glorified and used as a means of boosting one's ego. This does not mean you stop renouncing. Now you renounce even the renunciation. One still continues to live one's life as a renunciant. In the process of explaining kama sankalpa we touched upon the chain of 12 interdependent origination. We will have to deal with that later as that is crucial to the understanding of Buddhism. Now let us move on to the third type of suffering. 118. Conditioned existence True happiness is free from both pain and its relief; and that can happen only in the unconditioned (Asanskrita). The third type of suffering is called the suffering of conditioned existence (Sanskara dukhata). Of the three forms of suffering, this is the most subtle and thus the average person does not even realise its existence. However, as we have said before, not realising its existence does not mean we are free from this form of suffering. This form of suffering is all pervasive and because it is so pervasive in Samsara that we have simply become insensitive towards it; but that does not make us free from it. It is there constantly. Our existence is conditioned (sanskrit). The word conditioned here means created, born, produced based on other conditions. The Sanskrit word sanskrita or sanskaras mean this. Whatever has been learned, acquired, added on, are all Sanskaras

(conditionings). And what is conditioned can never be completely fulfilling, can never give unalloyed happiness. In fact there can be no unalloyed pure happiness in any form of conditioned existence. This again does not mean Buddhism is anti existence or opts for non-existence (the annihilation of all existence). That would be nihilism (ucchedvad). The Buddha has stated that he teaches neither ucchedvad (nihilism) nor Saswatvada (eternalism - as in an eternal Atma/Self). But we are deviating from the main point of the fact that all forms of conditioned existence are themselves subtle formsof suffering.While talking about conditioned existence which is unsatisfactory and full of subtle suffering; we are referring to not only the human realm of existence but all other forms of existence in Samsara. That includes even the heavenly realms (Swarga/Devaloka) and there too existence is unsatisfactory and thus suffering exists there too. This marks a major paradigm shift in Buddhism vis a vis other religious systems. Buddhism does not deny that there are other realms of existence, other dimensions like hell worlds and heavenly realms. In fact the Abhidharma which is one of the Tripitakas (the three baskets consisting of the teachings of the Buddha as collected by his disciples and handed down through the centuries) has a very detailed classifications of the various realms of existence (Lokas). Here, we are talking about both the Theravadin and Sarvastivadin and Mahayan Abhidharma. Not only the hell (Narak), the hungry ghost (Pretas) and the human realms are unsatisfactory but also all the existence as Devas/angelic beings/deities in all the six Karmadhatu Deva Lokas (the six heavens of the desire realm) and the 16-17 Rupa dhatu devalokas (the 16- 17 heavens of Bramahs / Bramalokas) and the four Devalokas (heavens of the Arupdhatu (formless Braman Lokas) are all unsatisfactory and are not free from sorrow. Yes, the heavenly realms (Deval Lokas/ Swargas) are a lot more pleasant than the hell realms or hungry ghost or human realms but it is only in comparison to the three realms that they may appear to be pleasant or even enjoyable, but they are really not satisfactory not really free from suffering. If your arms are pinched by a pincer, there is a lot of pain; if the grip on the pincer is stronger, the pain is stronger and as the grip gets lighter, the pain gets lighter. If the grip is removed temporarily there is relief from the pain that was hurting so much. However we cannot call that temporary relief true happiness, can we? Buddhism does not consider that as true happiness or satisfaction as it is only a temporary relief from pain that we mistakenly call happiness. True happiness is free from both pain and its relief; and that can happen only in the unconditioned (asanskrita). In all conditioned existence, there is pain and the relief from pain and

the two are merely two sides of the same coin.

119. Constant striving

In all forms of conditioned existence we have to constantly make efforts to make ourselves happy or even to just get relief from the pain of existence. Most other systems aim at one of the heavens of this or that God. While Buddhism also admits there can be temporary relief in these places, they too are unsatisfactory because existence there is a form of conditioned existence and according to Buddhism, even those heavens and the Gods or God there are temporary, albeit very long lasting in comparison to the human realm. So Buddhism's main goal is not to reach one of the heavens but to aspire to reach the Unconditioned/ Asanskrita. This is why the Buddha himself passed away but the unconditioned state which he realised is not temporary and is free from pain and happiness. Here, happiness means that which is the opposite of pain, suffering or relief from pain. Existence in the Swargas (heavens) is not unconditioned. This is one major shift in the paradigm of the view of Buddhism vis-a-vis the views of other systems, including much of Hinduism. There are forms of Hinduism which speak about the unconditioned but there are subtle differences about which we shall discuss later. In fall forms of conditioned existence we have to constantly make efforts to make ourselves happy or even to just get relief from the pain of existence. Just to live, we have to constantly strive for our food and clothing. Even if we were well off, we would have to constantly strive to just maintain it with very little time to relax and enjoy it all. If we over did our relaxation and enjoyment, we would easily lose all that hard earned booty. This constant striving, whether you are rich or poor is the suffering of conditioned existence. If you are poor, you have to constantly strive to earn; and if you are rich, you have to constantly strive to maintain what you have. Thus, in such conditioned existence, we constantly get what we don't want and do not get what we want. We lose loved ones and we come in contact with enemies or those who we do not want to be with. Things we like are destroyed and we get what we do not like. For example, a young aspiring student ends up studying in a college s/he does not like

and cannot get into the one that was coveted. Birth itself is traumatic, as is well known in many forms of psychotherapy. The trauma of being born continues to create suffering to the individual throughout his life by preventing him from living in the here and now, fully in the present, in contact with the reality. Many other forms of modern psychotherapy claim that even conception itself is equally traumatic. Being in the womb itself is suffering and it causes a lot of trauma that continues through life. After birth, a series of suffering begins just by the virtue of being an infant and unable to take care of itself. The child cannot communicate its pains, discomfort and wants and that becomes frustrating. A child may not get food when hungry and forced to eat when not hungry according to the convenience of the adults looking after it. All this is suffering that impacts an individual and hinders him/her from enjoying life fully. 120. Suffering of growing up

Most psychologists believe that more than 80 percent of the families in which children grow up are dysfunctional. The child barely begins to be able to communicate and make sense of the world when it is packed off to pre-schools. Just meeting all the strangers and adjusting to them including the new adult called the teacher is a big thing for the child. And she is trying to accept the betrayal of trust by her parents who leave her in midst of strangers and are not there to help her in the transition. She really does not want to go to any pre-school or whatsoever but the parents continue to push or coerce her. Everyday is a big a fight or a weeping session till she finally gets used to suppressing her real desire. As she grows up she wants to play, watch TV or play video games but her parents tell her to study or do homework. If she doesn't finish her homework and watches her favorite cartoon, the teacher will punish her and so the fear continues. As she grow to be an adolescent, there are many things she wants to do but either her parents or the society she grows up in prevents her from doing all that in the name of civilisation which she begins to detest with all her heart. She falls for a guy but the boy has eyes for somebody else. There is tremendous stress and pressure she faces due to her hormonal changes that nobody seems to understand. Her own parents particularly appear to be the worst villains. No matter how loving mom and dad are, they just become more irritating to her. She doesn't even want to be seen with them or spend time with them and wants to hang out with her friends, but her

parents will have none of that and that makes her more frustrated. This trend of wanting to do something versus doing something that the parents want continues as the child grows up and goes through the adolescent stage which again is full of stress, of wanting to do one thing and having to do something else, and living with fear of having hidden something from parents and of being found out, of peer pressure, self doubts, identity crisis and so on etc etc. The child thus learns to live under the pressure of the parents and or of the society, much against his/her wishes. Once in college, there is more stress of adjusting to strangers once again. There is stiff competition to get into the college she wants to. If she doesn't make it, then there is frustration and the nagging sense of being a failure. Even if she makes it, it comes only after having gone through a lot of stress. If a child has had a lot of traumatic experiences in the growing up process (and that is not rare as most may think - in fact, most psychologists believe that more than 85 percent of the families in which children grow up are dysfunctional); then the child who is now a new college girl is going to have a very hard time adjusting to all the strangers and the new environment. And then there is the problem of going through the exams, waiting for the results and more! Thus continues the suffering of conditioned existence. 121. Planning everything but death

Death is not an easy thing to face for most people who have spent their entire lives running away from it. Then, competing to get a good job itself is another stressful addition to the modern life. Not that there was no competition in ancient times but the modern day competition has gone way ahead of imagination. Even if a young girl gets a good job, she has to learn to play by the rules for which no school/college education prepared her for. The cut throat competition forces her ego to take a second place in the games the companies play; so painstakingly, she learns to fit in and rise up the ladder often at the expense of her close friends and family; and it also gradually begins to take a toll on her health and happiness. Ulcers and blood pressure becomes a constant companion for most such young people striving to make their mark in the world. They get so caught up in the rat race and forge ahead as if wearing blinders like horses do, to protect themselves from all the pain; and before they realise it, they get old, tired or retire, without

ever questioning what all that was for. Some, who question the whole drama, question it and finding no answers, drop out of it. Somewhere in the process, she gets married as it is the normal, accepted thing to do according to the society she lives in. She gives in, even though she is not mentally, emotionally ready for it and is often left without a choice but to again play by the rules of the society - either out of her choice or by giving in to the choice made by her parents. Marriage brings with it its own pressures, of adjusting to a partner and his family and increased social expectations. This is followed by the enormous stress of bearing a child whether it be a man or a woman. Most women think giving birth is only their problem and the men go scot free but that is only an one sided view. Most prospective fathers go through a lot of stress as their wives go through the pain of child birth. After the birth of a new baby, the new mom and dad face a new set of tensions. Tending to the bawling child in the wee hours of morning, catering to its frequently changing demands, ailments , months upon months of sleep deprivation, fears of the child hurting itself etc., continues as the small cute looking baby gradually turns into demanding little brat. As the child continues to grow up, with all the pressures it itself is experiencing inside, the parents too are facing their own suffering of growing older, dealing with a myriad of physical, mental and emotional problems. In spite of all the cosmetic aids, the cogs of time roll on and old age gradually takes it toll. The body ages but the mind doesn't age in most people and that itself causes a lot of suffering. The body can no longer cope with all those activities which it once could do without a thought. Body aches, back aches and many other aches begin creeping up preventing one from doing all that one wants to do. In some societies, the old are valued for their wisdom and knowledge; but in most modern societies, the old are treated as a burden and are put away in old homes where they start to vegetate, being treated as such constantly. Finally, death is not an easy thing to face for most people who have spent their entire lives running away from it. But as death approaches inexorably, it becomes more difficult to face the prospect. If a person's socio-cultural norms have not prepared him/her to face it, it can be a painful process, as is seen commonly in eyes of terminally ill patients - young or old. Death is an inevitable process every human has to face but so few are prepared for it by their social cultural background. Most try to pretend it isn't time yet or tend to have the rather lame intellectual rationalization - "Forget about death, I will face it when it comes, till

then let me live my life." How many things, events, and situations do humans deal with in the same manner? Have we heard of anybody say - "forget about my future or the marriage of my son? We will deal with it when it comes, till then, let's enjoy life?" We humans plan everything but death. Death is something you have to deal with for sure and such rationalisation is escapism that is rooted in fear, the fear of the unknown, of not having any idea what to do about it. Here, it can be said that that Vajrayana Buddhism is indeed very rich in its instructions in helping us humans face this most crucial phase of our lives in a dignified, peaceful and meaningful way.

122. Unappeasable desires

Always wanting more, better, bigger, we continue to create never ending suffering for ourselves. Continuing on the suffering of conditioned existence, the Abhidharma Kosha Tika (mDzod'drel in Tibetan) says, "If a single hair is placed upon the palm of hand, there is no pain or discomfort; but if the same hair is inserted in the eyes, there is extreme discomfort and pain. Since fools are like the palm of the hand, they do not perceive the hair of worldly suffering, however the Noble Ones (Aryas) -ie- those who have seen reality, like the eye always reject it." For the ordinary person, the suffering of conditioned existence is like the piece of hair on the palm of hand. When we talk of this suffering what we have elaborated above can be divided into three categories: 1. The suffering of ' that activities are never ending '2) The suffering of not being satisfied by desires and 3) The suffering of not being wearied by birth and death. The suffering that activities are never ending is that from the very moment of birth till the moment of death, we have to make constant effort to gain happiness to be free from suffering. But it never ends to the point of death. We create all sorts of things- physical, emotional, mental to help us become free from suffering and we make these things with great effort and all these things perish effortlessly. It takes months, years to build a home ; but one earthquake or hurricane will destroy it within minutes and we have to rebuild all that again as we have no other choice. We continue to work like this till old age and on to death and yet we still

do not have enough time to finish our work. Even at the point of death, with many projects still unfinished, we continue to be attached to them. Farmers smear the blood of their feet on stones while working in their fields and the blood of their hands on the wooden ploughs. Traders are forced to make foreign countries their homes. In the Bodhicharyavatara it says: Some wretched desirers are utterly fatigued by working the whole day and having returned home their wearied bodies sleep like corpses. Some have troubles of traveling abroad and the hardships of living far away from their wives and children for many years. Then we have the suffering of not being satisfied by desire. The poor strive for a simple house but once they acquire that, it does not satisfy them because they now desire a bigger house. Even if they manage to get that, they will not be satisfied and will now want a palatial house and so it goes on. Thus, not only are we not content with what we have but our desire increases more and more. Whether it be food, clothing, house - we just want more, bigger, better. This creates continual suffering and we also burn with envy when we see others who have more and better things than we do. The poor believe the rich are lucky and happy; but only the rich know how happiness deludes them constantly. And finally, the suffering of never being wearied of birth and death. In spite of the fact that we have been born again and again, in all various realms of existence with all kinds of suffering, we do not seem to be weary of it at all. We continue to act as if there were no such suffering at all. It is just like the famous story of a man hanging on to a thin strand of straw in a well with a lion above waiting to get at him and a rat gnawing at the straw and a cobra at the bottom of the well and the man sees some honey dripping from a honey comb nearby and pulls his tongue out to taste the honey and feels it as blissful nectar.

123. titleNeeded In brief, the worldly existence is like an ill person who never recovers, it's like a prison from which one is never released and like a traveler who never arrives. Whatever one may do, wherever one may dwell, whomever one may associate with, whatever one may enjoy, these are all never anything but suffering, by their own nature, never anything but the source of suffering, and never beyond the wheel of suffering. These are the three main types of suffering: 1. the suffering of suffering (Dukha dukhata) 2. The suffering of change (Parinam dukhata) and 3. Suffering of

conditioned existence (Sanskrit dharma dukhata) - the most subtle of all. It is important to understand that the objective of Buddhism is not merely to understand intellectually that we have these three types of suffering. Knowing them and understanding it at intellectual level does not have much value soteriologically. And in any case there is nobody who does not already know that there is suffering in life. But such knowledge or knowing does not transform a person as he continues to live life existentially as if it were not so. And this is where Buddhism is different from other spiritual and religious paradigms. The purpose of all these enumeration of different types of suffering is to get us to realise it, to make it sink into our subconscious mind, to let it seep into our very depths of being. And the only way to do that is to meditate on the fact that all our five aggregates (Pancha skandha), which automatically mean that the whole realm of existence, is suffering until one directly perceives this fact as such and not merely understands it. This type of meditation which is geared towards seeing that all life, all phenomena, all existence is suffering is called Vipashyana/Vipassana. As one of the Dukhata is Parinam dukhata, it is paramount to see directly that all conditioned phenomena (Sanskara dharma) are impermanent (Anitya/ Anicca) and because they are impermanent they are directly or indirectly the source of suffering. Here too, it is not just a question of understanding and accepting it intellectually but more a question of seeing/perceiving all conditioned phenomena as impermanent/changing and therefore is suffering. So, Vipashyana also involves methods that help you see directly the fact that all the five aggregates are impermanent. No non-Buddhist system of meditation has developed methods of meditation to see that all conditioned phenomena are impermanent and are suffering. Although almost all other spiritual systems do talk about and rationalize about the world of suffering, they do not have meditations to see this fact directly; and do not emphasize that this has to be experienced directly. And this was true at the time of the Buddha himself, and that is why he called it the one and the only way to Nirvana (Ekayano Maggo). Vipashyana is not about seeing the True Self (Atman) or seeing God (God realization); but about seeing directly, realizing, actualizing that all of conditioned phenomena is impermanent and is suffering. There is also the seeing of Non-Self (Anatma) and emptiness (Sunyata). After we finish this topic on Vipashyana, we will go back to the goal of all Hindu systems and then compare the two together to see how the two are totally different and how the common Hindu notion that the goal of Hindu practices and Buddhist practices are the same ultimately in experience are mistaken notions spread by Swamis and Paramahansas who have no knowledge of Buddhism. Or in some cases distorted wrong knowledge of Buddhism.

123. Only experiencing transforms, not mere intellectual understanding In brief, the worldly existence is like an ill person who never recovers, it's like a prison from which one is never released and like a traveler who never arrives. Whatever one may do, wherever one may dwell, whomever one may associate with, whatever one may enjoy, these are all never anything but suffering, by their own nature, never anything but the source of suffering, and never beyond the wheel of suffering. These are the three main types of suffering: 1. the suffering of suffering (Dukha dukhata) 2. The suffering of change (Parinam dukhata) and 3. Suffering of conditioned existence (Sanskrit dharma dukhata) - the most subtle of all. It is important to understand that the objective of Buddhism is not merely to understand intellectually that we have these three types of suffering. Knowing them and understanding it at intellectual level does not have much value soteriologically. And in any case there is nobody who does not already know that there is suffering in life. But such knowledge or knowing does not transform a person as he continues to live life existentially as if it were not so. And this is where Buddhism is different from other spiritual and religious paradigms. The purpose of all these enumeration of different types of suffering is to get us to realise it, to make it sink into our subconscious mind, to let it seep into our very depths of being. And the only way to do that is to meditate on the fact that all our five aggregates (Pancha skandha), which automatically mean that the whole realm of existence, is suffering until one directly perceives this fact as such and not merely understands it. This type of meditation which is geared towards seeing that all life, all phenomena, all existence is suffering is called Vipashyana/Vipassana. As one of the Dukhata is Parinam dukhata, it is paramount to see directly that all conditioned phenomena (Sanskara dharma) are impermanent (Anitya/ Anicca) and because they are impermanent they are directly or indirectly the source of suffering. Here too, it is not just a question of understanding and accepting it intellectually but more a question of seeing/perceiving all conditioned phenomena as impermanent/changing and therefore is suffering. So, Vipashyana also involves methods that help you see directly the fact that all the five aggregates are impermanent. No non-Buddhist system of meditation has developed methods of meditation to see that all conditioned phenomena are impermanent and are suffering. Although almost all other spiritual systems do talk about and rationalize

about the world of suffering, they do not have meditations to see this fact directly; and do not emphasize that this has to be experienced directly. And this was true at the time of the Buddha himself, and that is why he called it the one and the only way to Nirvana (Ekayano Maggo). Vipashyana is not about seeing the True Self (Atman) or seeing God (God realization); but about seeing directly, realizing, actualizing that all of conditioned phenomena is impermanent and is suffering. There is also the seeing of Non-Self (Anatma) and emptiness (Sunyata). After we finish this topic on Vipashyana, we will go back to the goal of all Hindu systems and then compare the two together to see how the two are totally different and how the common Hindu notion that the goal of Hindu practices and Buddhist practices are the same ultimately in experience are mistaken notions spread by Swamis and Paramahansas who have no knowledge of Buddhism. Or in some cases distorted wrong knowledge of Buddhism.

125. To become a Buddha An enlightenment without the Bodhichitta infused into it or inspiring it is not the enlightenment of the Buddha.. The Bodhisattvayana uses both the Sutras of the Paramitayana and the Tantras of the Vajrayana together in some systems or separately as in some systems. Now, let us go back to the place of seeing suffering directly through Vipashyana in the Bodhisattvayana. In the Bodhisattvayana, the purpose of seeing suffering directly is to see that not only me but all other sentient beings are also really suffering. This is the basis of arousing compassion which is the basis of arousing what is technically called Bodhichitta (often translated into English as the Wakening mind or the Mind of Awakening). Boddhichittodpada (arousing the Bodhichitta) is the basis of Bodhisattvayana. Without the arousal of the Bodhichitta there is no Bodhisattvayana. Bodhichitta means the aspiration to attain Buddhahood in order to liberate all sentient beings from suffering because only a Buddha has the capacity to do so. No one becomes a Buddha without fully developing this aspiration first. An enlightenment without the Bodhichitta infused into it or inspiring it is not the enlightenment of the Buddha. Unless we perceive the suffering in the world and feel its burning, we cannot really feel that others are also burning in the same fire. It is only when we really begin to see directly and feel the suffering of others that we can have compassion (Karuna) for them. Compassion is not pity but the actual feeling/seeing of the suffering of others. It is only then that real Karuna/Maitri can arise. Compassion is the desire

that all sentient beings be endowed with happiness and the cause of happiness and Maitri (loving kindness) is the aspiration that all sentient beings be free from suffering and the causes of suffering. To become a Buddha one must arouse the aspiration to become a Buddha to liberate all sentient beings from suffering. That is the major difference between becoming an Arhat and a Buddha. Needless to say other kinds of enlightenment cannot be called the enlightenment of the Buddha. One does not become a Buddha by merely practicing some form of meditation or attaining deep Samadhi etc. or attaining Atman Gyan or some form of knowledge or wisdom alone. This motivation to become a Buddha to free all sentient being from the fire of suffering (which automatically means to set them on the path of being an Arhat or a Buddha); is an integral part of being a Buddha. There can be no becoming a Buddha without this motivation which is technically called Bodhichittodpada. Bodhi means Awakening or enlightenment, Chitta means mind and Utpada means producing. So Bodhichittodpada means producing awakening the awakened mind. In the Mahayana tradition there are very elaborate practices to awaken, produce this mind. Needless to say these types of meditational practices are not to be found within even the Buddhist Sravak systems, let alone any other non-Buddhist systems. This practice changes the mental pattern of the mind of the person and thus the mind becomes a different family (Gotra). Even those who practice genuine Buddhist practices as found in the Sravakayan systems like Theravada who do not practice the Bodhichittodpada will never become a Bodhisattva and eventually a Buddha. They will become an Arhat but not a Buddha because their Gotra (family) will be different. So just practicing meditations of ?? to the Nadas (internal sounds) or lights at the forehead or various practices of Nadis etc., by themselves alone will not produce either Arhats or Bodhisattvas or Buddhas. In another language, none of the above types of non-Buddhist practices will produce the Buddhist enlightenment.

126. Root of suffering As Zen Masters are prone to say, "If you understand, you are already wrong." Let us now go into the second Noble Truth (Arya Satya). The first of the four was Dukha Satya which we just finished discussing at length. The second Arya Satya is Dukha Samudaya Satya (The truth of the origin of suffering). Here too, we find that the Buddhist understanding of suffering is very different from all other non-

Buddhist systems. In most theistic systems including Hinduism, the cause of your suffering is because you have surrendered or accepted a certain God. If you accept or surrender to that God then your suffering ends. Surrender to something higher than oneself is certainly a very strong psychological principle which does lighten the burden from one's shadow to a lesser or greater extent. Thus, even Buddhism does use the concept of surrendering to the Tri Ratna (the three jewels) as part of its technology. But as there is no creator - God in Buddhism and since it does not believe that creation began at any one certain time, there can be no concept of surrendering to any God, let alone the one and only God, within any form of Buddhism. But even the surrendering or taking refuge in the three jewels in a bit different. Neither the Buddha nor the three jewels are in any way a kind of creator of the universe. Now are they the primary cause from which all things came and into which all things go or even remain while they remain??? As can be seen, the whole paradigm is quite different. So those with Hindu background who say or believe or think that Buddhism probably presents the same thing that Hinduism does but only in a different way or words or terminologies are way off the mark, blinded by their Sanskaras (conditioning). Another form of Hinduism posits that man suffers because he does not know or recognize his own true self called Atman and identifies with the body or the mind or the little Self. Again, since there is no such eternal, unchanging Self (Atman) in Buddhism but only the flow of the mental stream (Chitta Santaan) such a notion would be automatically considered absurd within Buddhism. In fact a big part of Vipashyana meditation is to see through (Vi = special, Pashya = seeing) that there is no eternal, unchanging Atman to be found anywhere. See through (Vipashyana) means seeing directly, experientially and not just understanding conceptually, intellectually. As Zen Masters are prone to say, "If you understand, you are already wrong." Then what is the cause of suffering, the roots of suffering, and the origin of suffering according to the Buddha? Briefly - craving, grasping, clinging - which is technically also called Trisna in Sanskrit and Tanha in Pali is the root of suffering. The natural question that arises now is how or why is Trisna (craving) the root or cause of suffering? Craving is an inner form of clinging, grasping to the idea of me and myself (Atman-Atmiya). The word Trisna is the same as Tirkhaa in Nepali and is etymologically linked with the English word thirst. The root of all clinging, thirst, is 'I' or the concept of 'I'. This 'I' wants this or that and thus greed (Lobha/Raga) begins with the belief that this 'I' really exists and the concept that 'I'

exists, without ever questioning it. The automatic sense of 'I' really existing comes from the very subconscious level. And if there is something that this 'I' wants and some other 'I' wants the same thing, then this 'I' gets angry. So the whole cycle of attachment (Lobha/Raga) and aggression (Dvesa/Krodha) begins because of the clinging to 'I', which is merely a concept and has no reality. But there is no knowledge of the fact that this 'I' is just a concept and this is ignorance (Moha).

127. Concept of I, me and mine The entire emotional defilements are rooted in this concept of an 'I' or self and the clinging to it. And needless to say, our suffering is caused by our emotional defilement. But if there is an 'I', a self, there will automatically be 'my' as in my house, my husband, my car, my children and so on. The list is infinite. Not only is it true that the 'I' or self wants this car or hates that person, but it also believes strongly that the car, the house, the hated person really exist out there separate from me. Thus, their value is doubly increased by the virtue of it really existing out there. This takes us to the concept of really existing which implies that it is permanent, unchanging and thus will give me permanent happiness. Of course, any person with a bit of intellect will say that that car, house, husband or wife is not permanent. But the point here is that, it is only an intellectual understanding, a conceptual understanding. And in spite of that understanding, we continue to cling to it all emotionally as if they all are unchanging, permanent and will give us permanent happiness. That is why conceptual/intellectual understanding alone do not free us. Going back to 'I' self and 'my' (Atman-Atmiya), all these are mere concepts we cling to and because we cling to them, we suffer. In fact the average man does not even see the possibility of relating to the Atman-atmiya in any other way. Believing they really exist and clinging to it all as if it were the only life line is the only way an average person has learnt to relate with the world out there. In fact the average person unconsciously fears the loss of this I without realizing that this 'I' is nothing more than conceptual phantom.It's actually like scratching a wound to relieve oneself but without realizing that the scratching makes the wound worse and the itching gets worse by scratching. Similarly, the more we cling to the 'I' self and the 'my', the more it aggravates the itch and the cycle continues. For the time being it will suffice to see why the Buddha saw that it is clinging/craving which is the cause of our suffering. We have so far dealt with this in a general way, now let us look at it from a classical point of view.

To understand clearly how suffering is perpetuated it is necessary to understand the teaching of interdependent origination which is called either Dvadas Nidana (the 12 chains of interdependent origination) or the Dvadas/pratityasamudpada. Pratitya samudpada which means interdependent co-origination or co-arising has two different levels of meaning within the Buddhist hermeneutics. One is an interdependent co-origination (pratityasamutpada) that is intimately linked with emptiness (Sunyata). But here it means the interdependent chain which describes the flow of this life, the chain of lives and also the last but not the least our experiences every moment in the here and now.

128. The Right View

Wrong views cannot possibly help us become free from all views ultimately. We need to know what the twelve chains of interdependent origination are and they are: 1. Conditioned by ignorance (Avidhya) arises conditionings (Sanskaras). 2. Conditioned by conditionings arises dualistic consciousness (Vigyan). 3. Conditioned by consciousness arises name and form (Nama- Rupa). 4. Conditioned by name and form arises the six sense doors (Sadaayatana). 5. Conditioned by the six sense doors arises contact (Sparsha). 6. Conditioned by contact arises feelings (Vedana). 7. Conditioned by feelings arises craving/clinging (Trisna). 8. Conditioned by craving, clinging arises grasping (Upadana). 9. Conditioned by grasping arises Karmodbhava (existence based on Karma). 10. Conditioned by existence based on Karma arises birth (Jati). 11. Conditioned by birth arises the 12th one which are: old age, death, mourning, weeping, suffering, sickness, stress etc. A good understanding of the 12 chains of interdependent co-origination (Dvadas pratityasamutpada) is very important to understand the Buddhist view which are generally explained at three different levels. At one level it represents past life, this life and the next life. At another level it is a beautiful hermeneutical device to explain this life in all its complexity. And finally, it also explains this moment here and now. Even though Buddhism does not have a creator God or an Atman (permanent, unchanging soul/thing/ supreme being) it does believe fully in the continuity of the mental stream/ mental continuum (Chitta-santaan). A continuum is not an unchanging, permanent thing but rather a never ending process. The Buddhist view of life is more about processes than about things or entities. The 12

chain is a process. According to Buddhism what you call I or Self is more a verb than a noun and there is no central figure which is a noun which we can call an I or a Self meaning an entity or thing with an ontological existence . This is a very subtle point which influences the entire Buddhist view and thus its motivation which is always based on a view. When we meditate that meditation is always based on a view. Albeit the view could be conscious as in Buddhism and Sankara Vedanta or it could be unconscious, based automatically on the Sanskaras of the person meditating. No person is free from a view unless s/he has made a concentrated effort to free himself/herself from all views based his/her Sanskaras( conditioned habit patterns). However, even in such a case the person can still be said to subscribe to a view which is free from all views. For now, it will suffice to say Buddhism places a lot of emphasis on the right view (Samyag dristi) as that is what will ultimately help one to transcend all views after using the right view for one's meditation. Wrong views cannot possibly help us become free from all views ultimately. That is why Buddhism is very clear that you must first distinguish the views, clearly understand it before meditating. That is why the first of the Astangic Marga (the eight fold path) is correct view (Samyag Drishti), unlike most other spiritual systems. Going back to the 12 chains, first of all is Avidhya (ignorance/nescience or not knowing). Here too we have a Sravakayana interpretation and a Mahayana interpretation. Although they may look different they are complementary and are really pointing towards the same direction. The Sravakayana includes the Theravada and thus the Sravakayana definition of Avidhya is the Theravadin definition as well. The Sarvastivad (another Sravakayana school) definition and Mahayana definition of it appear different but in meaning they do not vary from each other.

129. Avidhya-Nescience in Buddhism According to Theravada Abahidhammatthasangaho , the definition of avidhya (ignorance) is na vidatiti avijja, which means 'avidhya is that which does not know'. Ultimately, this is Moha (delusion) and means avidhya (ignorance) is both not to know and also to know in a wrong way (misperceive/misconceive) (Mohadelusion). To not know the Four Noble Truths correctly is also avidhya/avijja. To not know the three realms of existence (Tri Dhatu) is suffering (dukha), which is also another kind of avidhya. To not know that craving (Trishna) is the cause of suffering is another kind of avidhya. To not know that nirvana is the cessation of

suffering , to not know of the Path (asthangika marga) as the dukha nirodha gamin marga (the path to the cessation of suffering) is another kind of avidhya. All these four kinds of avidhya are subsumed in ignorance of the Four Noble Truths. Then, there is avidhya related to purvanta (former lives - existence). This includes pubbantey agyanam, or ignorance (agyanam) of past existence, and likewise of future existence (aparantey) or ignorance of the continuity of life-mental stream. The first ignorance is based on the idea that life suddenly came into existence by accident or through some creator 'God' and did not exist before. The second type believes that there is no continuity of existence and all ends at death. Then, there are those who believe that this is the only existence and there was no prior existence nor will there be a future existence. This is another kind of avidhya (ignorance), called Pubbantaa parantes ayyanam. Another kind of avidhya is not to know about the interdependent co-origination. In the Abhidharma Samuchaya, Asanga, the great Mahayana teacher, defines avidhya as such: What is avidhya? It is the absence of knowledge (gyana) with regards to the three realms of existence (Tri-dhatu). Its function is to give a basis to the appearance of defilements, mistaken decisions and doubts regarding the teachings (dharma). The above two definitions are speaking about the same thing in two different ways. Doubts about the teachings (dharma) subsumes the Four Noble Truth, purvanta apavanta, etc., the pratitya samutpada, and ignorance of Tri-dhatu, which is a Buddhist technical term that means three realms of existence according to the Buddhist cosmos. A more specific Mahayana definition would call avidhya as ignorance of emptiness, ignorance of the nature of mind, but these too are subsumed within the above definition. For not to know sunyata (emptiness) includes: not to know the nature of Tri-dhatu, not to know the Four Noble Truths, not to know pratitya samutpada (interdependent co-origination), and not to know purvanta aparaanta. Now with this definition of avidhya we can see that within the context of the Buddhist view one form of major ignorance/nescience is not knowing that there is no really existing ontological 'I-self' or 'I-I' which is the center of the universe. A corollary to this is the misperception or delusion (Moha) that various things like the body or mind or something beyond the mind is the true ontological centre of my universe which is my true identity, which I can call an 'I-self' or even 'I-I' or the

'I of the I' etc, etc. The lack of such an 'I-self' or 'I-I' or the 'I of the I' is what is called Anatma in Buddhism. Now, let us compare this with the Vedanta view of avidhya. In Vedanta, avidhya is not knowing the Atman (I-I, I-self) as your true self, or as your true ontological identity, and deluding yourself to believe that the mind or body or anything else is the 'I-self'. Let us clarify this in another way. The Vedanta views that there is a truly existing, eternal and unchanging ontological entity above and beyond impermanent mind-body (psycho-physical) complex. This is one's true Self and knowing this is knowledge (gyana), while not knowing that that is an ontological entity or even your true nature is avidhya/agyana (ignorance/nescience). In Buddhism, seeing through (vipashana) that no such ontological entity called an 'Iself' or Self or Over Self can be found anywhere is vidhya/gyana (knowledge). As we can see the two paradigms are very different and geared towards two different types of knowledge. I must reiterate that this difference in both the system is very important to fully understand both the systems properly and is not meant to demean either system.

130. Satkaya Dristi Now let us go into greater detail on avidhya (nescience). The chain/link says conditioned by avidhya arises sanskaras or the conditioned habitual patterns. Before we go into sanskaras, let us go into the details of avidhya (nescience) itself. Now we shall enter into the Mahayana explanations. In the Madhyamak Avatar Bhasya, the great Chandrakriti said: a yogi sees in one's mind the kleshas and faults arise from Satkaya Dristi (Tibetan for jig Tshogs La tawa/ false view of the transitory agregates). Thus having understood that the object of Satkaya Dristi is the Atman, he negates the Atman. Now, there are two words here that we need to clearly understand before we can move forward. One is the Sanskrit technical term Satkaya Dristi and the second is Atman. We have already detailed the meaning of the world Atman from the general Hindu and the Vedantic point of view. Although the Buddhist view of Atman is based on the very same Hindu concept. Buddhism also uses this word in another way, which needs to be clarified. But first of all let us go into what is termed as Satkaya Dristi/the false view of the transitory aggregates.

Asanga had defined Satkaya Dristi in his Abhidharma Samucchaya as: Satkaya Dristi is the admission, inclination, idea, point of view, opinion of him who considers the pancha upadan skanda (the five aggregates of grasping/clinging/false view of the five transitory aggregates) as a self (Atman, I-I, etc.) or pertaining to a self (Atmiya/mine). The function of Satkaya Dristi consists of giving the basis to all kinds of opinions/views (sarva dirtigata, Itawa thamscad in Tibetan, and ditthi gatam in Pali). Paramartha who translated into theChinese the Buddhist scriptures defined Satkaya Dristi as: the grasping or conceiving of the conception of atman-atmiya (I & mine) in the five skandas (aggregates). In his own commentary of his Abhidharmakosha, Vasubandhu gave the Sarvastivadin definition of Satkaya Dristi. He said: Atmadristir atmiya dristirva Satkaya Dristi - which means the view/conception of 'I' and mine is Satkaya Dristi and he elaborates the concept further saying that this concept or view is imposed upon the pancha upadana skanda - ie - the five aggregates of grasping/clinging. Then the Thervadin commentar The Atthasalini says Santokaya sakkayo, sakkaye pavattaa ditthi, which means the five aggregates are Satkaya and the view that of believing in that Satkaya is Satkaya Dristi. Believing here means believing the five aggregates separately or as a collection or as a group is either the Atman or contains the Atman or is mine/atmiya. So all the schools of Buddhism agree that Satkaya Dristi is basically seeing, conceiving an atman in the pancha skandha (the five aggregates). And both the Abhidharma kosha of Sarvastivadins and the Thervadin Abhidhamma and the Mahayana Abhidharma Samucchaya agree that this is the root cause of all the false views. But to fully understand what Satkaya Dristi (view that there is I or mine in the five aggregates) we need to first understand what the five aggregates are; a Buddhist technical word for pancha skanda. We shall go into the details of the pancha skandha/ the ive aggregates in the next issue. 131. Pancha Skandha

The Psycho-Physical System Pancha Skandha is the Buddhist technical term for the five aggregates. They signify not only the entire psycho-physical system of an individual but the world at large also. So what are the five aggregates?

First, let's see what five aggregates consist of: 1.Rupa Skandha (the aggregate of form) 2.Vedana Skandha (the aggregate of feeling-sensation) 3.Sangya Skandha (the aggregate of perception) 4.Sanskara Skandha (the aggregate of formation or conditioning) 5.Vigyana Skandha (the aggregate of dualistic consciousness) Of these, Rupa Skandha is material and the remaining four are mental. Vedana, Sangya, Sanskara and Vigyana are all called Nama Skandha. All five Skandhas are subsumed in Nama-Rupa and this Nama-Rupa (name & form) consists of our world. Although I have used Name for Nama, the English world Name etymologically does not fully justify the Sanskrit and Pali Nama. According to the Webster New Collegiate Dictionary, Name means a designation. This is only one aspect of the Sanskrit/Pali Nama. The Sanskrit world Nama is derived from Naman, which means to be inclined towards to bow towards. The world Namaste/Namaskar is also derived from the same root. Thus, Name/Nama is not only designations/labels/names, which inclines or pulls the mind towards an object as when one says 'table', but Name/Nama is the very mind which inclines towards or goes towards or focuses towards the designated object. Nama thus is also the mind which moves or flows towards the designated object. Nama does not only mean labels/designation as you find in Vedanta, which also uses the terminology Nama-Rupa but has a different meaning attached to it. With that explanation, let us now move on to the five aggregates, which is an elaboration of Nama-Rupa or Name-Form. The first of the aggregate is form or Rupa Skandha. Rupa means form or physical form. Things with a colour and shape (varna sansthanatmakam rupam ) are called Rupa or form. So the world that we see and our own physical bodies are called Rupa Skandha. Skandha means heap, collection or aggregate. Our body is a heap of varnas and shapes/patterns, so is the world out there. They arise through a combination of various physical causes and conditions combined to other (hetupratyaya ) causes and conditions; thats why they are called aggregate or Skandhas. So the aggregate of form is one of the five aggregates, and believing, viewing or conceiving that either that is the 'I' or it's mine is Satkaya Dristi, which

is the root cause of all false views. Through false views arises avidhya or nescience and through avidhya/nescience arises avidhya. Before we go into the other remaining five Skandhas, let us go a little into the details about what the above statement implies. Many people believe that their body is who they are. The body is the 'I' or as a corollary it is mine, and there is an 'I' who possess the body. This 'I' appears to remain the same from birth, infancy, adolescence, teenage, youth, middle age to old age. When a person says 'I' he means the same person or 'I' that he called an 'I' when s/he was an infant or teenage. Although people use the expression 'I have changed', through experience people feel that the 'I' is the same old 'I' whose aspects or outer layer has changed. Within all forms of Buddhism, it is paramount to identity and fully understand this 'I-self'. We are not talking here of some philosophical explanation of this 'I-self', we are talking about the experience of 'I-self'. Everybody who does not analyze or think about it has at some gut level have had the feeling of this 'I-self'; and a part of this gut level feeling of this 'I-experience' is an subconscious 'feeling' that this 'I' does not change, has not changed and will not change. That this 'I' that I experience right now is the same 'I' that I experienced as 'I' when I was an infant, an adolescent, a teenager, or an adult, right on to death. Nobody normally feels it's a different 'I' even when she/he says I have changed. At the gut level feeling no matter how contradictory it may appear to be when we analyze it, it is the same 'I' that has remained since birth. Although 'I' may have changed, I'm the same person. Ram Prasad and Mary are the same persons through out their lives. This 'I' pointed to by the designation of Ram Prasad or Mary has remained unchanged from birth to death. We'll discuss this more in the next article.

132. Samskara Continuing with the discussion on Pancha Skandha and experiences of I or I-self nobody experiences different 'I' from the 'I' of his childhood or adolescent. She/he feels very strongly that it is the same 'I-self' even while making the statement 'I've changed'. It is exactly this experiental feeling that is used in the Vedantic logic to justify a permanent, unchanging 'I' which is technically called Atman or the Self with capital 'S' when translated into English. Buddhism, however, begins with questioning the validity of this same 'I', which people believe as forever unchanging. Experience can be deluding and can mislead. For example, you can experience a snake in rope if the causes and

conditions are right. If you have certain eye disease, you can see all sorts of hair, etc. in your food. In a similar way, your samskara (conditioned habituated patterns/conditionings) can make you see/feel/experience/intuit things that don't really exist as something really existing out there. A lot of people put a lot of store on their gut level feelings (called intuition by many) or experiences. While Buddhism ultimately believes in gut level experience in the sense of non conceptual knowledge, it warns us to only trust gut level feelings and experiences free from your samskara and not to trust all and sundry intuitions and gut level feelings/experiences. If we were to accept all our experiences as valid because it was experienced, then the snake seen in the rope would also have to be accepted as valid/true/factual/real. After all, we did experience it and all our hormones and nervous systems had moved as if it really were true. But I don't think I need to press the point that this experience is not valid, or say seeing the snake experience is false. Because of our samskaras (learned habituated patterns), which we have learned from our families, society, the culture at large, education, school, religious systems, language structure that one was born into and thus imposed upon us from the time we were infants and learned ideologies all distort our experiences, or even create illusions out there. It is extremely fallacious to believe that an unwary average person can possible know the facts/reality without being influenced by these samskaras. So before anybody depends on his/her own experience or gut level experiences or intuitions, the person must become free from his samskaras to a greater or lesser extent. We can, however, trust our intuitive gut level feelings and evaluations of our experiences to the degree that we are actually free from our samskara. Needless to say most people are not even aware of their samskaras, let alone be aware to what degree their samskaras have hold over them, not to mention what extent these samskaras can distort their experiences and their evaluations of those experiences or intuitive gut level feelings. Becoming free from their samskara for most people is never even heard of. Becoming free from their samskaras is not a black or white thing but rather a question of degrees. In Buddhist hermeneutics, only a Buddha is free from all samskarars (sarva samskara cchayan). In fact, the meaning of Samyak Sam Buddha is a person who has freed himself from all samskaras, or someone who has destroyed avidhya/nescience. All other humans are bound by their samskaras. Now back to the avidhya/nescience about 'I-self', or the wrong perception about this 'I-self' as really existing is avidhya/nescience. This is the first part of the

Twelve Chain of Interdependent Origination (Dwadas Nidan). Based on this wrong perception or avidhya, a samskara (conditioned learned habituated patterns) is formed, which makes us feel as if we are really experiencing this 'I-self'. This in reality is only a samskara being experienced. Part of the samskara is that this 'Iself' is the centre of my world-experience. We'll continue more on this in the next issue.

133. Vipashyana

Let's continue with the discussion on samskara and on how what we thought as 'Iself' is actually a samskara being experienced. Part of this samskara/conditioning is experiencing 'I-self' as the centre of my world-experience. This samskara is so strong that it will not be diminished or destroyed by any other kind of meditations or practices, except those specially geared towards exposing samskaras and helping to gain intuitive insights into the existence of samskaras and their mode of functioning. Let me reiterate once again, as there is a pervasive fallacy in Nepal and elsewhere in the world to lesser extent, that by Vipassana/Vipashyana, here I do not mean only Theravada style of Vipassana (as it is called in Pali) and certainly not the only style of Theravada as taught up in Budhanilkanta in Kathmandu. First of all, the Theravada Vipassana as taught in Budhanilkanta is based on Vedananusmiti or Vedanaaunsatti in Pali, and moves into the four smrityupasthan (sattipathan in Pali), which is the four stations of mindfulness. This is only one method of Vipassana amongst hundreds of methods of Vipassana still being practiced in Theravadin countries like Laos (which is considered the most profound), Cambodia, Thailand, Burma and Sri Lanka and parts of Southern Vietnam. It certainly is not the one and only method of Vipassana nor is it more pure than the other methods. Secondly, Vipashyana (the Sanskrit name for the Pali Vipassana) has always continued in an unbroken lineage in all Mahayana countries like Tibet, China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Mongolia, Central Asia and the entire TransHimalayan belt, which includes Kashmiri, Zanskara, Leh, Ladhaka, Kunu, SpitiLahul, Bhutan, the entire Arunachal Pradesh, the entire Himalayan region of Nepal and parts of Northern Burma bordering Tibet and China. Even the so called satipattan (smrityupasthan in Sanskrit) system exists to this day in Sanskrit and in all their translations in Chinese, Tibetan, etc. So when I use the

word Vipashyana, I do not mean just one particular method that is used by Sri Goenkaji and has become popular in Nepal wrongly as the one and only Vipashyana taught by the Buddha, I mean Vipashyana as a whole as found within all Buddhist systems. I have told a little about Vipashyana/Vipassana before and we will go into more details about Vipashyana/Vipassana when the context demands it. But for now, I just want to repeat that we have already shown very clearly that all authentic Buddhist abhidharmas, sutras, etc, have defined Vipashyana as special (vi from visesh and pashyana as to see from pashyanti, etc.). So Vipashyana is a special form of meditation geared towards helping the meditator see directly, non-conceptually (intuitively) the real characteristics (lakchyana) of all phenomena (dharma). What are the real characteristics of all phenomena (dharma)? All phenomena was declared by the Buddha impermanent (anitya) and therefore also suffering (dukha), and also no phenomena contain the Self or 'I' nor are they mine (AnatmaAnatmiya) and therefore are all empty of real existence (niswabhava/sunyata). This point, which the Buddha validated 2500 years back, can be investigated independently by meditation. Irrespective of what the Buddha said, irrespective of what is written in the sutras/suttas (the words of the Buddha/Buddha vacana) or the sastras, the commentaries written by siddhas and panditas through the centuries explaining or clarifying the intention of the Buddha's words - irrespective of them, correct meditation, both analytical and non-analytical meditation called Vipashyana /Vipassana, shows very clearly that - that is how all phenomena (dharmas) are. These characteristics of dharmas/phenomena are irrefutable either through logic or through experience, which is not deluded by other factors like emotional defilements and samskaras. And it has not been refuted to date however it is refutable if one can refute it. The Buddha never commanded his disciples to accept what he said unquestioningly but rather asked them to come and see for themselves whether what he said was the truth or not. Any meditation that is geared towards showing this experience directly through non-conceptual experience that all dharmas/experience are impermanent, suffering, NonSelf/empty, anitya/anicca in Pali, dukha, anatma/anatta in Pali, sunya/sunna in Pali is Vipashyana. 134. Demystifying 'I-self' Continuing with the current discussion on Vipashyana and what it is geared towards - any meditation that is not geared towards helping the meditator to 'see through' non-conceptually that all dharmas are impermanent, suffering and empty,

is not Vipashyana. I invite any Buddhist or Non-Buddhist to refute the above statement using Sutras and Sastras of both Theravadin and Sarvastivadin or Mahayan/Vajrayana. And if there is no Vipashyana practice, there is no Buddhist enlightenment, be it Theravadin and Sarsvastinvadin enlightenment moving towards Arhathood, or the Mahayana enlightenment moving towards Buddhahood. Without the practice of Vipashyana, there can be no experience of any kind of Buddhist enlightenment. It is Vipashyana that is the special teaching of the Buddha and no other system taught it before the Buddha taught it. After the Buddha, other systems could have appropriated it, though history does not show any system that has taught it as its main stay until the 21st century. I invite any scholar or practitioner, Buddhist or otherwise, to prove the above statement as wrong. I am open to acceptance if proven correct but they must use sutras and sastras without distorting them before I accept it. I would like to also remind all those who may not agree with me that refuting and rebuttal using the proper mode is an ancient culture in the Indian Subcontinent to probe into the truth, a method accepted by all Buddhists, Hindus and Jains since ancient times. Now, let us go back to the aggregate of form (rupa skanda). Many believe our body is 'I-self'. Those who have studied some form of philosophy of one school or the other may intellectually believe that the body is not the 'I-self' but at a gut-level those very same person continue to live life as if this body is who I am. And vast majority of even the so called 'educated' do believe, albeit rather vaguely, that the 'I-self' and the body are not the same but the 'I-self' is in some way in the body. The Bhagawat Gita even states very clearly that that Atman is like charioteer who rides the chariot of the body. However, Vipashayana/Vipassana mediation exposes this notion of the 'I-self' being somewhere in the body as a fallacious belief based on samskaras and avidhyas (conditioned habitual patterns and nescience). So this body and the visible world out there (the material aggregate), which has colour and shape (varna sansthan) and thus has form (rupa), so the aggregate of form (rupa Skandha) is neither an 'I-self' (Atman) nor is it inside somewhere in the form aggregate. Nor can we truly call this aggregate of form mine (atmiya). If this body, which linguistically we call my body, were really 'mine' it would follow my wishes. But whether 'I' want it or not, it grows old and it grows sick, it dies. Since 'I' have no control over it, how can it really be mine? If the body of a beautiful model girl was really hers, not just linguistically, it would not gain weight, it would not age and her hair would not grey. But we all know intellectually/rationally/conceptually at least that the body does not really follow her commands, no matter how much she wishes it would . Thus, how is it her

body, or my body? I must warn however that this is only an intellectual-conceptual understanding of the fact and such a rational knowing does not really free us from this misconception (avidhya/nescience). We need Vipashyana meditation (and not any old meditation) to make a shift in our perspective on this issue. It is only when we penetrate through and see (true meaning of Vipashyana) directly, non-conceptually that Rupa Skanda is neither 'I' nor 'mine', nor is there an Atman somewhere in the Rupa Skandha that is clinging/grasping to the rupa Skandha will stop spontaneously.

135. Fallacy of Language We have seen that thirst/clinging to the Rupa Skandha is one of the causes of our suffering. This thirst or clinging to the Rupa Skandha is initiated by nescience/avidhya, which is the cause of perceiving it as 'I-mine', etc. And the one and only way this hold of nescience can be broken is by seeing penetratingly (Vipashyana) that the gut level experiential intuitive feeling is false. And the one and only way (Ekaayano Maggo) that can be done is through the type of meditation which is geared towards helping the meditator see this almost innate fallacy. It is innate because of aeons (kalpas of samskaras conditioned habitual patterns). This is why avidhya is called sahaja-atman-graha (innate grasping to the concept of an 'I-self'/atman). When it comes to this 'I-self' almost everything in our human-situation seems to validate it. That is why it seems innate/sahaja. However, it is still imposed upon our mental stream from the outside or is not really the true nature of our mental stream. Even our language so strongly assumes its reality. We do not realize to what extent our language structure literally influences what we see and what we cannot see. The structure of our language heavily defines our experience and how we interpret that experience. For instance, we have the past tense, the present tense and the future tense which are highly artificial constructs, but we tend to forget that they are highly artificial constructs and thus they become our reality. For instance, 'I run' is the present tense, the past tense 'I ran' and the future tense 'I will run'. When I say 'I ran' it seems to me that there is really the same past in which 'I ran'. The past really exists out there to me just as much as the table I see when I say 'I see the table', or the sound I hear when I say 'I hear the barking'.

Now, these sentences are very useful in showing to us how deeply ingrained the structure of our language is in experience and how we unquestionably accept them as valid/factual/real/actual. First of all, let us take the past, present & future tense. As we said before, when I say 'I ran' I seem to really experience or re-experience the past when I had run. When I say I will run the future, in which I will run almost seems to exist for me. So without questioning the whole affair I accept that the past does exist as much as the present in which I run as much as the future when I will run. But in reality, there is and can only will be the present moment and the so called past or future are only abstract mental constructs which do not exist at all except as imaginings in the mind in the present. Now, let us take the statement 'I see the table', which would come out pretty much the same in Nepali/Hindi/Sanskrit/French, etc. I see the table - in this language structure, the subject is the 'I' which does the 'seeing' and the object is the table, which is seen. Now, this linguistic structure is so common that it is assumed that what the language structure evokes is true, is how it really is. And what does it evoke? It evokes an 'I' the seer who sees. Thus, there is an 'I', otherwise who sees? Or what sees? Or how can there even be any seeing at all? Then, there is the verb seeing which is separate from the 'I' which does the seeing but is assumed not to be the seeing. At least, it is not questioned normally and the language structure validates my intuitive gut level feeling about this. And finally there is the table, which 'I' see, which again is separate from me, the 'I' that sees. More on this later.

136. More on Fallacy of Language and Modern Thinking Continuing with the discussion on the limitedness of language - the very sentence 'I see the table' assumes that the table 'I' see is out there somewhere separate from me. And as a corollary which we will deal with later on, this 'I' which sees really existing is in fact the center of the seeing and the table out there, which 'I' see also really exist. Let us take another example. We say the lighting flashed, this is similar in structure to I see. This grammatical structure implies that there is a lighting that flashed. The lighting is the subject (like the 'I which sees), which does the action of flashing (verb). This act is different from the lighting. But, and a big but is that is there really a lighting separate from flashing, or is flashing itself lighting? Can we really separate flashing or take away flashing and say - here is lighting that had flashed,

which is separate thing from flashing? Can we really do that? If we removed flashing, would lightening really remain per se? But just a few minute ago we thought and felt and experience (or seem to experience) that there is a lighting that had done the action of flashing, didn't we? Now, let us take this analysis back to 'I see the table'. Some people may say the mind sees the table just to be clever, but really we aren't changing the structure of the language and thus the structure of the experience. We have just substituted the word 'mind' for 'I' and the rest of the implications are still the same. There is a mind which is the subject, which exists independently and it is thus independent and separate mind which does that action of seeing the table, which is the object and which too is independent out there (like the lighting that flashes, the mind or I see). If we look at the seeing out, would there still remain a mind which sees or is the act of seeing itself the ......... Thus, language structure is so much a part of our programming samskara that we do not question the situation out there or the real experience or reality/actuality or fact. It has become so much a part of the way we experience things, a program that was downloaded from the time prenatal/pre-conceptual moment onward or even earlier downloaded in the mother's cellular memory itself. Perhaps that it does not occur to us easily that our experience is molded by this grammatical structure itself. What we tend to forget is that there is a certain experience going on which the sentence 'I see the table' or 'I see the sound' etc, is trying to point at. It is however never questioned whether the implications evoked from the structure of the sentences is really out there or not, or whether this grammatical structure is coloring and distorting the experience, changing the 'pure experience' into a shape that this grammatical structure demands. Even to question this seems so odd that most people would never even think of it and if somebody raises such a question he/she would be ridiculed by saying 'Are you crazy?' Have you gone off the rocks? But didn't Galileo face the same taunts when he questioned whether the sun really went around earth? Let us go on a little journey for a short while into the world of Alice in Wonderland, for that is now it would look like to the programmed thinking of most people. Suppose you have a grown up with a different grammatical structure. We have already said that the sentence 'I see the table' is pointing at a certain experiential

act. But the grammatical structure here demands thing are there in the experience. We'll continue with this in the next article.

137. Unchanging 'I' or is it

The grammatical structure demands that there is an 'I' or mind that is the subject or the seer, watcher, knower, that this 'I' sees or goes through the action of seeing, which is an action verb, which is different from the 'I' which is a pronoun and there is a different noun, separate from both the verb (seeing) and the pronoun 'I' which is the table. The 'table' is the object, a noun and distinctly separate and independent from the subject and the verb. And this unquestioned programming is so deeply ingrained into our subconscious mind that we can safely say that, that is how everybody experiences the experience of what the sentence 'I see the table' is trying to point at. Now suppose you had grown up in another grammatical structure. Remember that language is meant to point at an experience. So if an Alice in Wonderland language also pointed equally well at that experience it would fulfill the purpose of language. So we all know that an experience is a process and not really a thing entity per se. So seeing a table is a process, a verb, and not an entity, a noun. So suppose you had grown up with a grammatical structure which says 'tabling is going on' to point at the same experience which the sentence 'I see the table' is also trying to point at. We can certainly say that the sentence 'tabling is going on' can equally well point at the same experience which the sentence 'I am seeing the table' points at. Infact, since it is actually a process (this experience), tabling is going on is a more accurate finger to point at it. Now, if you had grown up with this grammtical sturcture, would the experience (and the grammatical structure) imply that there is a separate table (noun-object) from the act of seeing the table (verb)? And would the structure impose an 'I' upon the experience like imposing a separate lightning different from the flashing of the light? Is there a lightning separate from the flashing which does the flasing or is the flashing itself the lightning? But flashing is an action a verb, the lightning is a noun, an object. Or is the 'Light' distinct from the flasing created merely by the langauge? Likewise, is there an 'I' that sees or is the act of seeing specified by the Alice in Wonderland language 'Tabling' itself the 'I' the seer? But I is a pronoun, seer a noun and seeing/tabling are verbs. When I

say 'I see', this is a seeing I. This 'I' is defined by the 'seeing'. Now there are two questions here. The first questions is: Is not this 'I' that sees dependent upon the seeing of the table? Can we really say that the I/seer/watcher/knower that sees will continue to exist even when the seeing stops? If so, we will have a so-called seer who does not see? Can there be a seer that does not see? Is not the seer-I defined by seeing process. Can we really speak of a seer when it is not seeing/tabling? The word Seer would be meaningless without the seeing, wouldn't it? We cannot call the seer a seer if there is no seeing going. If that is true than when seeing stops the seer also stops or ceases to exist. The second question is that is there is a seer separate from the act of seeing or is it only an illusion created by the language structure, like the lightning and its flashes? Can there be a seer remaining [a noun] which does not see but was the one that did the seeing? Can we really separate the verb of seeing from the seer the noun or is the seer (and therefore the 'I') merely an illusion imposed up the experience?

138. I as 'Seer', 'Watcher,' 'Knower' If you had grown up with the sentence structure 'Table is going on' to point at the same experience, would you be straddled with an 'I-seer' that sees and a table that is seen? Tabling is a process, and actually there is process going on which the sentence 'I see the table' is trying to point at; however like a pair of coloured glasses it imposes a lot of things on the experience which is not really out there even according to quantum physics. Now we can see that the 'I' is not really such a central figure in our experience, nor is it so stable or permanently unchanging as it seems to be, and secondly, it is more a process, a verb, which is continuously changing than an unchanging noun, which is supposedly the central guy or doll in the experience. Now let us look at the unchanging 'I' from another angle. When we say this 'I' is unchanging, it also implies that it is the same 'I' always. Unchanging as defined in the Hindu-Buddhist systems of the Indian Subcontinent meant 'remaining the same in all the three times'. As Sankaracharya has defined it 'Kala traya tisthatiti', which means that which remains unchanged in the three times - in all the three times - viz - past, present and future.

Now with this in the background, let us try to see if this 'I', watcher, seer or knower really remains unchanged in the three times. First of all, if we look at the 'I', 'I' continually changes its identity. When I'm in the office I am a manager or an executive at home, I'm a son in front of my father or mother, even if I may be sixty years old. I'm also a brother to my brothers and sisters. Now a wife is not the same as the executive in the office, nor is a son the same as a husband. As we can see this, 'I' is continuously changing and becoming something else according to the situation - or more technically according to the causes or conditions. Now the question arises which one of them is the real 'I'? We normally have hundreds of 'I' which are normally changing frequently as per the situations, and none of them is the real 'I' in the sense of being the unchanging, permanent 'I'. If this husband 'I' did not change and become a father 'I' in front of his daughter or an executive 'I' in the office, not only would there be trouble (big time trouble to say the least) but we would have to call that person neurotically unbalanced, and normal social or human functions would become tipsy turvy. Yet our experience seems to point at an 'I' that is the same in all three times and therefore real and unchanging. So which of this 'I' is the real one? Now, let us take this 'I' as the seer, watcher, knower as posited in the Vendantic system and therefore virtually all non-dualist system within Hinduism. They are called watcher (drasta), witness (sakchi), knower (gyata) because this 'I' watches or sees, knows and witnesses. So let us analyze this watcher, seer. It is called a watcher or seer because it sees. If it didn't see or watch something it would not be called a watcher, seer. We cannot have a seer which does not see. If it does not or cannot see anything, it cannot possible be called seer or watcher can we really? We need to distinguish five points we have before we get confused. A seer can see nothing - ie - the absence of things. It still sees the absence (alohara) and that is really not seeing per se. We'll continue this discussion in the next article. 139. Changing or Unchanging 'I' Continuing with the discussion of absence of seeing - for example, if you are in a pitch dark room and I asked you - do you see anything? You would normally say 'I do not see anything'. But this expression is the result of the limitation of language itself, rather than the fact that you do not see. You do continue to see the pitch darkness or the absence of all things or objects. The absence or pitch darkness is also a 'thing' to see, so to say. Once we have understood this, let us go another step further. We have already said that a seer is defined by its seeing something, even if it is an absence. There is still

an absence to see and it is the seer of that absence of the pitch darkness, as the case maybe. So let us take this up. When I say 'I see the table' I am the seer of the table. At that moment, this 'I-seer' is the seer of the table and is defined by the 'table'. If there were no table to see I would not be the seer of the table, that is, I would not see the table and in effect I would not and could not say 'I see the table'. And if I did not see the table I would not be the seer of the table. Now, if this seer of the table or the 'I' was really existing (sat in Sanskrit) and therefore the same and unchanging in all three time, I would in effect be eternally be seeing the table as I or the seer would not change. But no one experiences that. We do not eternally continue to see the table unchangingly and in actuality we as the seer see something else immediately, for instance, the blue sky or the green mountain. Again, if the seer of the table was unchanging and permanent, it could not stop seeing the table and seeing the blue sky would be a change. But in real life the objects seen by the seer is continually changing and thus also the seer of those objects. However, in the language we continuously use the same word 'I' or the same word seer-watcher-knower for the seer of all those various objects. And that gives us the feeling of the same 'I-seer-watch-knower' being there while the so called seen objects are changing like a table now, a blue sky after that, a home now, etc. etc. As before, the language structure creates an illusion of something which does not really exist out there. Here again, our memory of I seeing the table etc. also furthers the illusion with 'I' which is based on the memory of the 'I' which had seen the table. Because of this memory, it looks like the same 'I' is seeing the blue sky which had seen the table a while ago. But actually, it is an illusion created by our memory supported by our language structure, thus creating an experience that is not out there as it appears to be. So in effect there seems to be no seer/knower/watcher which remains unchanging as the Vedanta or for that matter what Sankaracharya says in his texts like Discriminating the Watcher And the Watched (Drig Driksya Viveka). Understanding this is the key point in knowing the difference between Hinduism and Buddhism. It is not a matter of just a difference in words but a matter of seeing two diametrically opposed experiences. One is an experience of validating that this 'I' is not related to this ephemeral world but is an unchanging permanent really existing Self called an Atman in all forms of Hinduism. However, it must be said that only the Atman of Vedantic Hinduism and all those related to the non-dual system of Vedanta (directly or indirectly) is a coherent Atman. 140. Atman Anatman Debate

While Vedanta and all those related to the non-dual system of Vedanta (directly or indirectly) purports a coherent Atman, most other forms of Hinduism uses the word Atman in a rather loose way that is not consistent. Thus, we have the concept like Atman in the one born again and again, and at the same time, the Atman is unchanging and permanent (Aparivartanshila and Nitya). If a thing is born and dies, it changes. So how can an unchanging and permanent thing born and die and be reborn? At least the Hindu Vedanta itself does not agree to such an absurd concept. This itself answers the common layman Hindu question posed to Buddhists. Actually, the majority of Hindus ask this question to Buddhists: 'If there is no Atman, who is it that dies and is reborn (re-incarnation) and who attains enlightenment?' This question itself points clearly to the fact that the majority of the Hindus (who pose such a question) do not really realize that they do not know what is meant by the Atman in the Upanishads, Bhagvat Gita and Brahman Sutra (called the tree pillars - prasthan trayi). To validate this point, I would like to state that no less than Prof. Ram Niwas Pandey, who was the head of Department of Culture, under which the Department of Buddhism was based in Tribhuvan University, had asked this very question in one of the first classes held on Buddhism in Tribhuvan Univeristy. Prof. Pandey is also a learned Hindu scholar. This is the extent of knowledge that most people coming from a Hindu cultural background have on Atman-Anatman issue. With that kind of knowledge even amongst scholars, it is not surprising why vast majority of Hindus completely miss out on the concept of Anatman in Buddhism and then muddle everything up into one system - ie - the Hindu system. This means all systems, including the Buddhist systems, are just talking about the same Atman but only using a different language. Vinoba Bhave even called it Via Positiva (positive way) for Hinduism and the Via Negativa (the negative way) for Buddhism to understanding/reaching the same goal. And what is the goal for Vinoba Bhave or the Hindus (even those who have no technical knowledge of the Atman)? - it is the Atman. In short, the Anatman of the Buddhist is merely a negative way of speaking of Atman or self of the Hindus. This is subtle inability to see or accept that there can be other points of view than my own. Now let us see if this is really true. Is Hinduism and Buddhism actually talking about the same thing when are they use the word Atman or Anatman respectively? But before we do this, we need to define clearly according to the Hindu Vedanta

what is meant by Atman. Although we have already done that above in a loose way, let us now define it clearly so that we know what the Hindus mean by Atman and what the Buddhist are refuting when they use the word Anatman. Now if any Hindu feels that I've distorted the definition of Atman to fit in a Buddhist thesis, I challenge them to refute me using scriptural quotations. Their or my personal ideas, beliefs, predilections and concepts are invalid in such a debate. Now, Sankaracharya himself has done the work for us and I actually need not quibble over words. In his Tatvabodha (Knowing the Essence/tatva), Sankaracharya defines Atman by asking the question what is the Atman (inverse 26 of Atman Tarih kim?) and replies: the essence of Atman is really existing, knowing, bliss (sacchidanana svarupa). Now what does he mean by sacchidanana svarupa? He himself defines these three words sat, chit and ananda in verse 27. In that verse, he asks the question what is sat (The Really Existent), and answers that, that which remains unchanged in all the three times is sat (really existing or kala trayapsi tastatiti sat). What does this mean? We'll explore more in the next article. 141. Understanding Vedantic Atman Acharya Mahayogi Sridhar Rana Rinpoche

The unchanging sat (really existing or kala trayapsi tastatit sat) as Sankaracharya has said is the same in all the three times (past, present and future) or sat is really existing or truly existing, etc. Then, Sankara himself ask Chit Kim - or what is chit or consciousness, awareness, etc.? He answers Gyan Swarupa - ie - of the nature of knowing. In short, the knower aspect is an aspect of Atman. Or the knower, watcher or witness is the Atman. We shall pick up the thread about witness, knower, watcher later on and go on to see how the Vedanta goes about to prove this witness, watcher, knower is sat or really existing - ie - remains the same or unchanging in the three times. But for now, let us go into ananda (bliss) aspect of the Atman. Sankarcharya writes what is ananda /bliss? ( ananda ka)? He answers - sukha swarupah (of the nature of sukha or bliss or joy). Then, he goes on to say evam sacchidananda swarupam svatmanam vijaniyat - which means this is how one should know that one's own Atman is of the nature of satchit ananda swarupa. So the Atman of Hinduism, and Jainism for that matter in general, and of the Vedantic form of Hinduism specifically, is the Watcher, Knower, Witness,

Consciousness (awareness), which is unchanging in all three times or remains the same in all three times, and which is free from suffering by nature because its nature is bliss (ananda swarupa). Now, let us study this Watcher, Knower, Witness, Awareness (Watcher - drasta, Knower - gyata, Witness - sakchi, Awareness - chaitanya). What does Vedanta in general and Sankara in specific mean by this Watcher, Witness, Awareness? The Kaivalyopanishad says: 'it is that which brings to light or knows the three worlds of awaking, dream and deep sleep (jaagrat swapna susuptyadi yat prapancha prakaashate). Now, let us simplify this. To do that, we need to see in detail how Vedanta goes about proving that this Awareness, Watcher, Witness exists in the first place, how it is independent and finally how it remains unchanged in the three times. The methodology used by the Vedanta to do this is called 'Analysis of the three states (avasthaa traya vivechana)'. This methodology is mentioned in the Brihadaranyak Upanishad, in Kaivalyopanishad and elaborated in detail by Sankaracharya in many of his writings like Drig-driskya Viveka (Discriminating the Watcher and the Watcher), Vakya Vritti (commentary on the words of the Vedas) etc. etc. Here, I shall just explain the purport of these writings without quoting them as it would become too heavily scholastic if I quoted each and every one of them here. I see/know the world of my waking state - this is irrefutable. I see the world of the waking state, thus I am the watcher (drasta), knower (gyata), and witness ( sakchi) of all that I experience in my waking state. But when I fall asleep and start dreaming, I see, know, witness the world of my dream too; and when I wake up I can tell you that I saw such and such dream. That means I watched (was the watcher) or witnessed (was the witness) that dreamt last night and that is why I can tell you about it. If I had not witnessed it how could I tell you about it? It is irrefutable that I saw it. That word witness (sakchi) has been used in Vedantic literature because it witnesses the world just as a witness who saw the accident or the murder stands witness later on as proof in the court. It is the same witness which saw or watched the events that stands in the court as the witness to the scene (drasta). This will be continued in the next article. 142. Understanding Maya and Mayawat When I go into deep dreamless sleep, I don't seem to be watching it or witnessing it; however, when I wake up, I know that I was in a deep dreamless sleep. Nobody has to tell me you went into deep dreamless sleep. I know it the moment I wake up that I was in dream, dreamless sleep (susupti). How do I know it? How can I

remember that I was in a deep, dreamless sleep without anybody telling me about it if I didn't experience it or if I didn't witness it myself? I myself can tell you the very moment I wake up that I went into or had a deep dreamless sleep. So I watched (Watcher) or witnessed (Witness) or was aware of (Knower) of all the three worlds of waking, dream and dreamless states. Thus, I am the Watcher, Knower, Witness, Awareness of all three worlds of waking, dream and dreamless. It is not only Buddhism but Hinduism also that says that all the world events/things etc, of the three states (avasthan traya) of waking, dream and dreamless are ever changing and thus impermanent, as they are all quite obvious. It is an irrefutable truth that the worlds of all the three states are ever changing, and if they are ever changing, they are impermanent. And if they are impermanent, they cannot really exist (sat). And that would mean that the entire world of our experience is like an illusion (mayavat). This brings us to another topic related to what we just said. So let us deal with it before moving on. First, we need to distinguish between Hinduism and Buddhism here. Hinduism of Sankara Vedanta calls the world (jagat/sansara) of our experience a mere illusion. Sankara says jagan mithya - this world is false, illusion or untrue. However, Buddhism, especially Mahayana, does not call this world an illusion (maya or mithya) but rather like an illusion (mayavat). This is a major differentiation between the Sankara Vedanta of Hinduism (or for that matter most form of Hindu non-dualism - advaita) and Buddhism. To say the world is an illusion is not the same as to say the world is like an illusion. Secondly, some Theravadin writers think that because Mahayana declares that the world is like an illusion, it is a non-Buddhist concept derived from Hinduism. To such Theravadins, I would like to point them to Phenopindupama Sutta of Samyutta Nikaya of their own school, which says that Rupa Vedana Chitta etc., are all like a bubble, like a maya (illusion), like the stem of a bamboo tree( kadali samaa), etc. Also, if you agree that all phenomena (dharma) are impermanent (anitya) then you have already agreed that all phenomena are like an illusion. Now, let us go back to how Vedantic Hinduism goes about proving that the Watcher, Seer, Knower, Witness is permanent, unchanging and true. Using the methodology called Avastha Traya Vivechana - analysis of the three states - ie waking, dream and dreamless state, Vedanta has tried to posit that the Watcher is eternal, unchanging, truly existing and real; whereas the watched is changing, impermanent, false and not existing. As I mentioned before, this method has been

laid out clearly in the Upanishads, like Brihadaranyak Upanishad, etc., and has been elaborated in more detail by Sankaracharaya in his Drig Drishya Viveka (discriminating the Watcher and the watched). So let us go into the core of Vedantic thought. It is the Watcher who sees/watches/witnesses that is aware of various events in waking state. I know (saw/watched/was aware of)that I had breakfast in the morning and the very same 'I-watcher' not only knows that I'm going to sleep or am feeling sleepy but also this very same 'I-watcher' who is aware of feeling sleepy also remembers that it had breakfast this morning. We will continue on this in next article. 143. Vedanta explanation of I It is the same 'I-watcher' who was there during breakfast that is present now during bedtime. The breakfast situation has gone and thus it is impermanent, not really existing, etc. as it has been fully replaced by bedtime experience, which to will pass. But the 'I-watcher' who experienced both is the same as the 'I' who remembers in bedtime that 'I' (the same I that is feeling sleepy) had the breakfast. If the 'I' that is feeling sleepy now was not there experiencing, watching or witnessing the breakfast, how could the present 'I-watcher' who is feeling sleepy right now remember the breakfast? Then, when I go to sleep and see a dream and wake up, I can tell you 'I' had such and such dream. This itself is proof that 'I-watcher' who is telling you about the dream right now was present in the dream, watching, witnessing, being aware of the dream. If 'I' was not watching the dream in the dream, how could I possibly know or remember it and be able to tell you 'I saw such and such dream'? So definitely the Watcher that watched the dream is the same Watcher that is watching you and the narrator of the dream right now. The point is that if I wasn't watching the dream how could I remember it? One can remember only what one has experience. One cannot possible remember what one has not experienced. So we have seen that it appears that the same Awareness, Watcher or Witness, etc. who saw the dream remembers it and is able to tell you about the dream. The 'Iawareness' that saw the dream is the one relating it to you now and also is the IKnower/Witness/Watcher you are listening to or experiencing you now. It is the very same 'I-Awareness', the very same Watcher, the very same Witness, the very same 'I-I' that saw the dream last night, which remembers it after it wakes up. After all how could this 'I-Awareness' remember the dream it saw last night if it was not present in the dream watching it, seeing it, experiencing it? How could I possibly

narrate my dream to you now if I (who is narrating it now) was not present in the dream? Then the next step is the dreamless sleep (shushupti). Usually people think we blank out in the dreamless sleep and are not aware of anything then. But this actually is more like saying we do not see anything in the pitch darkness when in reality seeing has not stopped and in effect we are seeing the pitch darkness itself. Now the question that arises is - how do we know that this very same 'I-Awareness' that is witnessing the waking world was also witnessing the world of deep sleep? The logic presented by Vedanta is that when I wake up, this very same 'I' that is awake knows very clearly without anybody having to tell me that I was in deep sleep last night. The point is nobody else has to tell me this. The moment I wake up 'I' the Knower/Watcher/Witness of this waking world myself know that I had a dreamless sleep. I remember it myself, that is why nobody else has to tell me. Now, the question is how could I possibly remember something that I myself had not experienced? No one can remember something that s/he has not previously experienced. We can imagine something that we have not previously experienced but we cannot possibly remember something we have not previously experienced. This is simple conventional logic. So this same 'I-Awareness' that saw the dream last night is telling you about the dream right now and is thus present now and also saw the dreamless world and is capable of telling you that I had a dreamless sleep. Since the Vedantic logic is not so obvious to most people I have belaboured to make it clear by repeating the same point from as many angles as possible. 144. Understanding Atman & Liberation Correctly The very same 'I-Awareness/Watcher/Witness' is present at all three states (avastha traya). So even though the world of waking changes into the world of dream, and that into the world of deep dreamless sleep, and back again into the world of waking, and thus this world is ever changing, the 'Watcher/ Witness/Knower/Awareness/I-I' of these three ever changing worlds is the same unchanging 'I-Awareness/Watcher/Witness/Knower/ I-I'. So this Watcher is' sat' really existing, existing as the same unchanged entity in the past, present and future. And this is the Atman of the Vedantic tradition of the Upanishads, Bhagvat Gita and Brahman Sutra (all three of which are called the Prasthana trayi/ The three pillars of the Vedantic tradition. And the realization or recognition of this unchanging Atman is what is called Self Realization (Atman Gyan), and this is

enlightenment in the Vedantic tradition, especially of Sankaracharya. In the Panchikarana, it very clearly says: Aham Sakchiti, I am the Witness; and he who analyses this again and again becomes truly liberated (sa eva mukta); and such a person is the wise one (sa eva vidwan), so says the drum of Vedanta (Vedanta dim dima). In the Aparoshyaanubhuti, verse 2, Sankarcharya writes: aham drastritayaa or I am the drastaa/ Watcher and sidhi deho drishyatayaa stheta. And the body is the seen/scene (drishya) and this is self established (siddho). There is no way that any Hindu system, especially Vedantic system, could call this Watcher or Self (drastaa - atman) as empty. In fact, in Aparoshyaanubhuti ( The Direct Experience), Sankaracharya makes it very clear that that is not and can never be the Vedantic view when he questions in verse 27: Why do fools think this Atman is empty/sunya and not in the body - kim murkhan sunyamatmanam dehaatitam karoshi bho)? Sankaracharya also makes it very clear that the word 'I' designate this very Watcher-Atman and nothing else. That is why later Indian Gurus like Raman Maharshi also called it 'I-I'. In verse 31 of Aparoshyaanubhuti, Sankaracharya makes it very clear that this word 'I' designate the Watcher-Atman by saying aham sabdera vikhyata ek eva sthita para - or by the word 'I' is known only that atman. Now let us analyze this Watcher - Self. First of all, as it is unchanging and remains the same in all the three times, it cannot be born and cannot die. Therefore, contrary to what most Hindu lay people think, it is definitely not the Watcher, Self (Atman) that re-incarnates again and again until it becomes liberated. If the Atman was to be reborn and die and again be reborn, that would mean the Atman is going through changes. Also, if the Atman were bound and then became enlightened or liberated, again the Atman will change as an unenlightened, un-liberated Atman cannot be the same as the enlightened, liberated Atman. Becoming enlightened and liberate from the unenlightened, un-liberated state would amount to change but the Atman is supposed to be unchanging. Also, there would be many absurdities that would arise if we say that the Atman is under ignorance and un-liberated. Because the Atman is supposed to be unchanging and eternal, an un-liberated Atman under the influence of ignorance (avidya) would be eternally un-liberated and under the influence of ignorance. So it cannot be the Atman which dies and is reborn, nor can it be the Atman which

is unenlightened and later becomes enlightened. In fact, the Bhagvat Gita says it very clearly when it says - maneva manushyaanam kaaranam bhanda mokchayo it is the mind which is the cause of bondage and liberation of men. So it is the mind that is born and dies and it is the mind that is the cause of bondage and liberation. So it is not necessary to have an Atman to reincarnate, be in bondage and liberated. So this question asked by Hindu laymen (and sometimes even scholars, as we have seen) is a non-question based on misconception of both Buddhist and Hindu view. 146. Sankara and Other Hindu Thoughts A calm and composed mind is certainly a great aid but does not lead automatically to enlightenment even according to the hindu Sankaracharya himself. When the mind is calm and composed, the person begins to automatically emanate an aura around him felt by many as a kind of brightness in his face etc. However, no matter how bright the person may become or look, it does not automatically lead to liberation or enlightenment, nor is it tantamount to enlightenment according to Sankaracharya. Now with this in the background, let us compare Sankara (who is considered to be the cream of Hinduism by the majority of Indian scholars past and present) with the Buddhist view of enlightenment, ignorance, liberation, etc. But before we compare the two and distinguish the similarity and differences, I would like to take up another school of Hinduism which claims to be different from Sankaracharya's school of vedanta but in essence appears to be just repeating Sankaracharya's teaching in another form with changes in the minor nity grities. This is the Advaita Shaivagama group of Kashmir which includes schools like the Trika sampradaya, kaula Sampradaya, Cchoma sampradaya and many others. I do not meant there are absolutely no differences between the Kashmir Shaivadvaita (Shaiva - non-dual) school and the Sankara school, but the essential view or principal is the same and the differences are only in minor details. The Shiva Sutra Verse 7 says: jagrat svapna susupta bhede turyaabhoga sambhava - the Fourth (i.e. the Witness/watcher/Knower etc.) exists separate from the waking, dream and dreamless states. Now, if you have read what has gone before in these articles, you can easily recognize that the Shaivadvaita School is again talking about the same thing. Only here it is called the Fourth (turiya) as opposed to the three (walking, dream and dreamless state). Furthermore, Khemraj, the famous commentator of the Shaivagam School in his

commentary of the Sutra 13 of the Pratyabhaigya Hridayam Sutra, which says: "when the individual consciousness (the Watcher/Witness/Knower) by inward movement (recognizing itself) becomes chiti, the universal consciousness"; comments - the chitta giving up the limiting tendency of extroversion( that is looking out towards the world) becomes introverted (that is looks at itself) and rises to the status of cetana -ie- to the status of the knowing subject (the Watcher/Witness/Knower) becomes chiti (universal consciousness). And this consciousness or the Fourth state or this Watcher/Witness/Knower is called Sambhava or Siva or Parasamvrt, etc. etc. The difference between the Sankara Vedanta and this form of the Non-dualistic Shaivagama (which means Shaiva tantra in general) is not in the nature of the Atman but in how the rest of the world is taken. But we shan't go into it here as it is not relevant to our purpose. Anyway, in both the systems the Watcher/Knower/Witness is called the Atman, albeit the terminologies used are different. The words Watcher/witness/Knower/Seer are all Vedantic terminologies but the same thing is called Parasamvit, Turya state (the Fourth State),Chiti, Sambhava or sometimes Shiva etc in the Shaiva School. The Malinivijaya Tantra quoted by the famous Khemraj calls this same Watcher the Pramatat -ie- the Knower or the subject of the waking, dream and dreamless state, and this Fourth state, which is the Knower of the 3 states -ie- the Turiya. And Khemraj in the same Tantra states: Mokchyohinam naivaanyaha swarupa prathanamhitat - mokcha or liberation is nothing else but the awareness of one's true nature. In the Bhagwat Gita too, in the thirteenth chapter verse one, it says: 'Idam shariram kaunteya ksetramityaa bhidhiyate' - this body, O son of Kunti, is called the Kshetra (field or object known). And further: 'Etadayo vetti tam prahuh Ksetragya iti tadvidah: him who knows this Kshetra, the wise ones call the Kshetragya (Knower of the field/body/object). And the verse 22 of the same chapter 13 of the Bhagvat Gita, it is called upadrasta - Spectator, which means of course the Watcher/Witness/ Knower /Seer. Sankaracharya, in his Shariraka Bhaasya (The shariraka commentary) on the Brahman Sutra writes that the upadrasta (the Spectator) means a bystander and a witness himself not acting. 147. More on Atman from Different Hindu Philosophies

The Avadhoot Gita of Dattatreya says in Chapter 1 verse 7: Aham evaavyago ananta: suddha vigya vigvaha - I am the unchanging, unlimited pure awareness, watcher, witness. Again, we can see that we are talking here about the same watcher, witness, knower, etc. Then again the first chapter, verse 3 of the famous Astavakva Gita says: Na prithivi najalam naagnir na vaayur dhaur na va bhavaan eshaam sakchinaatmaanam chidrupam vidhi muktaye - you are neither the element of earth, nor water, nor fire, nor air, nor space. In order to attain liberation, know the self (atman) as the witness of all these and as awareness consciousness itself. It goes on to the next verse and says: yedi deham prithak kritya chiti vishraamya tishthasi adhunaiva sukhi saanto banda mukto bhavishyas - which means if you detach yourself or separate yourself from the body and rest in consciousness, awareness, witness, watcher (the word chiti used here is also used as we have seen in the Shiva Sutra, etc.) - you will at once be happy, peaceful and free from bondage. And in verse 5 of the 1st chapter of the Astavakra Gita, it says: you are viswa sakchi.. ie- the witness of the world (the world of waking, dream and dreamless states). So again we have the same concept clarified in another later text. In verse 7 again Astavakra says: 'you are the one watcher, seer - eko drashataasi sarvasya you are the one seer, watcher of all. This continues with: Ayam eva hi te bhandho - verily this alone is your bondage. Furthermore: drashtaara pashyati taram - that you see yourself not as the seer, watcher, witness but as something other. Then again, the Yogavasitha in verse 72, the tenth sarga says the atman is called sakchi -witness - and chidakarh - the space of awareness. It is very clear from all the above examples that within all forms of Hinduism, which advocate Advaitism (non-dualism) - the watcher, witness, knower is the atman, and ignorance is not recognizing it as ones true nature, and liberation of enlightenment is attained by the experiential recognition of this watcher. Merely intellectual knowing or understanding is not what was meant by vichar marga of Sankaracharya. The key point is to recognize the watcher as your true self experientially. So in summary, the Vedantic School of Sankaracharya is specific and all other schools of Hinduism, which propounds non-dualism, the watcher, witness, knower,

seer of the internal and external (the three states of waking, dreaming and dreamless, and the five sheaths or pancha koshas which covers the watcher) is the true state. Not knowing that this very watcher, witness, knower, seer that knows the world as ones true nature and thus identifying with something else (anatma) is nescience, ignorance (avidhya, agyan). And recognizing, knowing directly (aparackchyanu bhuti) that this watcher, witness, knower, seer is my true self (atman) is enlightenment and liberation (bodh and mukti). And it is this knowledge (gyan) of the true nature of my self (atman) which is called self-realization (atmangyan). And it is this self-realization that frees me from suffering. With this in the background, we shall now compare Buddhism and Hinduism to see how their premises, their paradigm and their views about these things are not only different but at certain points even diametrically opposed. We have already seen what Buddhism says about enlightenment, liberation, etc. etc. Now, let us compare the two. 148. Comparing Vedantic Mahavastu and Buddhist Vigyan Skanda Now, let us compare the two systems. We have seen that the Vedantic Hinduism posits an Atman, which is truly existing in the sense that it remains unchanging in all the three times of past, present and future. And, again this Atman is the Watcher/Witness/Knower/Seer of the world which consists of the three worlds of waking, dreaming and deep sleep, and the five sheathes/bodies. It has an ontological existence, which simply means it exists as an entity a thing. In fact, the Vedanta uses the term Mahavastu, which could be loosely translated as the Great Entity/Thing. We have also seen that the brunt of the proof that this Watcher/Witness/Knower/Seer is unchanging in the three times and thus really existing ontologically is the experiential fact that this 'I-Watcher' clearly remembers himself/herself having experienced all of the three states. Now, we need to digress a little bit here to clarify a few points before we give the Buddhist take on this. Epistemologically, Buddhism has been accused by Hindu philosophers of either having no such thing as an Awareness and thus subscribing to a blank Unaware, Unconscious state because it subscribes to Anatman or Sunyata (non-self or emptiness), and thus calling liberation or enlightenment an unconscious blank state. Many Hindu scholars believe and have written from ancient times until today that either Buddhism subscribes to some kind of an Unaware, Unconscious state (like the Nayayikas of their own school to whom liberation is an unconscious state) and that is what the Buddhists means by Anatman (non-self) or Sunyata (emptiness), or the Buddhists are just writing the negative words like Anantman and Sunyata to describe exactly the same Atman-

Watcher. Even as early as 300 AD, Vatsayana, the Hindu scholar, quoted the Bhaarahaara Sutra to try to show that the Buddha actually taught the Atman but the Buddhist did not understand him. This sutra is found in the Samyutta Nikaya of the Theravada School and the Samyukta Agama of the Sarvastivada School. But needless to say Vatsayana (like later Hindu scholars) totally misinterpreted the sutra and gave it his own interpretation. This is a tendency we find amongst Hindu scholars from the earliest times to the present time. Even sankaracharya is not free from this fault when he talks about the buddhist sunyata and other such related topics. It is absolutely a mistaken interpretation of the Buddha's teachings to believe or interpret that Anatman means no-awareness or unconsciousness. What the Vedantic system of Hinduism calls the Watcher/Witness/Knower/Seer/Awareness, the Buddhist call it the Vigyan Skanda. Asanga in his Abdidharma Samuccaye, asks in the first chapter called Lakskyana Samuccaya (the compendium of characteristics) "what is the characteristics of Vigyan (awareness/consciousness)?" He answers it as: "knowing is the characteristic of consciousness/awareness. It is conscious/aware/knowing by virtue of which one knows visible form, sound, odor, taste, the tangible, mental objects and various realms. In short, Vigyana (awareness/knowing/consciousness) is the process of knowing the world." Now, this is exactly what the Watcher/Witness/Awareness/Knower - Atman of the Vedanta is, isn't it? But there are very subtle differences here which need to be clarified as they result in very different realizations. First of all, the Hindu Watcher/Witness/Knower is an ontological entity and within the Vedanta itself, it is called the Great Entity (Mahavastu), to distinguish it from other lower materialistic entities. Nevertheless, it is an entity/thing that exists unchanged within the three times of past, present, and future. Other so called materialistic entities change and do not remain the same in all the three times (past, present, future). But this Watcher Self (Atman) never changes and this is why even though it is still an entity, it is The Great Entity, or The Entity of all entity (Mahavastu). We will continue this discussion in the next article. 149. Comparing Vedantic Mahavastu and Buddhist Vigyan Skanda Part II Compare to the Mahavastu (or Atman), the Vigyana Skanda of Buddhism is more a process that is ever changing moment to moment (cchyana bhangura). We have

already seen in quite a detail how this knowing is continuously changing and is a continuum ( sanskrit-santaana) rather than an unchanging entity per se. But as this point is rather subtle and tends to go against the grain of what is considered normal, so let us look at it again. The Vedantic system uses the fact of memory to prove that it is the same KnowerSelf which remains unchanged throught out the three times. We have seen this logic in quite a detail, so we shall not reiterate it again. But Buddhism does not agree with this Vedantic logic. In fact to Buddhism, it is a false logic and actually that fact of memory itself proves to the contrary that the so-called Knower/Watcher/Witness changes and thus it is a process of knowing, watching, witnessing that is happening rather than there being an unchanging Watcher/Knower/Witness. How? Well, let us go into it now. If the mind experiences the grandeur of the Himalayan Mountain that moment the mind (Vigyana - or that Watcher/Witness/Knower/Seer/Awarenesr) is defined by that 'grand Himalayan Mountain' which it sees at that moment. Let me use the Vedantic terminology to clarify the point at that moment it is the Watcher/Witness/Knower/Seer/awareness of that scenery of 'the grand Himalayan Mountain'. If it was not seeing, watching, knowing, witnessing 'the grand Himalayan Mountain', it would not be the Watcher/Seer/Knower/Witness of the Grand Himalayan Mountain but of something else. Now here is the catch. If this Watcher of the Grand Himalayan Mountain were to be' sat' (really existing) and thus remain unchanged in the past, present and future - i.e. - remain eternally unchanging, then this Watcher/Knower/Witness/Seer would be eternally knowing, seeing, watching, witnessing the grand Himalayan Mountain. But this is not what happens in real time, does it? If the Knower of the bird's chirping were to be eternally unchanging, you and I would be locked in the knowing/hearing of the birds chirping forever and ever. Again, that does not happen experientially in the real time world to anyone except perhaps to some rare psychotics. With this in the background, let us take up the 'memory-logic' that the Vedantic texts employ to prove the eternally unchanging Watcher-Self (Atman). When 'I' the Knower/Watcher/Seer/Witness knows the memory of the experience of the Grand Himalayas that the 'I-Knower' had yesterday,the 'I-Knower' is no more knowing or watching, seeing, witnessing the grand Himalayan Mountain but rather watching, knowing, witnessing, seeing the memory of the experience that

the 'I-knower' had yesterday. In simple language, my experience of what I call the remembrance of the grand Himalayan Mountain is not and cannot be the same as the actual experience I had yesterday of the grand Himalayan Mountain. I don't think I need to debate this point too elaborately. No sane women in her sense would or could possibly say that they are exactly the same experiences. Now, if these two examples (one of the actual mountain and the other of the memory of these mountains) are not exactly the same, then we have a problem here. A knower is defined by what it knows. There can be no knower who does not know something or the other. If there is nothing known there can be no knower, because a knower implies automatically something known even if that something is an absence (abhava). If there is nothing to know, how can there be a knower? A knower of what? We cannot possibly have a not-knowing knower, a knower who does not, cannot, know/see/watch/witness, can we? So every knower even the knower of absence (abhava) is defined by what it knows. Many people think an absence (abhaava) is not a thing to be known but that's not accurate. We can know the absence of an object equally as well as the object itself. Thus the famous buddhist logician Dharmakirti who changed the face of the logic system (Pramana shastra) in the Indian subcontinent says absence is also a 'thing' to be known like presence. 150. Atman Conscious or Unconscious If the Knower of the table or anything else is eternally unchanging, it would be eternally knowing the table as that is what this Knower of the table is. If the so called Knower stops seeing/knowing/watching/witnessing the table by that very act, it no more is the 'Knower of the table' and thus has changed. A really existing, eternally unchanging knower by definition cannot and should not change, but the real 'Knower' of our experiences obviously changes moment to moment to moment. In fact, not only that, the very logic of the memory - that the 'Knower' is unchanging actually itself is a proof that the 'Knower' has changed. The Knower of the mountain has changed to the Knower of the memory. We cannot call the Knower of the mountain unchanging, eternal (sat=really existing). If it were sat (really existing), it would and could not possibly change. Thus, it would be seeing/knowing the mountain eternally and when it comes to know/see something else, then it has changed and thus cannot be called unchanging (aparinaami), and thus cannot be called sat (really existing). Now to boycott this problem, the Vedanta claims that it is the mind that knows the

experiences, etc, and does change, but the Atman is beyond this mind and it does not change in any way whatsoever. However, this concept to escape the problem pointed out by the Buddhists brings in more problems than it solves. It actually opens up the Pandora's Box. First of all, since it is this changing mind/awareness that knows, it would be necessary to ask - does the Atman also know at all, is it aware, is it cognizant, or is it unconscious like a lump of mud? This is perhaps the reason why the Nyaiyayikas (the logicians amongst Hindus) actually claimed that their Atman was actually unconscious. Actually, this is a very logical conclusion. We have to make it unconscious if we accept that the knowing mind is changing and, however, there still is an unchanging Atman. Otherwise, there would be a problem of two Knower-s. One Knower is supposed to be the mind or consciousness or awareness that knows/sees/hears etc. all the knowable things, and the other knower is the cognizant knowing Atman. First of all, nobody ever experiences two Knower-s experiencing either the same thing or two different things at the same time or moment. Simple epistemological experience tells us that there is only one Knower ,or more accurately in the Buddhist sense,only one knowing process going on here, unless the person was mentally sick or psychotic and even then it would only be an illusion of two Knower-s, not actually two Knower-s etc. The epistemic actuality is that no one can possibly even experience two Knower-s (or two knowing process) at the same time/moment in terms of experience. Secondly, even if we were to concede that there are actually two Knower-s -ie- one the changing mind and the second the unchanging Non-dualistic Atman/Knower that would bring about a series of unwanted consequences. For one, what does this unchanging, Non-dualistic Knower/Awareness/Cognizance know? I've used the world Non-dualistic (advaita) as that is the word used by the Vedantic system to describe this Atman. The Chandogya Upanishad, which is supposed to have been dated anywhere from 800 BC to 1200 BC uses the phrase 'dritiyam Nasti', which means there is no second or other. This Atman is non-dual. The world Non-dual is used in Buddhism too through Nagarjuna specifically and this has confused many Hindu Panditas and we shall deal with this later when the time comes. So going back to the Knower-Atman - what does it know? This question's answer would have to be unlike the Hindu Nyaiyayikas (logicians). The Vedanta does not

agree that the Atman is unconscious. And rightly too, because that would open up other consequences from the Pandora's Box. More on this later. 151. Liberation through conscious Atman, unconscious Atman or with changing mind If the Atman is unconscious then what kind of liberation is this Unconscious liberation? How can an unconscious state be even considered a form of enlightenment? The Sanskrit word for gyan implies knowledge. The Tibetan word yeshe is a translation of gyan. Of course, there are many kinds of gyan but in the context of the Vedanta Gyan it always means knowing ones true self. We have already seen that Sankaracharya has defined Atman as sad-chit-ananda swarup which is of the nature of really existing (sad), knowing (chit). So Atman can never be considered as an unconscious state. Also, if liberation could be achieved by becoming unconscious then all one had to do is hammer ones head to become liberated and enlightened. But this is absurd and that is why the Vedanta or for that matter most of Hinduism cannot subscribe to that thesis. But if the Atman is also a Knower besides the changing Knower-mind, the natural question is what does it know? If it knows something else different from the knowing mind, then there are two Knower-s who know two different things. Now, any sane person can easily see that no such dual epistemic experience is happening here right now. In fact, there is and can be only one knowing process going at any one moment. Of course, two Knower-s knowing two different things at the same time would indeed create a lot of problems in our daily life. Fortunately, for both Vedantins and Non-Vedantins alike, no such things happen. Now, you could also say that this unchanging Atman Knower knows the knowing of the changing Knower mind; that it knows that the mind is knowing. However, this attempt to escape the situation is also flawed and just creates more consequences, since the mind is changing moment to moment in the sense that it knows different things moment to moment, so if the unchanging Atman knows what this changing mind knows, it too would be changing. Otherwise, the same problem of knowing only one moment of knowing of the mind forever would be equally applicable here. In short, the same 'logic of consequence' (prasanga) that we applied to the changing Knower mind to show that it had to be changing would now be squarely applied to the so called second Knower, the Knower of the mind. Again, we come with a second changing Knower. Now, let us digress a bit here. Some Hindu laymen who have evidently not studied their own scriptures well enough may be tempted to say 'so what'? Why can't we

call the Changing-knower my true self (Atman) and rest the whole issue there? There are two faults here. One is that it goes against their own scriptures and is thus an uneducated attempt by a layman to save his Atman. No Hindu scripture agree to that. As we have seen very clearly the word Atman by definition is an Unchanging Self/Entity. This is what is meant by Atman by all forms of Hindu Sutras and Shastras. There is not even one orthodox Hindu scripture which defines the Atman as the changing Knower. So you cannot claim yourself to be a Hindu and buy that logic that why can't we call the changing knower mind the Atman. In fact to claim that the changing Knower is what I mean by 'I' (Atman) is a Buddhist thesis and thus you agree that there is no unchanging 'I'/Self/Atman. If you agree to that, you have agreed with the Buddhist thesis and relinquished your old Hindu unchanging Atman view. We'll continue this in the next article. 152. Understanding the difference between the concept Atman and Anatman If you agree that it is the Changing Knower mind by which you mean 'I' (Atman), here you also agree that there is no unchanging 'I', and thus you have made a somersault and landed squarely on the grounds of the Buddhist Anatman, which means you have agreed that there is no unchanging Knower Atman but only a changing process of knowing. If you would like to call this changing process of knowing as the 'I' that's perfectly fine as long as you understand it's implication. First of all, you are agreeing that this 'I' is a process and not an entity/substance/thing. Secondly, this 'I', being a process/function, is changing. Thus, in actuality, it is more an 'I-ing' procedd than an 'I entity' as such. Thirdly, this 'I' is a separate changed 'I' every moment and not the same 'I-Atman' which we all seem to believe exists due to the power of nescience/Avidya/Marigpa. There fore, as Buddhism says and implies, and I've mentioned before, this 'I' is a verb (process/function) rather than a noun (entity). But if you want to stick to the Hindu thesis, you cannot possibly agree to all of this. But if you do not agree to all this then you have to answer the questions brought forward by all the consequences of believing in an Unchanging, eternal, really existing 'I-Atman', which is the Hindu thesis. Now, let us go back to the Buddhist thesis of Anatman, which seems to have created a lot of confusion in Hindu circles from the earliest times. In fact, even the most learned Hindu Panditas and Siddhas have failed to understand what exactly did the Buddhist mean by Anatman and why it is so important to understand this to attain the Buddhist enlightenment, and last but not least, what are all the

implications of Anatman. First of all, it is paramount to make it clear here even though it has already been explained again and again for the last couple of issues that Atman means an Unchanging, Eternal, Really existing 'I' or 'Self'. It is in this context that the word Anatman is used in the Buddhist sense. So in short Anatman means that there is no Unchanging, Eternal, Really Existing Self. This does not mean that there is no 'I' or 'Self' of any kind at all, but rather that no Unchangingly same, Eternal, Really Existing Self is to be found anywhere. We have already said that the word 'sat', which is part of the definition of Atman (sat-chit-ananda), means that which remains unchangingly the same in all the three times (past-present and future), and this also is the definition of something that really exists. The Atman or Braman (which is the macrocosmic Atman) has what is called Paramartha Satta (ultimate existence) and is therefore Paramartha Sat (Ultimately Really Existing, which means remaining unchangingly the same in all three times). We have to understand the Buddhist concept of Anatman is this context. Now, we have already seen that there can be no 'unchangingly the same' Knower but rather a process of knowing that is continuously changing. A process of knowing that is continually changing moment to moment to moment cannot be called the same unchanging entity/thing and thus this continuum of knowing (mental continuum - chitta Santana) cannot be called the Atman. Also, from another logical angle an Unchanging Knower cannot function, for to function means to change. Something that cannot and does not change at all (as the word sat implies) cannot function in anyway whatsoever. So again Buddhism does not deny a continuum of knowing/continum of awareness/mental stream (chitta Santana), but rejects that this mental stream (chitta Santana) remains unchangingly the same (sat). 153. Buddhist Concept of Chitta Santana Buddhism does not deny that there is an epistemic process going on at all but does not agree that this epistemic process (knowing process/mental stream) has any real ontological existence (thing-ness/entity-ness). So the blame put upon the Buddhist by some Vedantic Panditas, like Sankaracharya himself and many of his followers, that the Buddhist believe in an unconscious state as liberation, like their own Nyaiyayikas, is not only totally off the mark but also a gross misinterpretation of the Buddhist word Anatman.

Whether it is dual or considered non-dual, an unchanging same Knower is nonfunctional and therefore useless so terminologically (in terms of liberation). How can a dual or non-dual Knower, which cannot function at all liberate us? This is the problem with the non-dual Atman of the Vedantin. This brings us to a couple of points like non-dual, eternal etc. used by both the Buddhist and non-Buddhist like the Vedantins, which has caused a lot of confusion amongst Hindu Panditas ancient and modern. So let us clarify this topic. But before clarifying this topic, we need to fully understand the Buddhist of Santana (continuum or stream). We have already used the word Chitta Santana. Whenever Buddhists use the word Chitta, it must be remembered that it always means Chitta Santana, which means stream of knowing, mental stream, or mental continuum. So what is a continuum? When we use the word Chitta alone, the illusion of language seems to create a false sense or meaning that there is an entity or thing called a 'Chitta', Mind, Consciousness, Awareness. Or in a more philosophically technical language, the word chitta, mind, consciousness, awareness, automatically seems to imply that there is an ontologically entity which is pointed at by those nouns. But we have seen again and again that there is no such ontologically existing entity anywhere to be found, but rather only a process. This is one of the reasons why words have to be very clearly defined if we are to understand Buddhism. Then the question arises naturally, in that case, what is there? If we analyze the question 'then what is there?' we can perceive that the question itself implied by the word 'is there' is begging you to answer by showing another ontological entity in lieu of the one just refuted. This is the problem with the structure of language as we have seen before. But the Buddhist answer to that question is not to point at another entity but to point at a process - a process of know that is continuous like a stream. Now, these words continuing like a stream needs to be explained. The word Santana in Sanskrit means continuum, which is the Latin equivalent of Santaanum. If you pronounce the 'c' as 's' (which is not really unheard of in English) the Latin word become Santinun, which is indeed very close to the Sanskrit word Santana. These words mean a stream in English. If we look at a stream, which is flowing continuously, we get a good notion of what a Santana or continuum mean. When we go to the Bagmati River and point at it and say 'this is the Bagmati River' and then go next day and point at it and again say 'this is the Bagmati River', or even more appropriately 'this is indeed the same Bagmati River that I pointed at yesterday', we get a good idea here of all we have been discussing so far. 'This is

the Bagmati River' imply that there really is an unchangingly same Bagmati River ie- sat or really existing Bagmati River. Most people do not think twice about this and just assume that what those words and sentences imply are true, factual, actual or real. But is it? 154. Explaining the continuum In a candle, the flame of one mini piece of wick and oil/wax droplet is being ignited by the flame of another mini-piece of wick and mini oil/wax droplet. The only difference in the case of two separate candles is that the flame of candle 'A' continues to burn as long as the wick or wax droplets last, even after it ignites another candle (another mini wick and droplet of wax). Whereas in a continuous candle, since the wick A and droplet A is finished at the moment it ignites wick B and droplet B, the flame of wick A and droplet dies out at the very moment it ignites wick B and droplet B and thus produces flame B, which did not exist when flame A existed. When flame B is produced, flame A has gone but flame B comes immediately after flame A and thus flame C, D and F, G, H until the wick and the wax droplets are finished. Flames A, B, C, D... are not exactly the same unchanged flames however. One flows into another unceasingly, and this is what is meant by a continuum. In the electric bulb too, it seems like the same unchanging light is lighting the room, but if you know science we know that moment to moment to moment the electrons etc. are flowing, changing. Thus, this affects the photon light, and again produces a continuum rather than the same unchanging light. A continuos series of different photons create the illusion that a same unchanging photon (light) is there. Actually, a lot of things we think/feel/see/assume as the same entity remaining unchanged from the past to the present to the future are in reality continuums/santana, that are changing/flowing from moment to moment. Take for example our body. We all feel/think/assume that this is the same body from cradle to grave. Yet even a little enquiry exposes this assumption. A one foot 5-6 kg body cannot be the same one as a looming six footer teenage weighing 80 or 90 kg, and that cannot by any means be the same body as a doddering old senile man. And yet each and every one of us seem to have a gut feeling that it is indeed the same body, from the cradle to the coffin. The example I just gave is quite obvious, in that the body is seen to change quite drastically from the cradle to the coffin, although we all still seem to feel it's the same body which by implication would mean unchanged. What is not so obvious is that this so called same body is actually changing

moment to moment like a continuum at the atomic/molecular/cellular/tissue level and thus the body is more like a point in the river of the flow of atoms that we point at and say 'this is the Bagmati River/this is Ram Lal'. Not only that but actually different parts of body like the kidney, liver, stomach, etc. etc. all have their entire cells changed at various periods, like one week, one month, one year, etc. So even the kidney that I was born with has completely become a new set of kidneys (another different kidney) many times over by the time I'm eighty, nay even the next second in some ways. So what we have again is a continuum of atoms, called tissues rather than an unchanging same body. However, to all appearance, it does seem to be the same body today which was there yesterday - not very different from the Bagmati River. So this is the meaning of continuum/santanam, and Buddhism firmly believes in a mind continuum be it dualistic or non-dualistic but not in an unchanging conscious entity. 155. Clarification of Eternal Unchanging and Eternal Changing Views There are many words used both in Hinduism and Buddhism which can create confusion in this context, like the Atman is eternal (nitya) but it is an unchangingly eternal (saswat nitya, apannaminity), and the mind, consciousness or awareness is also eternal (nitya) in Buddhism but it is a changing eternal (parinami nitya). What changing eternal (parinami nitya) means is that the continuum never ends, never ceases, but it is changing moment to moment to moment. So it is not exactly the same from the past to the present to the future -i.e.- it is not really existing (sat). Now the question may arise well if both the systems believe in an eternal awareness, what difference does it make if we consider it an unchanging eternal (saswat eternal) as a changing eternal (parinami nitya)? Isn't a rose a rose by whatever name you may call it? That is a good question, pertinent here, and we need to go into it in detail for this is not about quibbling about words only. To understand Buddhism, it is extremely important to understand why it believes that one cannot become enlightened in the Buddhist sense unless you have what Buddhism calls the correct view (Samyag darshan/drishti). In the eight fold path (Astangika marga) that the Buddha laid out, the correct view is the first of the eight aspects of the correct path. Within Hinduism, the Sankara Vedanta is the only form of system which says you must have the correct view. I'm using Buddhist terminology here(correct view) but Sankara is very clear that you cannot become enlightened in the Vedantic sense without correctly knowing the Atman according

to the Vedanta, and merely mediating will not liberate you. Other forms of meditations within Hinduism believe that one technique or other technique of meditation will automatically help you become enlightened. Well this is a complete No! NO! within all forms of Buddhism. There are two parts to be made clear here. One is that it is a clear Buddhist point of view that one cannot gain the Buddhist enlightenment without starting out and imprinting your meditation with the correct view (Samyag darshan or Tawa in Tibetan). Buddhism does not agree that merely meditating using some super-duper secret method will shower down that Buddhist enlightenment for you. Secondly, and this too needs to be cleared for a lot of non-Buddhist Gurus, that no form of Buddhism agrees that the Vedantic view of the Atman (which includes automatically the teachings of the Bhagwat Gita, Braman Sutra and Upanishads) will or can ever give you the Buddhist enlightenment. There are unfortunately a lot of non-Buddhist Gurus out there in the spiritual bazaar of the Indian Subcontinent who go about falsely teaching and confusing a lot of genuine spiritual seekers. They claim that the Bhagwat Gita, which teaches the realization of the Atman as enlightenment or liberation, or some other Hindu spiritual text, which also claims that the realization of the Atman (Atman Gyan) is the liberation or enlightenment; that these teach exactly the same teachings as the Buddha taught. The Buddha taught Anatma as the acme of enlightenment, liberation or realization. Needless to say such Gurus have not really studied Buddhism from any authentic lineage Masters or read any authentic Sutras and Sastras of Buddhism. And perhaps they haven't studied their own scriptures properly with any of the Panditas too. I again challenge such gurus to prove me wrong by proving their part of the view that the Bhagwat Gita, etc. etc. teaches what the Buddha taught, by using quotations from actual Sutras and Sastras of both systems. 156. Importance of Correct View in Meditation Going back to Buddhism, the correct view is paramount to Buddhism. Buddhism does not agree to any system which claims that you don't need to get the correct view first but rather you can just meditate using any form or technique (or for that matter this or that super duper secret method) and you will become enlightened, liberated or gain realisation. There are various reasons why such an idea that one can become enlightened without the aid of any view but just doing one form or the other meditation is enough. First and foremost, this means that meditation can produce enlightenment

or liberation, etc. Now, there is a problem with this, and it is a rather big problem that most non-Buddhist Gurus do not realize when they claim (directly or indirectly) that a correct view is not necessary but rather their particular brand of meditation will produce enlightenment automatically (quickly or slowly as the case maybe). What that means is that enlightenment is produced by the meditation and is thus a created thing (sanskrita) or a conditioned thing, rather than an unconditioned state or uncreated state. Now this opens up the Pandora's box. If enlightenment is a product of a certain type of meditation, it can always end as it is created (utpada) and all created things end and this is a point all systems of the Indian subcontinent (Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism) agrees to as does any formal logic system. If this enlightenment can end, then it is not the final liberation from suffering of sansara. Then such an enlightenment would at the best be only a temporary solution. This mistake I call the fallacy of the technique is a fallacy many practitioners fall into. By fallacy of the technique I mean the belief that any technique can give us enlightenment. That is an absurd idea many Gurus subscribe to without realizing what pitfalls they have fallen into. It is absurd because that is tantamount to saying that this special technique or that super duper meditation technique can and will produce enlightenment and that would automatically make enlightenment a product that can be produced by a special technique. If enlightenment is a product then like all produced things, it would be impermanent and thus a source of suffering itself. The second reason why this concept is absurd and is not subscribed to by any form of authentic Buddhism is that it should be understood that meditation of any kind, no matter how super duper secret it may be or may have been, can only be a vehicle. Like all vehicles, it can take you to a place but a vehicle by itself cannot have any direction on its own. For example, a car can take you to a place but it cannot take you to that place without someone or something giving it direction. Just jumping on a car and starting it cannot take you to either Godavari (South Kathmandu) or Budanilkantha(North Kathmandu). The car can take you to either of the opposite end but we cannot claim that reaching Godavari is the same as reaching Budanilkantha. Whether you reach Godavari, which is in the south of the Kathmandu Valley, or you reach Budanilkantha, which is in the north of the Kathmandu Valley, depends on which direction the car is taken by the driver. This is where the view comes in. The view is the direction the meditation goes or is taken to by the driver, which is the mind in this car. If the driver takes the car to the direction of Godavari, the car will take you to Godavari, but not to Budanilkantha,

which is in the opposite direction. However, if the driver drives the car in the direction of Budanilkantha, you cannot possibly expect to arrive at Godavari, can you? In the same way, the view is a compass which gives the direction the mediation will take you and this is where you will arrive. 158. Sahaja Atman Graha or Spontaneous Grasping to Non-Existence Atman The view is a compass which gives the direction the meditation will take you and that is where you will arrive. So if you have the view of an Atman, consciously by studying the Vedantic literature, or unconsciously as all people will have spontaneously due to Ignorance, Avidya, then your vehicle (meditation) will take you to the realization of the Atman (whatever that may mean to you consciously or unconsciously). If you use your mediation to see through the fact that there is no Atman (Anatman) then that is where your vehicle will take you. As long as we are under the influence of Avidya of ignorance, we will continue to have the view in one form or other that there is an Atman, Self in one form or the other. So even if you have never studied or understood the Vedantic Atman, you will automatically have deep down at a subconscious level the concept, belief or view of an Atman in one form or another. This is what is meant by Sahaja Atman Graha in Buddhism, which can be loosely translated as spontaneous clinging or grasping to the concept of an Atman or Self/Soul. The spontaneous clinging or grasping to the concept of an Atman, which here is more at an unconsciou level but also includes a conscious concept as in the Vedantic system, are all aspects of Ignorance, Nescience, Avidya, Agyan according to Buddhism. Many Non-Buddhists Gurus that claim to teach Buddhism have also not understood this point of Nescience. So even if you haven't studied the Vedanta, all sentient beings have an innate concept of a Self, Atman and they grasp or cling to this concept of a Self, Atman spontaneously or innately due to the very Ignorance, Nescience, Avidya. And that means even those who think they do not have any view at all as they have neither studied Buddhist or the Vedanta will automatically have Sahaja Atman Graha. Meditation with that view in the background as the guiding principle will and can only take you further and further into the mire of Sahaja Atman Graha, or innate grasping to the concept of a self. Now what is this Sahaja Atman Graha, which according to Buddhism is the root cause of Ignorance, Nescience or Avidya? Atman means self. This self includes both the sense of an 'I' that seems so inherent in all sentient beings, and also what

Buddhism would call a learned Higher Self with the capital 'S'. We call this learned because it is learned through scriptural sources like the Vedanta, etc. In the Vedantic tradition, this second self is called by various names like 'I-I' by Raman Maharishi or Atman, Braman in the more orthodox schools. The Vedantic tradition negates the first sense of an 'I' and calls it Ahamkara (ego), but affirms that there is a higher 'I' beyond the ego, and this higher 'I' is sat-chitananda, as we have seen already in detail before. Buddhism says there is no such higher 'I' which is unchangingly eternal. In fact, this concept of an Atman existing somewhere up there in the ionosphere is Nescience and conducive to suffering. In the more orthodox lingua franca of Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism, it is this very concept of an unchanging eternal Atman over and above the little 'I', ego, Ahamkara that is the cause of the cycle of birth and death and called Samsara. 159. All I the source of Emotional Defilement

If you understand Ahamkara as the cause for the cycle of birth and death in Samsara, you already understand that according to Buddhism any meditation system based on the view of an Atman and geared towards the realization of the Atman will only fortify Nescience, Avidya, and why according to Buddhism the only liberation is the liberation from the Atman. Now, let me go a little more into detail about this. First of all, all sentient beings have this innate sense of an 'I' which is called Sahaja Atman in Buddhist terminology. This is so innate that it continues to persist even in the dream state. It is unconscious and a person does not have to be learned or educated in the Vedantic system to feel this at gut level. Every living being experiences this whether s/he has heard of the word Atman or not. The Christian word Soul could come close to the Hindu Atman, and many Western Mystics and New Agers do use the word Over Soul or Higher Self. Now, this very sense of an 'I' when applied to the changing ephemeral psycho-physical system is considered to be the ego, Ahamkara, and where this very sense of an 'I' is applied to what Buddhism considers an imagined unchanged Knower, Watcher, Witness, it is called the Atman, Over Soul or Higher Self or the superconsciousness. First of all we have seen clearly that there is no such Higher unchanging Knower, Witness, Watcher, Self and it cannot be found. Secondly, it is the very sense of an 'I' whether considered lower or higher which is the cause of being in the Samsara and thus suffering. Why is this cause of the suffering then?

First of all, when there is an 'I' that really exists (sat), which also means which is eternally the same unchanging entity, then this 'I' needs, wants, desires this or that entity out there. This is what is called greed (lobha) or desire, want (kamacchanda), or attachment. This is what is called Klesha, or emotional defilement as often translated in English. The English word 'emotional defilement', however, does not do full justice to the Sanskrit (or Pali) word Klesha or Kilesha. The Nepali word Klista which means complex difficult is derived from the same root as the word Klesha. It means that which creates difficulties, pain, suffering or we could also use the word complex in the way modern psychotherapy uses the words complexes and neurosis etc. Greed, attachment, desires in the sense of strong attachment, etc. all cause suffering. They all disturb the mind and so they are called Klesha. And when there is any sense of an 'I' accepted as really existing, etc. it is natural for this really existing 'I' (whether this feeling is conscious, or learned through systems like the Vedanta, or it is an unconsciously assumed concept as found innately in all sentient beings) to want, desire or be greedy for things out there. This means that this sense of an 'I' when accepted as real tends to produce the Klesha called Lobha and Kamacchanda, which is one of the causes of suffering. Then again I may desire, want or be greedy for this or that thing, but somebody else (another 'real-I') may also want, desire, or be greedy for exactly the same thing. Then I begin to dislike that other person (anger, dislike - dvesa, krodha) who seems to me to be trying to deprive me of what I want. Again, this is another klesha, emotiomal defilement which can only cause suffering and nothing else but suffering. 160. Different forms of Enlightenment Prevalent in Indian Subcontinent This 'I' may not like or want a thing (lobha) or dislike a thing (dvesha) or may remain in a kind of dull, unclear state about things, a kind of stupor, hazy, unclear state and this is called Moha (stupor or unclear state). Many people mistake this as equanimity (upeckchya) of the enlightened state. But this is a state of un-clarity or of a dull stupor, where as the state of enlightened is clarity. Therefore, Moha is close to Avidhya, Nescience but can be easily mistaken for equanimity, contentment, enlightenment, etc. Many people in this culture mistake such a state of Moha to be enlightenment. And they consider people who live in a dull halfawake state lost to the world here and now as enlightened. Well this is not Buddhist enlightenment. According to Buddhism, such a state is moha or delusion or stupor, or is a state of Nescience, Avidhya. In fact,

commentaries on the Yoga Vasistha, a well known Hindu text of the Advaita genre, explains that as a person becomes more and more enlightened he gradually loses contact with the outer world and eventually cannot even eat or drink unless someone puts food, etc into his mouth. Many call such a person an Avadhuta. But, needless to say, such a state where the person is lost in his own inner world and is oblivious of the here and now is by no means enlightened according to Buddhism. When we look at a rose we like it and want it for ourselves or hold on to it, this is lobha/ kaama- cchanda/raga (agreed/desire/attachment), when we see some shit or some person we don't like we hate it, dislike it want to get rid of it, this is dwesha/krodha (hatred/ anger) and when we see a simple pencil we neither like it nor dislike it, we remain neutral about it and this is moha (dullness /stupor/lack of clarity). This moha is not a state free from emotional defilement (klesha) but just another emotionally defiled state but many practitioners mistake this kind of state as some kind of an enlightened state/ a state of equanimity. We have covered two different modes of enlightenment as found prevalent in the Indian Subcontinent nowadays. One is what I call the 'Super Awareness Enlightenment' where the Awareness by itself or the Knower, Watcher, Seer is called the enlightened state; and the other is this total oblivion of the outer world, being lost in some Awareness, Super Consciousness, etc. This second state is considered as the state of moha or stupor in Buddhist culture while the first is considered as being bogged down in a formless meditation which will create the causes of rebirth in one of the four formless Bramalokas (Brahma Realms) which for a Bodhisatva is worst than going to hell as kalpas are wasted in some kind of a blissfully state before rebirth again usually in one of the lower realms (durgati). Therefore, it is very clear that no form of Hindu enlightenment, whether written in ancient texts like the Upanishads or later texts like the Bhagavat Gita or even later texts like the Yoga Vasistha can be equated with the Buddhist enlightenment, be it Shravak enlightenment or Bodhisatvayana enlightenment. Those Gurus coming from Hindu background who claim that what the Buddha taught is exactly what the Bhagavat Gita or some other Hindu text teaches obviously have not read their own Sutras and Sastras (scriptures) properly, and probably haven't read the first sentence of any Buddhist Sutras or Sastras. Otherwise they would not make such a confused claim.

161. Recapping Four Noble Truths We have spend a lot of time distinguishing the view of Hinduism from Buddhism, as the view is not only of the utmost importance within Buddhism (which cannot be said of all forms of Hinduism) but also in the Indian subcontinent, where Buddhism vanished for over eight hundred years, and because of that this kind of idea that Buddhism is a branch of Hinduism and the Buddha only taught the teaching in the Veda, and he only came to reform it, etc. etc., has become a household view held by almost every Hindu commoner and pandit. With such beliefs as the background it becomes paramount that these kinds of myths be dispelled before we can continue to elucidate what Buddhism is. This point about the view is of the utmost important to Buddhism as it is intimately related to the second Noble Truth. We have already dealt with the First Noble Truth (Arya Satya), which is the fact that there is suffering, tension, anxiety, angst. All these words only give an aspect of the word Dukha, which is usually translated as suffering but this word does not really give all the nuances, innuendos and connotations of the word Dukha. As that was disused a very long time ago, perhaps we should go into it in a concise way again as a kind of refresher. We said that the Buddha taught the Dukha Satya (the truth of suffering) as the first Noble Truth (Arya Satya). We described that in great details. Then we started on the Second Noble Truth which is the fact of Samudaya Satya or the truth of the root cause/origination of suffering. Then we said that Avidhya, Ignorance, Nescience is the cause of this suffering. We then said Nescience is the first chain or link of the twelve interdependent chain or Dwadas Nidan(twelve chains/links) or Dwadas Pratitya Samutpada( The twelve interdependendant origination). Then we spend a long time describing what is Avidhay, Nescience according to Buddhism, until now. We have seen that what is considered Vidya or Knowledge (Gyan) by the Hindu system -viz- Atman is considered as the root of Nescience, Avidya or Agyan, and is called Sahaja Atman Graha. To explain this point we went into great details to clarify how the Atman of all forms of Hinduism is untenable to Buddhism and gave reasons why it is untenable. I have also invited any Hindu Panditas to refute what I have written so far. But only refutation based on actual Hindu Sutras or Sastras are acceptable, not personal ideas even if they are personal ideas of some former Gurus. 162. Understanding Suffering of Second Noble Truth with Pure Buddhist Perspective

So we have defined Avidhya as the innate grasping to the concept of a Self (Atman). And this is the first cause of suffering in the chain of twelve causations (Dwadas Pratitya Samutpad). Now, perhaps we should go a little more in details on the twelve chains of causations and how it is also intimately related to Vipashyana/Vipassana. So we first need to enlist the full twelve chains of causations and then explain in a simple way before we go into its implications. It is of paramount importance that we distinguish the two systems (Hinduism and Buddhism) and show their differences before we can really discuss Buddhism. Otherwise it becomes very easy to read whatever you study about Buddhism with the coloured goggles of the Hindu system. With that in the background now let us enter full-fledged into pure Buddhist idea, beliefs, practices and views. So after finishing the first Noble Truth (Arya Satya), which is the truth of suffering (Dukya Satya), we now go into the second Noble Truth, the root or cause of suffering. Actually, we had already started on the second Noble Truth, and had gone into great details about Avidya (Nescience), which is the first condition (pratyaya) of the twelve chains of interdependent origination. While discussing Avidya (Nescience), we went into great details to distinguish the two views (the view of Hinduism and the view of Buddhism regarding what is Nescience (Avidhya/Agyan) and what is Wisdom/Knowledge (Gyana). And we have made it very clear that the two systems do not coincide regarding the view. The general Hindu view can be summed as this: Nescience is not knowing that one's true nature is the Atman (Self), and Wisdom or Knowledge is recognizing one's true Self as Atman or the Atman as ones true self or True Nature.That is why within the Hindu system Enlightenment or Knowledge or wisdom is called Atman Gyan which means knowledge of the Atman or Knowledge of ones True Self. And the Buddhist view as a whole no matter what form of Buddhism one subscribes to is this: Nescience is believing that one has a True Self (Atman) and holding on to that (Atman Graha), which means spontaneous or innate grasping to the concept of a Self (Atman). Technically this is called Sahaja Atman Graha, which means spontaneous or innate grasping to the concept of a Self (Atman). Knowledge or Wisdom(gyana) is recognizing or seeing through directly (non-conceptually) that there is no such Atman anywhere to be found -ie- Anatman Gyan. All forms of Buddhist practices and meditations are basically geared towards seeing directly (Vipashyana) that there is no such Self. And all forms of Hindu practices, mediations etc. is geared towards experiencing the very same Atman (Self). So to say that Hinduism or the Bhagvat Gita or any of it's scriptures teach exactly the same thing as what the Buddha taught is only to show how grossly

ignorant one is regarding this matter. With that in the background, we will now go into more detail about the twelve chain of interdependent origination, one which we had touched upon earlier to explain the Second Noble Truth, which is the truth of the origination, or cause of suffering (Dukha Samuchaya Satya). 163. Law of Interdependent Origination key to Understanding Buddhism

So we have defined Avidhya as the innate grasping to the concept of a Self (Atman). And this is the first cause of suffering in the chain of twelve causations (Dwadas Pratitya Samutpad). Now, perhaps we should go a little more in details on the twelve chains of causations and how it is also intimately related to Vipashyana/Vipassana. So we first need to enlist the full twelve chains of causations and then explain in a simple way before we go into its implications. It is of paramount importance that we distinguish the two systems (Hinduism and Buddhism) and show their differences before we can really discuss Buddhism. Otherwise it becomes very easy to read whatever you study about Buddhism with the coloured goggles of the Hindu system. With that in the background now let us enter full-fledged into pure Buddhist idea, beliefs, practices and views. So after finishing the first Noble Truth (Arya Satya), which is the truth of suffering (Dukya Satya), we now go into the second Noble Truth, the root or cause of suffering. Actually, we had already started on the second Noble Truth, and had gone into great details about Avidya (Nescience), which is the first condition (pratyaya) of the twelve chains of interdependent origination. While discussing Avidya (Nescience), we went into great details to distinguish the two views (the view of Hinduism and the view of Buddhism regarding what is Nescience (Avidhya/Agyan) and what is Wisdom/Knowledge (Gyana). And we have made it very clear that the two systems do not coincide regarding the view. The general Hindu view can be summed as this: Nescience is not knowing that one's true nature is the Atman (Self), and Wisdom or Knowledge is recognizing one's true Self as Atman or the Atman as ones true self or True Nature.That is why within the Hindu system Enlightenment or Knowledge or wisdom is called Atman Gyan which means knowledge of the Atman or Knowledge of ones True Self. And the Buddhist view as a whole no matter what form of Buddhism one subscribes to is this: Nescience is believing that one has a True Self (Atman) and holding on to that (Atman Graha), which means spontaneous or innate grasping to the concept of

a Self (Atman). Technically this is called Sahaja Atman Graha, which means spontaneous or innate grasping to the concept of a Self (Atman). Knowledge or Wisdom(gyana) is recognizing or seeing through directly (non-conceptually) that there is no such Atman anywhere to be found -ie- Anatman Gyan. All forms of Buddhist practices and meditations are basically geared towards seeing directly (Vipashyana) that there is no such Self. And all forms of Hindu practices, mediations etc. is geared towards experiencing the very same Atman (Self). So to say that Hinduism or the Bhagvat Gita or any of it's scriptures teach exactly the same thing as what the Buddha taught is only to show how grossly ignorant one is regarding this matter. With that in the background, we will now go into more detail about the twelve chain of interdependent origination, one which we had touched upon earlier to explain the Second Noble Truth, which is the truth of the origination, or cause of suffering (Dukha Samuchaya Satya).

164. Conditioned Existence Let us now look at a table. Before we can call anything a 'table' there must be wood or some metallic material which is made into a table. But nobody calls just chunks of wood or metal a 'table'. The legs of the table must be present without which there can be no four-legged table. But again no one calls the flour legs of a table a 'table'. There must all the other parts of a table like the axis, the main top board, etc, all must be present before there can be a table. However, no one calls all the pieces of wood (even in correct shape of legs, top etc) lying on a floor a 'table'. Here, we have an interesting phenomenon. Many people who already have the Sanskara (conditionings) memory of a table could possible see a table in all the pieces of wood lying on the floor. But first of all that is not a table per se and it is only the Sanskara or conditioning which helps create a 'table' in the minds-eyes of the person. But secondly, if the same pieces of wood (with the correct shapes of all the parts of a table) were lying in the middle of the Kalahari Desert and a Bushman came across it, he would certainly not see any kind of a 'table' in them at all because he will have no such Sanskara memories of a table, which is non-existent in his socio-cultural context. It is only when all the legs, top part, axis, etc all are put together does a table appear to come into

existence. Now, we talked of two solid things, a tree and a table, but this is applicable to all Dharmas (phenomena) as we will see. Let us take the concept of 'here and there'. When you sit you say: I'm sitting 'here', and it seems to you that there is a 'here' here. Well how does this 'here' come into existence? First of all, there has to be a place, a ground or floor or space, without which there can be no 'here'. Then you need to be in that place for you to see, experience a 'here'. However, that same place which you call 'here' is a 'there' for me because the causes and conditions have changed for me. Even though we may say that it is the same place per se since because the conditions have changed even though it is a 'here' for you it is not a 'here' for me. For me, it is there. We will go more into this in the next article.

165. Conditioned Existence Continued This very same moment when it is 8.36 am in Kathmandu, the very same moment is 10.53 am in Manila and 10.53 pm in Washington DC. But it is in effect supposed to be this every same moment, yet it is day time in Kathmandu and night time in Washington. The sun is present at this moment in time up in the sky in Kathmandu, while the moon is present up in the sky in Washington at this very moment. It is bright day light in Kathmandu at this very moment, where as it is dark moon light in Washington at this very moment. So because the causes and conditions are different even though it is supposed to be the very moment, different moments are seen to appear in Kathmandu and Washington at the very same 'moment'. So what we call space and time arises/appears/comes into existence only when there are its correct causes and conditions. Now let us take up the concept like father, mother, son, husband and wife. A man is a father only when he has a daughter or son. If he doesn't have any daughter or son (not even an adopted one), there is no father per se. And even the father is a father to his children, at that every instance when his children see him as a father, his wife certainly does not see him as a father. Why? Because the hetu-pratyaya (causes and conditions) have changed. Now, let us look at a person called Ram Lal. We all know Ram Lal is here because of his father and mother. As the classical Buddhist saying goes 'sati idam asmin bhavati' (because this is here that is there). However, there are a host of other causes and conditions before Ram Lal can be here (or there if you like as we have

seen). The Abdhidarma and the Milinda panna says, the mother must be in a condition to conceive, the father too must be in a condition to be able to help in conception. There must also be a Gandharva/gandabbha (a mental continuum karmically ready to be born) etc, etc, before Ram Lal can be here. However, there are many other causes and conditions that contribute to Ram Lal being here, without which Ram Lal just would not be here. For instance, if Ram Lal's grandparents on both sides had not met his parents would not be here and Ram Lal would not be here. Obviously, if you understand the implication of this, the causes and conditions to Ram Lal being here extends through time to all eternity. Then there are a host of other conditions for Ram Lal being here. For instance, doctors and nurses hadn't brought him forth properly, Ram Lal may not have been here. And of course, there is the mother's womb and its healthy condition, etc. etc. More on this in next article.

166. Implications of Pratitya Samutpada So 'when this is here, that is here' (sati idam asmin bhavati). If these causes and conditions are not here, this will not be here. For instance, if Ram Lal's parents weren't here (means this did not exist at all) then Ram Lal is not here (meaning Ram Lal does not or cannot come into existence). So let us make it clear that one of the key tenets of Buddhism is the concept of Pratitya Samutpada, which means interdependent co-arising. And this means that all phenomena (Dharmas in Buddhism) co-arise or appear to be produced when their causes and conditions get together. The word Dharma here means phenomena and means everything that we know, experience etc. It includes concepts and material and immaterial things and phenomena. In fact, in simple laymen terminology it means the world and everything within it that arise through causes and conditions (hetu - pratyaya). If you really understand this point and all its implications, you understand Buddhism more clearly. If everything arises from causes and conditions (hetu pratyay), which is the meaning of Pratitya Samutpada, and when translated means interdependent co-emergence - then those causes and conditions themselves are phenomena (dharmas) that themselves arise from other causes and conditions, which themselves arise from other causes and conditions before them ad infinitum. Now that means a few things or automatically implies a few things which need to be understood. This means there is no beginning, because no matter how far in

time we go, whatever was there arose when causes and conditions before them were present and those arose when causes and conditions before them were there. So this world is beginning-less. That then automatically implies that there was no start of creation in the beginning. And that would automatically imply that there can be no Creator or God who created the world. This is why Buddhism does not believe in a Creator-God. That would automatically also negate any Revelations by God, the Supreme Almighty, Creator of the World et al. So any scriptures that claims to be a revelation of God the Supreme Creator is suspected according to Buddhist logic, Buddhist weltenschauung. Buddhism does not deny Dieties or Goddesses and Gods, but these Gods and Goddesses are not the Creator of the Universe. Buddhism also does not deny that these Gods and Goddesses can reveal their personal teachings, etc. But these Gods and Goddesses are not and cannot be the One and Only Creator of the Universe. In fact, there is no One Cause/First Cause or One Creator of the Universe, but rather a continuum of causes and conditions flowing like a river unbroken from beginningless time and will continue until endless time. And within the Buddhist weltenscauung the Buddha doesn't replace the Creator God / The First Principle/ Primordial Cause et al.

167. Interdependent Origination We can look at the world of our experience and we cannot find a thing (dharma/phenomena) that hasn't arisen interdependently. Light and darkness arise interdependently, solid and liquid arise interdependently and abstract concepts like beauty and ugliness arise interdependently. Our very moment to moment mind arises interdependently. Conceptions arise interdependently, birth arises interdependently, infancy arises interdependently, childhood arises interdependently, teenage arises interdependently, middle age arises interdependently, old age arises interdependently, senility arises interdependently, death arises interdependently and rebirth arises interdependently. Interdependent co-arising (pratitya samutpada) has many implications. For instance, in the Avatansak Sutra,( The Flower Ornament Scripture) the world (sansara: sansara includes much more than the physical realms of one's ordinary experience like the solar system et. al) is metaphorically conceived as the net of Indra (Indarjaal), which could also be translated as the web of Indra. What is

Indra's net? It is a net which has a perfect diamond at each of its interstices. Now what is a perfect diamond? To understand this we need to take the aid of Physics. When we put two mirrors vis-a-vis they reflect each others and then some more in the sense they reflect the reflections on each others back and forth a couple of time. However, the reflection of the reflection of the reflection will automatically stop after a couple of re-reflections. The repetition of re-reflections stop because the common mirrors we use are flawed and therefore not perfect. Although the perfect flawless mirrors has not been created, mathematically we can say that if we had two perfect mirrors vis-a-vis, the reflection and the re-reflections of the reflection will go on and on ad infinitum. There will be no end to the reflection of the reflections of the reflections - so to say. So, likewise, a perfect diamond would reflect all the diamond in the net of Indra and there reflection of itself and all the other diamond and so on ad infinitum. Now that means each piece of diamond is not only linked with all the other diamonds 'through' the strings that make the net, but also each diamond contains within itself the entire world in the limitless infinite net of Indra. So what modern Quantum Physics wants to say is that the entire universe is interdependent, interrelated, interlocked and entangled in a multi-tiered fashion! Pratitya samputapda -ie- the concept of interdependent origination would include all of the above concepts of Quantum Physics and the best example of the net of Indra as found in one of the Mahayana Sutras called the Avatansaka Sutra. The extension of the principle of pratitya samutpada is not found in the Theravada system; however, it doesn't contradict in any way the simple concept of pratitya samutpada found in the Theravada or Sarvastivada Abhidharma. More on this in the next article.

168. Interdependent Origination The Mahayana Sutras have elucidated all the implication already ensconced within the Abhidharmic concept of Pratitya Samutpada (interdependent co-origination or interdependent co-arising). This is the meaning of the statement found in so many Mahayana Sutras and in Zen Buddhism, which is a form of Mahayana, that one grain of sand contains the entire universe (Trisahasra Mahasahara Loka Dhatus). It is also important to understand that this interdependence is both vertical and horizontal. We can envision an infinite unending series of layers of nets one on top and below each other extending infinitely above and below vertically horizontally

length and width wise, while there is another series of infinite vertically held series of network one on each side extending both side ad infinitum, and both the series of net (i.e. the horizontal series and the vertical series) are also inter-latched to each other at all levels interdependently. This is the vision the World, Universe and Cosmos in the Avatansak Sutra expressed through the word Indra Jal (Indras net). It is interesting that the world Indra Jal as used in Nepali means a magical display, which is what the Cosmos is even according to the latest ideas of Quantum Physics. This is also close to the concept the 'holoverse' -i.e. - the universe that is holographic, the concept brought forth by the famous physicist David Bohm. A hologram is a system where every part of the thing contains the totality. So if we had a holographic picture in a postcard of the Buddha then if we divided the postcard into four parts, each of the four parts would contain the full picture of the Buddha. And if we were to take that one fourth part of the postcard and cut that one fourth part into four parts, each of the smaller one fourth parts would contain the full picture of the Buddha and so on ad infinitum. Isn't this picture exactly what the concept Indra Jal (net of Indra) was trying to portray thousands of years ago in Avantansak Sutra? Each diamond in the interstices of the Net of Indra would reflect the entire net ad infinitum. Or the entire Chiliocosm (Trisahasra Mahasahara Loka dhatu) would be inside (reflected within) each of those diamonds. So this is the concept of interdependent origination, which can also be translated as interdependent co-origination, interdependent co-arising, etc, in Sanskrit known as Pratitya Samutpada and Paticcha Samuppada in Pali. With this in the background, now let us go into Dwadas Nidana or Dwadas Pratitya Samutpada (the twelve roots or links of interdependent co-origination).

169. Dwadas Nidan The twelve links or Dwadas Nidan are this: 1. when there is Avidya there is Sanskara (conditioning) conditioned by Avidhya; 2. when there is Sanskara (conditioning/volitional pulses) there is Vigyan (dualistic consciousness) conditioned by Sanskara (conditioning/volitional pulses); 3. when there is Vigyan (dualistic consciousness) there is Nama-Rupa (mind-body) conditioned by Vigyan (conditioning/volitional pulses); 4. when there is Nama-Rupa (mind-body) there is

Sadayatana (the six senses) conditioned by Nama-Rupa (mind-body); 5. when there is Sadayatana (the six senses) there is Sparsha (contact) conditioned by Sadayatana (the six senses); 6. when there is Sparsha (contact) there is Vedana (feeling) conditioned by Sparsha; 7. when there is Vedana (feeling) there is Trishna (thrust/craving) conditioned by Vedana; 8. when there is Trishna (thrust/craving) there is Upadana (gasping/clinging) conditioned by Trishna (thrust/craving); 9. when there is Upadana (grasping/clinging) there is Bhava (becoming) condition by Updana (grasping/clinging); 10. when this is Bhava (becoming) there is Jati (birth) conditioned by Bhava (becoming); 11. when there is Jati (birth) there is Jara Marana (old age and death), Soka (sorrow), Parideva (lamentation), Dukha (pain), daurmanassyopayassa (grief and despair) - these are the twelve factor. In principle, 'Sati Idam Asmin Bhavati (when there is this that is , that is with the arising of this that arises). The contrary is also equally true - when this is not, neither is that, with the cessation of this, that ceases. This is the whole process. This Pratitya Samputpada (interdependent co-origination) is extremely important to understand the enlightenment of the Buddha. This is the one major issue that is missing in all other forms of what other systems call 'enlightenment'. No nonBuddhist teachers have ever mentioned Pratitya Samutpada as an integral part of their enlightenment experience. And this is a major aspect of the Buddhist enlightenment. As PA Pautto, famous Thai scholar says, 'the Principle of Dependant Origination' is one of Buddhism's most important and unique teachings. In numerous passages of the Pali Tripitaka (canon), it was described by the Buddha as a natural law, a fundamental truth which exists independently of the arising of the Buddhas.' "Whether a Tathagata (another name for a Buddha) appears or not, this condition exits and is a natural fact, a natural law, that is, this principle of conditionality". Conditionality here means all things arise because of causes and conditions or in relation to some other phenomena.Thus it is sometimes called the principle of relativity( saapekshyataa). The Tathagata enlightened to and awakened to that principle, teaches it, shows it, formulates, declares it, reveals it, makes it known, clarifies it and points it out "see here conditioned by Avidya (nescience) are Sanskara, conditioned by Sanskara (volitional impulses or conditioning) are Vigyana (consciousness) -- all the remaining twelve linlks as specified above.

170. Importance of the teachings of Pratityasamutpada

It is made very clear that this (Pratityasamutpada) is what a Buddha awakens to. It means his enlightenment (Bodhi) consists of mainly awakening to the fact of interdependent origination. All the stories of the Buddha, be it in Theravada or Mahayana, make it very clear that on the morning of Vaisakh Purnima (full moon), when he saw the morning star(Venus), this principle of interdependent origination awakened upon him. He saw the principle directly. That is why it is said a Tathagata who awakens to it is enlightened to it. It is this principle that only a Tathagata reveals. No one else can even reveal it - no Rishi or erstwhile enlightened Gurus, who do not practice according to what the Buddha revealed can possible reveal it. That is why it is the Tathagat who first teaches it. The Buddha also said "This suchness (yathabhutata), Bhikchus, this invincibility, this irreversibility, that is to say this Law of Conditionality (relativity), I call the principle of interdependent coarising." The Buddha gave great importance to the principle of Pratityasamutpada (interdependent co-origination). This importance can be seen by his statement in the Majjhima Nikaya - "Whoever sees interdependent origination (Pratityasamutpada) sees the Dharma. Whoever sees the Dharma sees the interdependent co-origination (Pratityasamputpda). When an Arya (a Noble disciple, which also means an enlightened disciple) sees fully the arising and cessation (udaya, vyaya) of the world (through Pratityasamutpada), as it is (yathabhuta), he is said to be endowed with the prefect view, with prefect vision, and to have attained the true Dharma, one who is at the door of deathlessness (amritata). And again whichever recluse (Sraman) or Bramin knows these conditions, knows the cause of these conditions, knows the cessation of these conditions, and knows the way leading to the cessation of these conditions, that Sraman or Bramin is worthy of the name Sraman amongst Sramans, or Brahim amongst Bramins, and of him it can be said, "He has attained the goal of the Sraman's life and the goal of the Bramin's life due to his own higher wisdom." The Buddha has also said that these teachings are extremely profound and hard to understand. When after the Buddha had explained it, Ananda had said, "How amazing! Never before has it occurred to me, Lord, this principle of interdependent co-origination, although so profound and hard to see, yet appears to me to be so simple." The Buddha replied, "Do not say so Ananda, do not say so! This principle of interdependent co-origination (Pratityasamutpada) is a profound teaching, hard to

see. It is through not knowing, not understanding and not thoroughly realizing this teaching that beings are confused like a tangled thread, thrown together like bundles of thread, caught in a net and cannot escape the wheel of samsara." It is even said that after his enlightenment, the Buddha even despaired that many could not understand this profound principle of Pratityasamutpada.

171. Understanding Dwadas Nidan with Pratityasamutpada Now going back to Pratityasamutpada, there are two categories of Pratityasamutpada. The first category is what we have described in details so far, that is the fact that all Dharmas are Pratityasamputpanna, meaning all phenomena arise from causes and conditions. Nagarjuna explained this succinctly by the phrase'sati idam asmin bhavati'. This means when this is (or arise) that arises. In the Pali Suttas it is explained as 'imasmin sati, idam hoti, imassupada idam upujjhati' - which also means the opposite - if this is not there, that will not be there; or in the Pali words: 'imasmim asati, idam no hoti, imassa nirodha idam nirujhati'. In very simple language, it means if there is no seed there is no tree. If the seed is destroyed the tree does not arise. As we have seen before that this Pratityasamutpada means arising, originating, coming into existence when certain causes and conditions (hetu-pratitya) are present. A more accurate view of Mahayana would be appearing to arise, originate, come into existence or just appears when certain causes and conditions are present. For instance, a table appears when all its four legs, axis, top platform etc, are present in the right format. And in the same way, a table ceases to appear when its causes and conditions cease to appear. Needless to say, as we have elaborated before, those causes and conditions also appear or cease to appear depending upon their causes and conditions appearing or ceasing to appear ad infinitum. Now this principle is applied to the twelve links of interdependent origination in relation to sentient beings and their journey in samsara. Whereas Pratityasamutpada principle is applicable to all phenomena (dharma), the twelve links of interdependent co-origination is using that principle of Pratityasamutpada (interdependent co-origination) to real life to birth to death and rebirth to bondage of the mind and freedom of the mind. It is this principle that defines not only the cause of suffering as per Buddhism but also presents the way out of that suffering. This is the defining mark of Buddhism that distinguishes Buddhism from all other

systems. All other systems also speak directly in some cases or indirectly in most cases of suffering and the way out of that suffering. But as we have seen before what they consider root cause of suffering is totally different from what Buddhism calls the root cause of suffering, therefore automatically what they prescribe as the method or way or path out of the suffering will naturally be very different from what Buddhism prescribes.

172. Understanding the link between Four Noble Truth and Dwadas Nidan The twelve links of interdependent origination is intimately linked with two of the four Noble Truths (Chatwan Arya Satjani). We went into great details about the first Noble Truth, which is the Noble Truth (1) of suffering (Dukha Arya Satya), then the second Noble Truth is (2) Dukha Samudaya, the root cause of suffering. We mentioned in short that Trishna, Tanha (Pali), or carving is considered within Buddhism as the root cause of suffering (Dukha). The twelve chain or link of Pratityasamutpada (the Dwadas Nidan) explains in detail and in a systematic logical way on how the whole chain of suffering arises. We will go into it in detail shortly using the twelve chain of interdependent coorigination to understand the what and how of suffering that the Buddhism unravels. This is a point no non-linage Master, even those self-claimed Buddhas, etc, have even been able to touch upon to date, let alone elaborate on it, what to say about their understanding what this twelve links of interdependent co-origination has to do with the Buddha's enlightenment. And once the twelve chain (Dwadas Nidan) of interdependent co-origination is understood, one can also understand its cessation, which is the third Noble Truth, Dukha Nirodha Satya or the Noble Truth of the cessation of Dukha, suffering, or the fact that suffering can cease. And this itself leads to the fourth Noble Truth, which is the Truth of how this suffering can cease, the Path, called Marga Satya. This means the Noble Truth of the Path or Way. Any Way or Path that claims to be Buddhist most first and foremost be related to the twelve chains of interdependent origination. There are many fantastic paths in the world of men and Gods but if the Path has no relations to the cessation of suffering as per the principle of the twelve links of interdependent co-origination, then it is not the Path of the Buddha and will not help in attaining the Buddha's enlightenment, irrespective of whether in the Path a

lot of bliss or thoughtlessness states or awareness can be experienced. These are very subtle parts which so called Non-Buddhist Gurus who claim to teach the Buddhist Path etc, have no idea about and tend to miss it completely. Now, before we go into the details of Dwadas Nidan (the twelve chain) we need to also understand another basic point. That what we explained here is what is called the external Dwadas Nidan (the twelve chain). We will explain about internal Dwadas Nidan in the next article.

173. Creation in Buddhism Only when a person penetrates into the enlightened state, which is called Darshan Marg (the Path of Seeing) in the Mahayana system and some Sravaka systems, and called Srotapanna (entering the stream that leads to full enlightenment) in many Sravaka system like the Theravadins, the Sarvastivadins, etc., that the real meaning of the twelve links of interdependent co-origination called the inner twelve links of interdependent is seen through; or according to the Theravadin and other Sravaka tradition the real meaning of the Four Noble Truth (Chatwan Arya Satyam) is really understood. Since the four Arya Satya are based on the twelve links (Dwadas Nidan), in reality the two systems are talking the same thing - they are two sides of the same coin. With that in the background, let us go into the Dwadas Nidan (the twelve chains of interdependent co-origination). The Dwadas Nidan (the twelve chains of interdependent co-origination) has been traditionally described in two main ways, which can be broadly described: 1. As a demonstration of (a) life and (b) as the description of the world evolution. 2. As a demonstration of (a) the process of life-death-rebirth in a very long cyclic time and (b) as a description of each moment of life or each Chitta-Kshyan (mind moment). This point number two (b) is a demonstration of the arising and cessation of suffering within that individual life and also the demonstration of the arising and ceasing of suffering within that individual life. Description number one is a broader view and gives an idea of the broader Weltenschauung of Buddhism. It explains the Buddhist view of the 'so called creation' from the point of view of the

twelve links of interdependent co-origination. I have used the word 'so called creation' in quotes because from the point of view of Buddhism there is/was no the First Cause or Primordial Causes or Creator or God who created the universe (Samsara) in the beginning. First of all there can be no beginning. And if there is no beginning (Aadikaala), there is no Beginner, or Creator who created the world in the beginning. A beginning is a childish notion based on an immature mind of those who cannot conceive of eternity, infinity and beginning-lessness (Anaadi). But even a little cogitations of or questioning the notion of a beginning breaks down any idea of a beginning time (Aadikaala) as rather childish. Let us explain this point as it is crucial to understand this to understand the Buddhist view as a whole. A day can begin and end, but there can be no beginning of all days. No matter how far back you go as long as the sun and moon continues, there will be days. However, the beginning of a day is not the beginning of time, for a day or an hour or a minute or a second are only conventional units of time and so are aeons (kalpa). To be continued.

174. Creation versus Coming into being No matter how many billion trillion zillion years ago we go there will ways be time before that. That there was no time beyond a certain inconceivable time in the past is itself mathematically an impossibility and therefore inconceivable. Suns come and go, galaxies can come and go, even the Big Bangs can come and go but there will always be the second, minute, hour, day, week, year, aeons before the Big Bang. This Big Bang is not the beginning of creation but can only be the beginning of some galaxy etc that will come and go. So the Big Bang (the latest in scientific theory) began with the help of causes and conditions, which were present before that. These causes and conditions for the Big Bang were in turn caused by other causes and conditions before that and so on ad infinitum. Since the Big Bang can be only one in a beginning-less series of Big Bangs, and therefore a Creator-God is superfluous in such a world system (Samsara). Actually we had already touched upon this concept a long time back, but here we are repeating it as an immediate back drop to the twelve links of interdependent co-origination.

So what is the Buddhist answer to how did this universe begin? First and foremost, it did not begin at anytime in the distant past, as there can be no beginning to it at all and secondly the question itself is wrong, because it is not really different from the question that a child asks her parents when did everything begin, or how did all this happen. An over simplified solution to satisfy the child is that, 'All this was created by God'. It can satisfy a child whose mind cannot possibly grasp the concept of time and its beginning-less-ness and to whose simple mind everything seems to be made by someone. A potter makes a pot. Who made the pot? The potter. Who made the table? The carpenter. Who created the world? The 'Worlder' or Creator. How can such an over simplistic answer satisfy a thinking mature mind unless the mind has been shut down to all queries by simply accepting answers as the Truth since childhood? That is why Nagarjuna says that the concept of God is the result of a childish mind (Balabuddhi). Just this point alone puts Buddhism aside from all other religious systems except Jainism, which too does not posit a God as the Creator of the universe too.

175. Karma is different systems According to the Abhidharma or Abhidhamma in Pali, the physical cosmos that science studies (so far) is not the whole of the cosmos. This world of human and all its galaxies etc, physically seen so far is only one plane of existence, but it certainly is not the one and only plane of existence. There are many realms of existence. All other religious systems too believe in other realms of existence besides this physical realm available to the human experience directly or through extensions of refined machines. This is the meaning of heavens and hells and other realms. It is important to understand that Karma and continuity of the mind in the various realms of existence is very important aspect of the Buddhist tenets. Although Karma and rebirth in other realms of existence are also very important tenets of Hinduism as a whole, the exact definition of Karma and all its implication and the way 're'-birth happens is quite different in the two systems. By the way, Jainism also believes in Karma and rebirth. Even though the words are the same, they do not mean or imply exactly the same in the three systems. In fact, even when both Mahavir, the pro-pounder of Jainism, was alive there was an incident that made it very clear that Karma as meant by Mahavir and Jainism,

and Karma as meant by the Buddha and Buddhism was quite different. In the story, Mahavir, who was older than the Buddha, send one of his closest disciples to debate with the Buddha himself on what is Karma. Mahavir's contention was that the physical action called 'kaya danda' was the main aspect of the Karma and it was more powerful. What this means is that the real meaning of Karma, ie, what we do physically is more powerful. It was the Buddha's contention that the mental action (mental Karma) is not only far more powerful than mere physical action but also was the forerunner and a necessary beginner for all physical Karmas. Thus Karma means basically first and foremost 'chetana', or mental intention or mental Karma. So Mahavir's closest disciple met the Buddha in a huge forest while the Buddha was coming back from his alms begging. They sat together and the subject was broached. To cut the long conservation short, the Buddha asked Mahavir's disciple - do you know that where we are sitting right now was once a huge city in ancient time? Mahavir's disciple replied yes. Then the Buddha asked do you know that the whole city was destroyed by the curse of an ancient Rishi? And Mahavira's disciple replied yes. More on this in the next article.

176. Karma is different systems continued We are continuing from last week's story on the discussion between the Buddha and Mahavir's disciple. The Buddha asked the disciple of Mahavir - now tell me could a man using his physical body destroy this city to dust in a matter of minutes so that it becomes a huge forest ? The disciple replied, "No, thatss not possible." The Buddha asked again, "So then which is more powerful, the mental Karma or physical Karma?" It is said that Mahavir's disciple became the Buddha's disciple there and then but the Buddha accepted him as his disciple only under the condition that he continue to support Mahavir in any way he had been doing financially .

Likewise, what is meant by Karma in Hinduism is not exactly the same as Karma in Buddhism. Since Hinduism believes in a Creator (God) or Ishwar, and Ishwar would not be a Creator-God if he did not create the World and everything in it, including all beings in all the planes of existence, the concept of Karma in Hinduism would have to be highly modified by the Ishwar concept. If God creates everything and is the cause of everything that happens or exists, Karma as a system would have to be redundant and highly compromised, to say the least. Thus even though the same words are used in all the three Indo-Aryan Dharmas their meanings are very different. The Semitic religious systems (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) do not seem to have any concept like Karma in their systems. Although even in these systems it is said good deeds are rewarded by good things, and bad deeds punished. It is not Karma that does it but very clearly understood that God does the rewarding or punishment. In Buddhism, Karma is the cause and Karma is the result. Both are called Karma because both are actions, etc. This difference in the meaning of the same word Karma within Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism shows very clearly how three systems differ from each other even when often the same words are used. Thus rebirth (punarjanma), Karma Mukti(liberation), Gyan (enlightenment), etc, are all used in all the three systems. This has caused a lot of confusion in those who think the meaning of these words must be the same as they are the same words. And these confused personalities include many supposedly enlightened or well studied Hindu scholars and pundits. But in reality only the words are the same and the actual meaning of the words are different, sometimes drastically opposing in the three systems (Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism).

177. Shared Culture of Three Santana Dharmas Distorting Interpretations of Key Concepts We saw the different meanings of the word Karma in the three Arya Dharmas (also called Sanatana Dharmas) in the previous article. All the three Dharmas call themselves Sanatana or Arya Dharma not because they are talking about the same thing in three different ways but because they share the same culture - the culture of Bharat Varsha (Greater India) which used to extended from Afghanistan to Burma and from the Himalayas to Kanya Kumari (Cape Comorin). Because the

same literature and mythological stories and cultural elements are shared, they tend to use the same words. For example, Sanskrit and Sanskritic languages are shared by this bigger culture, all three systems share a common heritage and mythos and history. Some Hindu Pandits like to call this common heritage and history the Hindu Culture. But it is not historically correct to call it solely a Hindu culture. These cultural elements existed in the Indian subcontinent even before Buddhism and Jainism and Vedic Bramanism and later forms of Vedic- Bramanism which came to be called Hinduism later on. Even in the time of Alexander we find different rites and rituals and festivals and living styles amongst the various Janapadas (rudimentary form of Republics) which are mentioned even by the Buddha about two or three centuries earlier. We find Chanakya trying to unite all the various Janapadas against Alexander under the banner of the unity of the culture or of the sameness of the culture (Sanskriti). Chanakya did not mean only Vedic Bramanism! It is because they shared a common history and culture we find that often the same words were used in their philosophies and Dharma terminologies. We took the concept of Karma. Now let us take the concept of punarjanma (re-incarnation or rebirth). In the Hindu system, there is an entity which is the same person which is reborn again and again until liberation (mukti) is attained. As we said a long time back, the Hindu system as a whole is not so homogenous as it appears to be at the outset. Therefore, what I've just said is a rather loose description of rebirth within the Hindu system. Many laymen believe that the Atman takes birth again and again as is often implied when such people ask the Buddhists- if there is no Atman what is it that takes birth again and again. However, not all systems of Hinduism agree to the notion that the Atman takes birth again and again. There is a fallacy implied in this concept of an Atman being reborn again and again. If the Atman is Sat (really existing) them by definition the Atman cannot change. More on this in the next article.

179. Punarabhava or Punarajanma continued Punarbhava means becoming again or new becoming. The new becoming as opposed to being born is crucial inunderstanding the weltenschaaung of Buddhism

as a whole. There is no Being as such but only a process of becoming, we are not a NOUN an entity, a being but rather a verb, a flow, a process of becoming. If you understand this then you can also clearly understand that there is no entity, being or person or personality that is reborn again and again. No One or NO Thing is reborn again. It is more like a continuum of a river or a burning flame. The flame continues on and on into the next moment and again into the next moment, but it is not the same flame or flames, etc., that continues on into the next moment. Although it does appear exactly like the same flame is burning moment to moment. In fact this is an illusion. In reality every millisecond or so a new flame comes into existence while the old flame goes out of existence. We have already explained this point of the flame and the continuum a long time ago. We just brought it up here in the context of Punarbhava, or becoming again or re-becoming. As we have already said a long time ago, Buddhism believes that the Chitta Sanatana (mind continuum) continues from this life to the next but since this Chitta Sanatana (mind continuum) is changing every moment (Kschana), the possibility of the same entity continuing even to the next moment, let alone the next life is out of the Buddhist question. Every moment the Chitta Sanatana (mind continuum) is re-becoming again and again (Punarbhava). Just as the causes and conditions (hetu pratyay) of the new flame will come into being out of the ashes of the older flames, so to say, in the same way, as long as the causes and conditions of the Chitta Sanatana (mental stream) continues the Chitta Sanatana will continue to continue. But we must understand that the 'Chitta Santana' (mental continuum) is not an entity or thing that will continue but rather a process (a verb) that continues. So it is this Chitta Santana (mental continuum) which continues into new form of existence depending upon the Karma- Sanskara, which we call re-birth or reincarnation, being born again when in reality there is No One Entity being born again. So the word Punarajanma (reborn) is inaccurate when applying it to Buddhism.

180. Punarabhava to Avidhya - the difference between two systems In the same way like Punarabhava, Avidhya means a different thing within Buddhism and Hinduism. Sanakaracharya has clearly defined Avidhya (ignorance or nescience) as not knowing or recognizing that one's true self is the eternally unchanging Atma (self). Or simply put, not knowing or recognizing the Atman. So

Agyan (another word for Avidhyaor nescience) in he Sankara Vedantic system is not recognizing that one is the Atman, and instead identifying oneself with the body or mind or in a more technical language the Pancha Kosha (the five sheaths) as Atman, or ones true self which is what one truly is. Although we have already gone in great details about the Atman, for the sake of new comers who are reading this article for the first time, let us talk little bit about this. Sankaracharya defines the Atman's nature as Sat-Chit-Ananda. The word has become very famous amongst Hindus, almost a household word, but the vast majority of those laymen who use this phrase or word (Sat-Chit-Ananda), do not actually know properly how Sankara himself has defined it. As we had actually quoted the actual Sanskrit verses used by Sankaracharya himself for explanation, we will not repeat them here again but a short explanation is required. Sat is a Sanskrit word which is means really existing, as opposed to Maya (illusion). In the Indian Subcontinent, all the systems that grew within it have all accepted the fact that what really exists must not and cannot and should not change. Now this needs to be clarified as those not well versed in the logical systems (Pramana Sastra or Naya Sastra) of the Indian Subcontinent and educated in the Western education system, are bound to ask - why should something that really exist be unchanging? To an untrained bystander it is a valid question, even though such a question is a contradiction in itself. This brings us to the question of change and a changing thing. And the word changing thing brings us back to the word continuum, which we discussed at great length already. But let us revisit it in this context. A changing thing or entity is a contradiction if by the word thing/entity we mean an unchanging same entity/thing. If by 'thing/entity' we mean an unchanging entity/thing, then when we are saying a changing entity/thing that remains the same and does not change. This is a preposterous statement to say the least. How can we call a changing entity unchanging? More on this in the next article.

184. Continuing with Hindu misleading notions about Buddhism Then there are those who give commentaries on Buddhism without having ever received any teachings on Buddhism from any authentic Masters of unbroken lineages. Needless to say, all of these types of Masters interpret Buddhist concepts and ideas as if Buddhism was a form of Hinduism. Most of their knowledge of

Buddhism are based on English translations of Buddhist texts etc., and they have never ever read the Pali or Sanskrit or Chinese or Tibetan texts directly or listened to the explanation of Masters. Amongst these types of are those who claim that the Bhagavat Gita and Buddhism teach the same thing. Again, needless to say they fail to quote the Bhagavat Gita or any authentic Buddhist Sutras or Sastras to prove their point - as there are no such proofs. Many of them are completely unaware of any Buddhist Sutras or Suttas and know only what their Master taught about Buddhism - a Master again falls into this same category. I would to challenge all such types of Masters or their disciples who claim that: 1.Buddhism teaches the same thing as Hinduism only in a different way 2.Who give Hindu explanations of Buddhist texts 3.Who say that Buddhism believes in an empty vacant unconscious state devoid of any awareness 4.Who teach No-Mind (Achitta) of Buddhism as just a non-conceptual awareness without any thoughts 5.Who teach that the Vedantic 'Brahman-Atman' is the same as the Buddhist Anatma (Non Self) I would like to challenge all such Hindu (or otherwise) Masters to prove their point using authentic Buddhist or Hindu scriptural quotes or commentaries by authentic Masters of both Hindu and Buddhist systems; they of course must show how Buddhism and Hinduism are teaching exactly about the same thing. Now let us continue with Avidya. We have seen that Avidya means not cognizing ones Atman, which is of the nature of Sat-Chit-Ananda as ones true Self, according to the Sankara Vedantic system. As Hinduism is a pot pouri of many heterogeneous ideas not all Hindu systems agree to this Sankara Vedantic definition of Avidya/Nescience. Some would say Avidya is not realizing God more than not realizing Atman-Brahman. And there are some who try to integrate the two disparate ideas into one saying self-realization is God realization etc. etc. Needless to say, Avidya within the Buddhist systems of any denomination has nothing to do with Atman Gyan, self-realization or Braman Gyan (realization of the Macrocosmic Self), or God-realization of any kind.

185. Avidya-Nescience of Buddhism In the Abdhidharma Sammuccaya, Asanga, the famous scholar-siddha of Gandhara (present day Afghanistan) defines Avidya as: What is Avidya (nescience)? It is the absence of knowledge (Agyan) with regards to the three realms of existence (Traidhatuka). Its function is to give a basis to the appearance of defilement (Klesha), mistaken decisions and doubts concerning the dharma (Buddhism). So here in the Abhidharma Samuccaya, Asanga (a Bramin of ancient Gandhara, and the brother of Vasubhandhu, the famous writer of Abhidharma Kosha), says that Avidya is the absence of knowledge (Agyan) as regards to the three realms of existence. This needs a little bit of explanation. What is the meaning of absence of knowledge related to the three realms of existence? Tridhatu (similar to the Hindu Tri Bhuvan but not exactly the same) means the three realms of existence. Now, what are the three realms of existence? They are called the Kama Dhatu (the desire realm), the Rupa Dhatu (the realm of subtle form) and the Arupa Dhatu (the formless realm). The first Kama Dhatu is called the Desire realm because the Kleshas play a major role in these realms. The realms with Kama Dhatu include the human realm, the hell and the heaven. There are many levels of Deva Lokas (heavens) which belong to the realm of desire. The Gods and Goddesses (Devas) of these realms are not free from Kleshas, although they enjoy more pleasure than in the human realms or realms below them. The realms above the Deva Lokhas (heavenly realms) of the Kama Dhatu are the heavenly realms of Rupa Dhatu. The Rupa Dhatu (realm of subtle form/form realm) is also called the Bramah Lokas, because the Bramahs stay here. But there are many levels of Bramahs and their realms. And then there is the Arupa Dhatu (formless realm), also called Arupa Bramah Lokas. When we use the word Tridhatu (the three realms of existence), it also includes all beings in there. Now, what do we mean by the absence of knowledge (Agyan) about the Tridhatu (the three realms of existence)? It means not knowing their mode of existence, the way they exist. Not knowing that these three realms are Dukha (suffering), not knowing how these three realms are suffering, not know why these three realms

are suffering, not know the way(Marga/Path) out of these three realms of suffering, not knowing the Four Noble truths is Avidya or Nescience. Here, knowing does not mean a conceptual knowing of the Four Noble Truth but to see through Vipashayana/Vipassana the facts of these Four Noble Truth. So Avidhya is not knowing what the Tridhatu/the three realms of existence is or in another way not knowing the four Noble Truth.

186. Klesha direct product of Avidya The Theravada Abhidhamma defines Avidya/Nescience exactly as not knowing the Four Noble Truths. The Tridhatu (the three realms of existence) can be called the 'world' in layman language. This world includes the Sadhakas (practitioners). The Tridhatu is included in the Pancha Skandha (the five aggregates), which compose what we can call the individual (Pudgala in classical terminology). The Pudgala is a label given to the collection of the five aggregates (Pancha Skanda) and is not an entity as the English word individual would imply. A Pudgala/individual is only imputed upon the five aggregates (Pancha Skandha). The word used for imputation in the Theravada Abhidhamma is 'Pragyapti'. A clear and correct Vipashyana/Vipassana shows very clearly that these are not and cannot belong to a Pudgala entity per se, but only the streams/continuua of the five aggregates. Now, let us see what is meant by Asanga when he defined Avidhya as the absence of knowledge (Agyan) as regards to the three realms of existence (Tridhatu). Asanga says, 'and its function is to give the basis to the appearance of defilement.' We just in a rather skimpy way explained what the Tridhatu means but what does Asanga mean when he says Avidya is the 'Absence of Knowledge (Agyan)', as regards to the Tridhatu? First of all, it means not knowing (absence of knowledge) that the entire Tridhatu (the three realms of existence) is impermanent (anitya), suffering (dukha), non-self (anatma) and empty (sunya). It is because we do not have knowledge of this mode of existence of the Tridhatu (the three realms of existence) that it becomes Avidya, and that this Tridhatu because of this becomes the basis for the appearance of defilements/emotional defilements or called Klesha in the technical language of Buddhism. It is this Klesha which is the major cause of suffering (dukha). Klesha is so ingrained in our system because of Avidya/nescience that every minute action and

reaction in an average person's life is infused by Klesha. All the Klesha can be subsumed into three main Kleshas 1. Kama (attachment like desire) also called Kamacchanda/Raga or Ragacchanda, etc, 2. Krodha (anger, hatred, dislike) or also called Dvesha and would include jealousy, etc., and 3. Moha or stupidity, confusion, torpor, dullness, inability to distinguish good and bad, delusion, etc. In the Adhidharma Samucchaya, Asanga defines these thus: What is craving (Raga)? It is attachment to the three realms (Tridhatu) of existence. Its function consists of engendering suffering (Dukha). The Theravada Abhidhamma Sanghako defines Kammacchanda like this: the greed (Lobha) and craving (Trishna) creates attachment (or weakness) towards the things and one's desires (Kama Vishaya) is called Kamacchanda.

187. Explanining klesha (defilement) According to the Abhidharma Kosha of Vasuvandhu, there are two types of Raga (attachment). One is the attachment to sensual pleasures like called Kama Raga, and then attachment to existence called Bhava Raga. Then concerning Dvesha or Pratigha (hatred etc), the Abhidharma Samuccaya of Asanga defines it thus: What is Pratigha (repugnance, hatred, dislike)? It is malevolence (aghata) with regards to living beings, suffering and conditions of suffering. Its functions consist of supplying a basis to wretched state (unpleasant life or existence). In the same way, the explanation of the Theravadin Abidhammatha Sanghaho says that Dvesa is the strong reaction of the mind to what it dislikes, just like when a black snake who is out shows its nature. This is a very rough translation of the Pali definition but the meaning comes out clearly. And Moha (delusion, confusion) is defined like this in the Abhidharm Samuccaya of Asanga, as having the characteristics of not knowing (Agyan). And the explanation of the Theravadin Abhidhammatha Sanghaho also says the same thing - Eso Ayyaanalakhano (this has the characteristics of Agyan). And Theravadin text goes on to beautifully define Moha as that which hypnotizes or mesmerizes towards its objects so that it does not know its object for what it is. It is not just lack of awareness but rather the opposite of proper knowledge of things. Just as Wisdom, Knowledge (Gyan) gives the correct knowledge of things as it is (Yathabuta), Moha gives the wrong knowledge of things as they are not really. It

contradicts wisdom, knowledge (Gyan). Its characteristics is to blind the mind so that it does not see the facts as it is (Yathabhuta). So if you were to see a lump of shit or anything that you dislike like your enemy you will dislike what you see. This is Dvesha or Pratigha (hatred, dislike or anger). If you were to see a beautiful flower or beautiful scenery or a freind you really love you would like it. This is Kamacchanda or Raga or attachment, greed, liking or desire. If you were to see an ordinary fountain pen you would feel neither a liking nor a disliking for it, you would remain neutral to it. Many systems which are unclear about enlightenment imply that such a state of neither liking nor disliking is the enlightened state. Many Gurus in the Indian Subcontinent teach directly or imply that an Awareness, which remains neutral, just watching with no like or dislike, no attachment nor hatred but remains detached, as the state of enlightenment. Many go even so far as to label such a state as the Buddhist NoMind (Achitta). But unfortunately to authentic Buddhist system such a neutral awareness with no like or dislike, no attachment or hatred is Moha (delusion). This a point that I have not seen any Indian Gurus and their disciple who claim to give Buddhist teachings (even though they themselves are not Buddhist or have not studied under any Buddhist Masters) elucidate clearly. Most of them are hopelessly confused about this point and go on to confuse millions of other people.

189. Interpreting the meaning of gyan in different systems So we have seen very clearly how even though exactly the same words like Avidya, Gyan, Karma, Mukti etc. etc. are used in all the three systems that developed within the Indian Subcontinent, they do not necessarily mean the same thing. In fact, sometimes they mean almost the opposite. A very good example is the word Gyan. Gyan of course means knowing, however what is meant by Gyan in the sense of enlightenment is quite drastically different within Hinduism and Buddhism. In the Hindu system, there are two broad schools related to Gyan. One is Atman Gyan school, which would mean self realization or gaining knowledge of the True Self (Atman), which is one's true nature and this would amount to Braman Gyan (knowledge of the Cosmic Self, or Super Self or Super Consciousness). After all this very Atman (my True Self) is the Braman as the Vedic Maha Vakya (great words of the Veda) says Ayam Atman Brahman, which means this Atman is

Braman itself. Another group of Hindus would interpret the word Gyan as Ishwor Gyan, which means God realization or knowledge of God. Of course in the Hindu system this knowledge is not supposed to be some intellectual knowledge or conceptual knowledge of the Atman (Self) or Braman (Seer Cosmic Self) or God realization (Ishwor Sachyaatkaar) but more a direct non-conceptual knowledge. Within Buddhism, such knowledge would be just further continuation of Agyan or Avidhya. Let us explain the Buddhist perspective here. We all have a tendency to feel that there is an ultimate really existing I or 'I-I' if you like, which is the word used by the famous Hindu saint Raman Maharshi. We tend to feel this as the center of our experience and we tend to feel that it does not change but rather remains the same unchanging always. This is what is meant by the Atman. Most of Vedantic Hinduism and Jainism use this label (Atman) for an unchanging, eternally the same 'I-I' that is the centre of all our experiences or the core Awareness that experiences (or Witnesses) or knows all that is as the Knower/Witness/Watcher/Seer. So within most forms of Hinduism and within Jainism, basically Enlightenment or Gyan means realizing that one is not the body or any of the Pancha Kosha (five sheaths) but the eternally unchanging and the one and only really existing thing (Mahavastu). This Mahavastu is Witness, Knower or Seer of all. The Vedantic system distinguishes between the thinking mind (manas) and the deciding mind (Buddhi) and this Witness, Knower or Seer who knows the thinking mind and the deciding or discriminating Buddhi.

190. Clarifying buddhi and manas and Buddhist terminologies Buddhi and Manas are Vigyanamaya Kosha (consciousness sheath), which sheaths the Eternal Witness, Knower, etc. It is based on Hindu categories and the names are used by many Hindu Gurus, who should have known better, but they have confused themselves and millions of their disciples about Buddhism. Because according to them, the Sachi - Atman (Witness, Self) is beyond the Buddhi (desciminative faculty) and the word Buddhi used by the Hindu systems seems to be close to Buddha and Bodhi. They just assumed that the Buddha actually reached only up to the level of the Buddhi and could not go beyond the Buddhi to the level of the eternal Atman, which is beyond the Buddhi. They just seem to assume that the whole world and all the other cultures just use

the same words to mean the same thing, after all the world religions just branched out from the Hindu Vedas directly or indirectly, and therefore, there are no other paradigms than the Vedic paradigm. And since the Buddhi and Manas etc, are all within the Vigyanamaya Kosh (sheath of consciousness) and the Buddhist too use the word Vigyana; they did not go beyond the Vedantic Vigyanamaya Kosha (sheath of consciousness). Therefore, many Hindu Gurus like the famous and very interesting Shiva Puri Baba claimed that the Buddha never went beyond their Vigyanamaya Kosha and stopped at the Buddhi level; but he and other Hindu Masters went beyond into the Atman and even beyond into God Realization. I cannot but comment 'how nave.' First of all, this is a clear cut confusion in terminologies and the confusion is based on a very Hindu attitude or belief that there are no other paradigms than the Vedic Hindu paradigms and whatever, whoever talks about is just a variety or branch or another way of saying what Vedic Hinduism has already said a long time ago. If they had even made the slightest effort to study Buddhism according to what the Buddhists and their sutras/suttas and their commenteries say, it would have been very easy for them to see that the Vigyana of the Buddhist is not the Buddhi (the discriminative faculty) or Manas (the decider) but the Knower, Witness of the other two, and the other two are called Sangya Skandha, Sanskar Sandha etc and are not Chitta (Knower) but Chaitta or Chaitasik, the Known. The Buddha knew the Witness, Knower very well but his investigation was not burdened by the pre supposedly accepted formula already accepted as the truth; so he investigated (Vipashayana) free of all preconceived assumptions and saw that this so called Knower, Witness was ever changing. All though it never ended, it was not Sat (Unchangingly Eternal) but rather Changing Eternal (Parinami Nitya).

191. Importance of unbiased investigation to determine ultimate reality The Buddha was not bound by the chains of some ancient texts so that he had to make his finding confirm to those texts that existed during his time. He was free to investigate (Vipashyana) and see thing as they really are (Yathabhuta). Even modern Quantum Physics agrees to the fact that the assumptions of the investigating mind influences what we see. Assumptions are Sanskaras and if you work with those assumptions and Sanksaras that is what you will see. That is why the Buddha himself said in the Kalam Suttat not to believe in what is handed down in tradition but to investigate and find out for oneself if that is true or not in the

sense of whether it will free you from Kleshas and Sanskaras. Vipashyana is not about trying to see what the Buddha and Buddhist texts said but to see for oneself whether it is how it is (Yathabhuta). Now, is the Kalam Sutta about eschewing all traditions and advocating re-inventing the wheel in each generation - as some modernist Buddhist intellectuals believe? To eschew all the rich lore and knowledge accumulated through the centuries after the Buddha is one thing, to see for one's own self whether what these lore's say is true or not is quite another thing. It is extreme idiocy to say each generation has to throw away all the texts and technology of how to create the wheel and re-discover the whole thing all over again for themselves, without accepting any of those texts on how to create a wheel. Then every generation should burn all the discovery on science and technology, and go back to the stone age to start anew each generation. This is stark idiocy in the name of independent and free thinking. However, in the field of Dharma (as in science), it is paramount not to assume (be conditioned/sanskaras) that what the traditions say is the one and only truth, because this produces a biased experience based on an assumption, and to test yourself whether what is said is true to not, you need unbiased investigation. But to test, we need to use proper techniques just as in science. The proper technique is Vipashayana. We must test through proper Vipashayan whether the conclusion made by the Buddha are valid or not. If we do not use the proper microscope of Vipashayana, we will only see the rough outside and what we see in such a case may not tally with the Buddha's teachings but rather more likely tally only with our own sanskaras/conditionings. To see that the Witness, Watcher, Knower is ever changing moment by moment, we need the correct method to see it. Otherwise, our ignorance, nescience or Avidya and sanskaras/conditionings will not allow us to see this fact, and it will be easy to fall into the trap to see, experience and believe that this Seer, Watcher, Witness, Knower remains unchanging and eternal - which is what the Vedanta says and is confirmed by our sanskaras/conditionings and habitual thinking patterns.

192. Importance of unbiased investigation to determine ultimate reality II We can also understand that the Kalam Sutta is not telling us not to depend at all in any tradition and find out for yourself what the truth is. In that case, to think - we have to eschew Vipashyana because that is tradition handed down and accepted by

learned people etc. etc. - that kind of interpretation of the Kalam Sutta made by some Nepali modernistic new fangled Theravidins is totally idiocy. In such a case, Buddhism also would have to be reinvented in every generation from the ground level. That is complete stupidity. What the Buddha meant in the Kalam Sutta is not that we should throw out all traditions, never take the advices of the Wise and Experienced, never to follow any tradition at all. The Buddha said not to accept these things blindly just because it is tradition, just because it is logical, just because the learned say it; but also (also is the key word here) to check for yourself whether that is the truth or not. But to check whether anything is beneficial to you or not you again need methods, and an ordinary person riddled with Sanksaras cannot be trusted to come out with the correct method because his Kleshas and Sanskaras will not allow him to see the proper methods. In that case, we have to depend upon tradition where people who have freed themselves to a greater degree than us from Kleshas, Sanskaras, etc. Otherwise every man will come up with his own ideas, beliefs and systems entirely based on her/his own sanskaras/conditionings. However, this dependency should not be blind. We should never be blinded even with any Buddhist system so much that we are even afraid to listen to other systems or even other Buddhist systems different from that one you are following for fear of losing one's faith. It is exactly this kind of faith that the Kalam sutta speaks out against. If this is the case, we have just increased our Sanskara instead of freeing ourselves from Sankaras. It is idiotic to throw out all the scientific research and scientists that has been handed down through the centuries in the name of free, independent thinking and say each man has to rediscover science for himself because each person is an island to himself. That is definitely not what the Buddha meant. What the Buddha meant was closer to saying that each generation should use the traditional tests to see for themselves whether what science has said is correct or not and not just believe it blindly. We have now dealt with Avidya (Nescience), we will go into the second chain in the twelve links of interdependent origination, which is Sanskara, in the next article.

193. Understanding the importance of sanskara We that have now dealt with Avidya (Nescience) we will go into the second chain

in the twelve links of interdependent origination, which is Sanskara. It is due to Avidhya that Sanskaras develop and finally become stronger, and these very Sanskaras make Avidya stronger so they are interdependent upon each other. Sanskaras basically mean that which condition (Abhisanskaroti). Sanskaras can be good in the sense they can liberate or open the mind, and bad in the sense they can limit or close the mind. Karma and Sanskaras are very closely related, and sometimes the second factor called Sanskara in the twelve chain of interdependence is also called Karma Sanskaras. These conditions or Sanskaras condition the way we experience the world of our experience. Then, further condition the way we interpret our world of experience. For example, if I have had a tiff with somebody and I'm angry with her, the next time I meet or see her, the way I react, the way I think about her, the way I interpret her behavior, are all conditioned by my past experience, which conditions my mind (Abhisanskaroti). The same is true when I meet an old friend I'm fond of and with whom I've had good experiences. Sanskaras are often translated as volitional impulses. The Abhidharmakosha of Vasubhandu defines Sanskaras as Sanskarah Purvakarmana - which means Sanskara is the state brought about by the former karmas. Now, this means the former mental continuum does good and bad actions (karma) and this state of our collection of good or bad karmas is called Sanskara. In the Theravada tradition, the Vibhabini, which is a Tika (commentary) on the famous Abhidhammatha Sangaho of Anurudachariya, it defines Sanskara as: Pubba Payoga Sambhuto Viseso Chittasambhavi - which means the special energy found in the mind resulting from the former actions of mind, body and speech is Sanskara. The Paramatha Dipani also defines Sanskara in the same way. What this means in simple non-technical language is that Sanskaras are those which conditions the mind, and they are based on the habitual patterns of the mind, body and speech. What we repeat again and again creates a special energy accordingly. A dancer conditions her body to be able to dance in a certain way by practicing again and again until a habitual pattern (Sanskara) are formed in her mind. And because of this Sanskara her body is easily capable of making certain movements which would be very difficult for those who have not developed that Sanskara or those who have not conditioned themselves through repeated practice to be able to do it. More in the next article.

93. Understanding the importance of sanskara

We that have now dealt with Avidya (Nescience) we will go into the second chain in the twelve links of interdependent origination, which is Sanskara. It is due to Avidhya that Sanskaras develop and finally become stronger, and these very Sanskaras make Avidya stronger so they are interdependent upon each other. Sanskaras basically mean that which condition (Abhisanskaroti). Sanskaras can be good in the sense they can liberate or open the mind, and bad in the sense they can limit or close the mind. Karma and Sanskaras are very closely related, and sometimes the second factor called Sanskara in the twelve chain of interdependence is also called Karma Sanskaras. These conditions or Sanskaras condition the way we experience the world of our experience. Then, further condition the way we interpret our world of experience. For example, if I have had a tiff with somebody and I'm angry with her, the next time I meet or see her, the way I react, the way I think about her, the way I interpret her behavior, are all conditioned by my past experience, which conditions my mind (Abhisanskaroti). The same is true when I meet an old friend I'm fond of and with whom I've had good experiences. Sanskaras are often translated as volitional impulses. The Abhidharmakosha of Vasubhandu defines Sanskaras as Sanskarah Purvakarmana - which means Sanskara is the state brought about by the former karmas. Now, this means the former mental continuum does good and bad actions (karma) and this state of our collection of good or bad karmas is called Sanskara. In the Theravada tradition, the Vibhabini, which is a Tika (commentary) on the famous Abhidhammatha Sangaho of Anurudachariya, it defines Sanskara as: Pubba Payoga Sambhuto Viseso Chittasambhavi - which means the special energy found in the mind resulting from the former actions of mind, body and speech is Sanskara. The Paramatha Dipani also defines Sanskara in the same way. What this means in simple non-technical language is that Sanskaras are those which conditions the mind, and they are based on the habitual patterns of the mind, body and speech. What we repeat again and again creates a special energy accordingly. A dancer conditions her body to be able to dance in a certain way by practicing again and again until a habitual pattern (Sanskara) are formed in her mind. And because of this Sanskara her body is easily capable of making certain movements which would be very difficult for those who have not developed that Sanskara or those who have not conditioned themselves through repeated practice to be able to do it. More in the next article.

94. Continuing with understanding the importance of sanskara A skilled classical singer is able to produce sounds which would be either very difficult or impossible for an average man to produce because through continuous repetition and practice the singer has conditioned his mind (subconscious) to be able to produce such sounds through his vocal cord. And in the same way, repeated mental acting (Manaskarma) conditions the mind to act or react in a certain way and this is what is meant by Sanskara. The Abhidharma classifies the mental Sanskara into great details of categories but we shall not go into it here as this is not really necessary in an article like this. However, Sanskara is a very important concept because all the Kleshas are Sanskaras and a major part of Buddhism is about dealing with these Kleshas (emotional defilements). We need to go a little in-depth with Sanskara. Whatever we are capable of seeing or not seeing, understanding or not capable of understanding, whatever we see as nice or not nice, whatever we like or dislike, as good or bad, as correct or wrong, they are all based in our Sanskara in the case of an ordinary person. In fact, all our actions and reactions are based on our Sanskaras. Most people believe that when they look at the world of their experience, they see an objective world that is really like the way they see it. But modern brain science and Quantum Physics does not agree with this overly nave concept of our experience. Actually, we do not see as it is (Yathabhuta) the world out there, but what is constructed by our Sanskara out of the energy patterns out there. According to Quantum Physics, there is no world out there the way we perceive it but only an interplay of energy, which we do not perceive. So what is it that constructs the world the way we perceive it? This is what is meant by Sanskara. In this case, these Sanskaras are more accurately called Karma Sanskaras. According to Buddhism, when a fish looks at what we call water, it sees a home and not what we perceive as water. When humans look at water they perceive and experience what the word 'water' signify. But to a fish that very same 'so called water' is not experienced as what we mean by water. And when a Preta looks at that same glass of water, the Preta perceives what we call pus or an empty dry glass and the Preta does not perceive what we call water. But the Preta is looking at the same glass of 'so called water as we humans are.

195. Karma sanskara according to Buddhism

Let us continue with the talk of how we construct the world the way we perceive it. We were talking about how a Preta and a human perceive water very differently. A hell being sees burning fire and brimstone and molten lava and not what we call water. And again when the Devas (celestial beings, Gods) look at the same glass of water, they perceive ambrosia and not water as we think, believe, see and experience it. This is what is meant by Karma Sanskara, which conditions the mind or consciousness to experience a world out there which does not really exist the way we see it or experience it. This is the Sanskara, the second link after Avidhya or Nescience in the twelve links of interdependent origination. The Sanskara conditions the mind or consciousness (Vigyan, the third link in the chain of interdependent origination), which then begins to experience the world based on its Karma Sanskara. This is Karma Sanskara (Karma conditioning) that make the mindset, which creates the world of our experience. Another meaning of Sanskara is what is called conditioning, which conditions our reactions to the world that we experience. This Pavlov reflex action is a conditioned reflex action where the dog begins to salivate the moment it hears the bell after giving it food over and over again every time the bell is rung. In a similar way, Sanskaras learned in this life and according to Buddhism in former lives conditions our reactions to the world we experience. There are many ways we get conditioned. Conditioning already starts in the mother's womb. The child's neural wirings are being conditioned by the emotions and experiences of the mother. A depressed mother's world creates chemicals that will influence the child's neural wirings etc.. A happy and relaxed and positive mother likewise conditions her child accordingly. In many cases birth would itself condition the neural wirings of the child to a lesser and greater extent, which would influences the child the rest of her life if not dealt with properly. Then the child's upbringing would condition the mind and brain of the child. According to transactional psycho therapy, family injunctions are handed down through generations. Thus we have families that have winner's scripts and families that have loser's script. There are families who have a culture of being paranoid about anything new and there are families who are open and encourage innovations, creativity and new ideas.

196. How sanskara influences us everyday

Scripts, games and life positions like I'm ok, I'm not ok, are handed down generation after generation as family injunctions. There are families with what is called loser scripts and families with winner scripts. A child who grows up with loser scripts tends to lose out in life except those who are lucky enough to shake out of this Sanskara either through proper therapy or sometimes through life experiences. And people who grow up with the winner script end up successful in life. All these are various kinds of Sanskaras. In fact, in an ordinary person, her whole life tone is set by the kind of Sanskara that has been downloaded into her mindbrain computer since her childhood, and of course from carry over back logs from her former lives too. The same person can be seen as a wonderful person by Ram Lal, while Hari Lal can perceive the same as horrible. How can the same person be perceived as both wonderful and horrible? An overly simplified answer would be Sanskara. To Ram Lal, his Sanskaras make him see the person as wonderful while to Hari Lal, his Sanskaras make him see that very same person as horrible. We all know that we all like different types of food and dislike other foods; we all like certain type of clothing and dislike other types of clothing. All these are again based on Sanskara (conditionings). Some people just seem to have a very positive outlook towards life. They are full of spirit and oomph most of the time. They are adventurous and are keen to learn and experience new things in life. They even seem to infuse the same kind of openminded, happy spirit to those who are around them. This is due to the Sanskaras downloaded in their mind-brain complex. And again there are those who seem always to be down in the dumps. Everything is gloomy, boring and unexciting. They are very close-minded. They do not like new things coming into their life. They feel insecure with everything. They cannot trust others, life or even their own selves. Again this is Sanskara. Of course we can also say that some people are disposed genetically to be down in the dumps where others are more disposed to be celebrating life continuously. But genetic research by Dr. Bruce Lipton shows that even the genes are mere potential possibilities and that it is the state of the mind how she thinks, feels, believes (mostly believes) that triggers which gene is activated or deactivated. But our beliefs are heavily colored by our Sanskaras.

197. Continuing with how sanskaras influence us everyday

An average Nepali may not feel he had a good lunch or dinner unless he's had dal bhat (rice and lentil soup). In fact, I've had many Nepalis say they don't feel filled unless they take dal bhat. But many Americans cannot feel filled, like they've had a good lunch or dinner, unless they had their steak. This is Sanskara. Most Nepalis folks in the villages do not even feel they've had a good cup of tea unless it is thick with a hefty amount of sugar and creamy milk. Some even prefer burnt milk. But most health conscious Westerners would balk at having such a tea. Most Nepalis cannot think of a tea without sugar. In fact, tea without sugar is not a tea at all but some mistake. But most Westerners and nowadays perhaps many health conscious Nepali folks have tea without sugar. The famous Zen Master Soen Shaku, who was amongst the first Zen Masters to take Zen to America, had a very interesting way of taking his coffee with every breakfast. Every morning when he would sit down for a breakfast he would first take black coffee without sugar or milk. After few sips, he would add sugar to the coffee and have few more sips. After that he would add milk to his coffee and have few more sips. Then eventually he would add cream to top the coffee and drink it. His American students noticed him doing this at every breakfast, and they asked him why he was drinking his coffee that way. He replied like this: "I'm training myself not to expect anything." What did 'not to expect anything' mean? Here we are talking about Sanskara. It is our Sanskaras of believing that coffee should be with cream and sugar that makes us expect coffee with cream and sugar. This expectation is craving (Trishna), the eighth links in the twelve chains, which is considered the root cause of Dukha, or more correctly the proliferation of Dukha. So when I don't get my cream and sugar coffee, I get irritated and feel offended. If I get it I feel satisfied and happy temporarily. But this short lived 'coffee happiness' is not the real happiness. However, the average person does not know any other kind of happiness but this 'coffee happiness'. For her, life is not worth living without her 'coffee happiness'. This is not to say that a good cup of coffee the way you like it should not be enjoyed. This is to say that you should also be able to enjoy sugar free coffee equally.

198. Continuing with how sanskara influences us everyday II Our expectations build from your Sanskaras will not normally allow us to enjoy a

coffee that is sugar free, like the way famous Zen Master Soen Shaku enjoyed. So your happiness or enjoyment or celebration is limited to 'the sugar milk coffee' happiness. And when there is no sugar and milk coffee we are incapable of celebrating life. This coffee happiness is a limit of the life of the average person riddled with Sanksaras and expectations. Expectations make us grasp or cling to our 'milk sugar coffee' happiness. This grasping, clinging is the ninth chain in the twelve links. Just for refreshing the memories of those who do not know the twelve link of interdependent origination (Dwadas Nidan or Dwadas Pratitya Samputpada), we will reiterate them again. They are: 1. Avidya, 2. Sanskara, 3. Vigyana, 4. Nam-Rupa, 5. Sadayatana, 6. Sparsha, 7. Vedana, 8. Trishna, 9. Upadana, 10. Karma Bhava, 11. Jati, 12. JaraMaran-Soka-Parideva-Dukha-Daurmanashya-Upayasya. It is because we expect certain things we are happier when we get what we expect and are unhappy when we do not get what we expect. Thus, we limit our happiness to 'milk sugar coffee', which in life may not be always available. Thus, our expectations, which in life are usually not fulfilled, makes us unhappy, dissatisfied and unfulfilled most of the time. But these expectations are also created by our Sanskaras. Because we are slaves to our own Sanskaras, we limit our happiness. But Sanskaras are learned, not innate. No one is born with the innate love for black coffee and dislike for milk coffee. We train ourselves or are trained to like coffee or milk coffee by our family, culture (Sanskriti), schooling and the general weltanschauung of the period. So later on, when I don't get my black coffee with the right amount of sugar for my morning coffee I lose my cool and I blow off or I get irritated and in some cases I may even throw a tantrum and ruin my relationship with my wife or husband, as the case maybe. I expect something because Sanskaras or conditionings propel me to expect it. The most famous example of conditioning or Sanskara in the twentieth century was the Pavlov Dog conditioning. Pavlov rang the bell in front of the experimental dog and then gave him good food that he liked. He did this over and over again until whenever Pavlov rang the bell, the dog automatically began salivating. This is Sanskara or conditioning. We humans would like to believe that we are better off than that poor dog who was more like an automaton. But is that really true?

199. Continuing with how sanskara influences us everyday III Look at your own life and it is not very difficult to notice that you yourself, with all your pride of being a superior, intelligent human are not so different than Pavlog's dog. Your family and societies and culture have merely replaced Pavlov, and your family culture, class culture, societal culture, education, ideologies have merely replaced Pavlov in ingraining you with all kinds of Sanskaras (conditioning) so that you react like an automaton just like the dog and salivate your ideas, beliefs, reactions, actions in your day to day life. For instance, most Nepalis who are morning bed tea drinkers cannot stomach the idea of having a cup of coffee in the morning bed. Some may even get angry or disgusted or dissatisfied or become unhappy if a cup of coffee was handed over to them in their morning bed. And on the other hand, they would feel very contended if a good hefty glass of tea with the right mix of sugar and milk was offered to them when they wake up in the morning. They have been trained to drinking 'chiya' (the Nepali style tea) as soon as they wake up. Now, what is the difference between this reaction to 'chiya' and to Pavlov s bell? Most people do not even realize that they spend their whole life in a haze created by their Sanskara. What they see as true or false, or as right and wrong as what should be done or should not be done, what they believe is possible or impossible, what they like and dislike, the type of dress they prefer and the type of dress they believe is either incorrect or inappropriate or even impossible for them to wear, the type of food they prefer, the type of people they like or dislike, the type of people they get along very well with easily or the type of people they just cannot stand; are all results of their Sanskrars and they have no more truth to them than the belief many so called educated Nepalis have that if you touch your neck with your fingers you must blow your fingers otherwise you are bound to get goiter. Time and again I have seen so-called educated Nepalis blow their fingers dedicatedly every time their fingers manage to touch their neck, so dedicatedly that one would almost believe that they really believed in this non-sense. When we ask them, their intellectual understanding makes them laugh at it but yet the very moment when and if their hands touch their neck they ever so dedicatedly blow on their hands unconsciously as if their life depends on it. This is what Sanskaras are.

200. Learning the right sanskaras

Not all Sanskaras are useless or valueless. Some Sanskaras were developed at times when such a Sanskara was useful for the smooth running of society; but many of them became outdated and lost their value as time went by. However, members of the society stick to things as if a curse will fall upon them if they abandoned it. Very often they continue in the name of Sanskriti (culture). After all Sanskriti (culture) is derived from the word Sanskara. And often a Sanskara subscribed by a Sanskriti (culture) a hundred years ago or even thousand years ago when that Sanskara had some value in that ancient context is adhered to as if it was their religion and Dharma, when not only is it merely an outmoded Sanskara but also it is not Dharma per se. Some Sanskara as part of cultures are downright obstructive to growth and fulfillment of life, but because they are old Sanskriti (culture) people are reluctant or in some cases even afraid to relinquish them for better Sanskaras, which are more suitable to the time. There are Sanskaras which help in growth and psychological development, etc. For instance, the only different between a really educated person and country lout who has had no education are their sets of Sanskaras. Most people think that education is a collection of information. Then a B.A. has (or is supposed to have) more information that a ten plus two and a Masters is supposed to have more information than a Baccalaureate. But this kind of education (the mere collection of more and more information) is useless and valueless. It doesn't help the MAs to live life better than the BAs. And actually if a ten plus twoer made efforts he could collect more information than a Master level student. In such a case BAs and MAs become just formalized institutionalized forces with little meaning. When Einstein was once asked what is education, he replied that education is what remains after everything that has been learnt at school and college has been forgotten. So what remains? It is the way the person sees life and himself and others. It is the way she acts and reacts to the circumstances of life. It is the way she acts and reacts to the circumstances of life. It is the way she lives life. All these are based on good Sanskaras (Su-Sanskaras). When she meets another human being, she smiles and does Namaskar or says good morning etc. etc. That is Su-Sanskaras (good conditioning). She doesn't eat with a loud slurp that irritates those around her or disturbs them, that is Su-Sanskara. She helps others when they need help. That is Su-Sanskaras. She does not steal from others, cheat others, kill others, lie to others, etc. etc. All these are Su-Sanskaras, which helps in the smooth running of society and human relationships and helps in her own continuous happiness.

Copyright Byoma Kusuma Buddhadharma Sangha 2011. All Rights Reserved

201. Sanskaras and information learned in schools and colleges Sanskaras are what remains after everything that we have learnt at school or college (maths, algebra, trigonometry, et al.) has been forgotten. The twelfth century Egyptian Sufi Master, El Ghazali, whose thoughts influenced Western thinking a lot, but was not given much credence by Western civilization, knew about Sanksaras (conditioning) long before Pavlov. He says very clearly that education is not the collection of information but rather a change in consciousness. Just collecting more and more information does not necessarily change consciousness. In fact, you can collect more and more information but your consciousness may not change or transform or broaden. What did El Ghazali mean by change of consciousness? He himself gives an apt example. He says a small child of four or five does not and cannot possibly know or understand what goes on in the mind of an adult, in the same way an uneducated adult, a country bumpkin with no education at all cannot and does not know what goes on in the mind of an educated adult. Likewise, an educated man does not and cannot know what goes on in the mind of a learned man (liked Einstein or Stephan Hawkins), and in the same way a learned man cannot and does not know what goes on in the mind (consciousness) of a sage (like the Buddha, Lao Tsu or Ghazali, Sankaracharya, Christ etc. etc.). Why? Because of the change of consciousness that distinguishes these levels of people. For instance, due to experiences etc., the mind of an adult changes (hopefully!) from that of a former five-year-old child. This change in consciousness brought about by exposure to life and its experiences is what distinguishes the mind of an adult from that of a five year old child. And this change in consciousness is what remains after everything learned at school and college (information gathering mostly) has been forgotten. So El Ghazali and Einstein are saying the same thing in different words. Now going back to Sanskaras. There are two types of changes in consciousness. One change in consciousness is basically change in Sanskaras. But if we are talking about evolutionary change in consciousness, i.e. change in consciousness in terms of growth and development of the mind (consciousness), we are talking

about change of more and more refined Sanskaras. This is the difference in consciousness between a civilized educated person and an uneducated jungle man; and also between a four years old kid and a mature man. This is not necessarily an addition of more and more information.

202. Real freedom from sanskaras A person can accumulate more and more information and yet Sanskaras can worsen more and more in terms of his consciousness/mind. But there is another type of change of consciousness which is not related to making the Sanskaras (conditioning) more and more refined, but rather freeing the mind of all Sanskaras (Sarva Sanskarachaya). This is the change of consciousness that produces a sage. I need to emphasize that there are degrees of freedom from Sanskaras (conditioning) and these degrees are what are termed called sage-hood. This is the measuring rod to evaluate different systems to sage-hood. Which system has a way or path to really free us from all Sanskaras, which system actually add some Sanskaras, while cutting some Sanskaras only in the name of cutting all Sankaras, and which system actually add more Sanskaras to the ones already existing in the name of Dharma (religion or freedom)? Here it is necessary to understand what exactly freedom from Sanskaras mean. Freedom from Sanskaras means the person is not bound by Sanskaras but that does not mean that the person is incapable of using useful Sanskaras even when circumstances demand it. Freedom means ability to use or let go Sanskaras for the benefit of others and oneself. Many people who believe they are free from Sanskaras are merely grasping to the opposite type of Sanskaras or the dislike for the sanskaras etc. Any kind of grasping is Trishna/Upadana. If I hold on to the opposite Sanskaras, ideas, beliefs, this is not true freedom from Sanskaras. For instance, I can hold on to one end of a stick. Let us take that as a metaphor to grasping to holding on to Sanskaras. Now, the stick represents the Sanskara or sanskaras and I am grasping on to it because I believe I want it this is craving and grasping (Trishna and Upadana). Now, I'm holding on to one end of the stick and some one tells me that this grasping is what causes my suffering. If I stop grasping on to the stick at the end and hold on to the stick by holding on to the opposite end of the stick, then I have not really let go of the stick or Sanskara/sanskaras/conditionings. I've just changed my position of grasping on to the other end of the stick, the opposite

Sanskara. This is a very subtle part that most people and systems miss out. If I like a certain sweet that is grasping, craving or clinging to the sweet. If I hate that sweet that is not really freedom from the sweet but just holding on to the sweet or Sanskara from the negative angle, i.e. the other end of the stick. When I do not hold on to/ grasp /crave /cling on to either end of the stick, I am free to use the stick as the situation demands. 203. Using the sanskaras without being chained to them When I do not hold on to/ grasp /crave /cling on to either end of the stick, I am free to use the stick as the situation demands. This is freedom from Sanskaras. There is a beautiful story in the Jataka told by the Buddha himself. Many of the stories of the Jataka told by the Buddha have made their way into the Pancha Tantra stories, the Aesop fables and many stories are used by Hindu swamis today in their teachings. In this story, there was a venomous and very angry snake/naga living near a field where children of the village would come to play. One day a renunciant (a former incarnation of the Buddha when he was still a Bodhisattva on the path of the Buddhhood (Buddhata)) was passing by that place. This snake had killed many people in his anger. There was an encounter between the two, and the snake seeing the peaceful state of the renunciant asked him for some teaching. The renunciant taught him compassion and non-violence. The snake was convinced by the renunciant s teaching and made a firm resolve to let go of all forms of violence. So the next day, the snake came out of its pit and was peacefully basking in the sun. Some kids came along to play in the field nearby. At first, when they saw the infamous snake, they all became frightened. But then some of the kids noticed that the snake did not attack them as usual, as the snake did not respond in the usual way. So he pelted the snake hesitatingly with some stones but the naga didn t show any signs of being perturbed .Then another kid threw more stones at the naga and yet another boy threw stones and the snake s bones were broken and it was wounded very badly. But still the snake did not get angry and attack the kids. A few days later, the renunciant, who had taught the snake non-violence and compassion, came by to see how the snake was faring. But he saw the Naga was deeply wounded and all his back bones broke and asked the Naga/snake what had happened. The Naga replied, I followed your instruction to the word and did not attack the children even when they pelted me

with sticks and stones. I didn t get angry with them. But look what happened to me when I followed your teachings. Then the renunciant told the Naga that he was sad for what happened to the Naga, however, he said, I taught you not to lose your temper and kill the children. I didn t teach you to not pretend to be angry or not to frighten the children away. If you had just pretended to be angry and fanned your hood as if you were really angry with them, the kids would all have run off and left you alone and you wouldn t have had to go through this. So this is letting go of anger and being able to use it when necessary.

204. More on using your sanskaras To continue with the story of the Naga. The Naga was holding on to the concept of the opposite of anger so it was afraid to even pretend that he was angry for fear that he might really lose his cool completely and revert back to his old anger. So this is what freedom from Sanskaras means. Most people do not understand this point. They think being free from anger and other Sanskaras mean being like the snake, not being able to even pretend that he has lost his cool. People are afraid to even pretend because psychologically if people are not really free from the Sanskaras then they know it subconsciously and they subconsciously know that if they even try to pretend, the hidden Sanskaras might raise its head again. So they are afraid even to pretend. But a person is really free from the Sanskara if s/he can use that Sanskara as the situation demands without fear of the Sanskara raising its head again as it's hold on the mind has been completely destroyed. If a person is really free from a Sanskara then the person is free to use and or use the Sanskara as the situation demands. This brings us to a point about an enlightened person about which most people of the Indian Subcontinent are confused about because of the vague lay person's cultural concepts about how an enlightened being should or must behave. These concepts are based on vague notions which are in turn based on misunderstanding of improperly understood technical words imbibed through the activities of the culture at large. There is also the difference between the behavior of an enlightened being as understood within Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. Most people in the Indian Subcontinent (after Buddhism vanished from the Indian

Subcontinent and Hinduism, which is an offshoot of the interaction between Vedic Bramanism and Buddhism, began to rise) have a vague concept that an enlightened being is like a stone, without feelings and not sensitive to the outer world, almost like a stone statue which is feeling-dead. A feeling-dead person is not an enlightened person according to Mahayan Buddhism. According to some commentaries of the Hindu text Yoga Vasistha, it is very clear that as the person climbs up the ladder of Hindu-Vedantic enlightment, he becomes more and more withdrawn from the world which is here and now. He finally arrives at a state where he is so absorbed in the inner Braman/Atman that he virtually cannot perform even the basic needs. Thus, it is said if people put food in his mouth he will eat, otherwise he will be incapable of eating. More on this later.

205. More on using your sanskaras (II) Stories of Poonja Swami of South India also confirms to this kind of state, which in modern psychology is called dissociative and considered a state of mental disbalance, where the person is no more in proper contact with the real world of here and now, and more and more absorbed in his own mental world. This is the antithesis of the Buddhist enlightenment, and especially the enlightenment of the Mahayana/Bodhisatvayana. Even in the Theravada Suttas, we never find the Buddha so withdrawn into his enlightened mind that his disciples had to put food into his mouth. In his entire life, except when he was in deep meditation, we never find the Buddha in a state oblivious to this world of here and now (Drishtadharma). In fact, in his entire life he was a very here and now person who lived fully in the here and now, sensitive to the world here and now. In the Bodhisattva way, also called Mahayana, which consists of two Highways called the Paramitayana and the Vajrayana, the deeper one travels the path of enlightenment, the more sensitive the person becomes to the rich display of all the hues of life and the world here and now, and becomes more richly aware of the world here and now and less and less lost in her own mental world. It can be seen that this is the antithesis of what the Yoga Vasistha commentaries describe. If one does not become more and more sensitive to the world here and now, there is no possibility of Karuna (compassion) to develop, as compassion is based on seeing and feeling the suffering of the world (self and others). If we become dissociative or lost in our own mental world (no matter what name you give it - Atman, Brahma or God - we cannot even feel or see the gnawing suffering (Dukha) of the world as we are not present there. In such a case, such a

person cannot empathize or sympathize with the sufferings of others. In such a case, we cannot possibly have compassion (Karuna) towards the suffering of the world with whom we cannot even empathize or sympathize as we will have lost contact with that world of suffering. As Karuna is one of the very foundational corner stone of the way of Mahayana, there can be no Mahayana practice without it. And practice of Karuna makes one more and more sensitive to the fine innuendoes and conotations of suffering other beings are going through.

206. More on using your sanskaras (III) According to the Bodhisatvayana (Mahayana), an enlightened being is not someone that has a mind that is neutral and without feeling, like a piece of a stone statue. An enlightened being is a living dynamic being living in the here and now fully. If she is living fully in the here and now, she is also fully aware of sensitive to feels the pain and suffering of the world (Sansara). If she cannot feel the pain and suffering of the world, she cannot have Karuna (compassion). Either she is in the world or she is dissociated from the world and there are degrees to these to states. To the degree, she (the enlightened being) is in the world, she also feels its pain and suffering; she is sensitive to its travails. But it is also a natural result that to the degree she's sensitive to and of the world she forgets herself. This is the meaning of Karuna (compassion). And to the degree, she forgets herself, which depends upon the degree she's in here and now, which means the degree she's sensitive of the real world, is the degree that she herself becomes free from suffering thereby by forgetting herself and along with it her personal pains, neurosis, suffering. This is the meaning of Anatma in Buddhism. Dogen, the eleventh century founder of Japanese Soto Zen Buddhism, said, 'To study Buddhism is to study the self. To study the self is to FORGET The Self, to forget the self is to be enlightened by the hundred thousand things'. The phrase 'hundred thousand things' is an expression in the far eastern cultures like Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc., for all the experiences of life which is in effect the Sansara. To be enlightened by the hundred thousand things one needs to forget the self. To forget the self is the meaning of Anatma. There is to no more feeling experientially that "I" am the center of my world from where I experience the world separate from me. This is weltenschauung, which is the Zeitgeist of the average man of today and that has many implications. If the world is out there separate from a real Me who exist in here, 'I' take

precedence to the 'World out there'. Thus, the world becomes a consumer good out there to be used for my exploitation, but there are others who may want it too for their consumption and exploitation. Thus, I begin to hate or dislike that other 'I' who is the world for 'Me' anyway and thus can easily be another consumer item to be exploited for consumption.

207. Perpetuating moha is not enlightenment So 'I' get angry with that other 'I' who too wants to consume the same thing that 'I' want. That angry 'I' may be extremely attached to the world out there which 'I' want to consume as my own. This is attachment, desire or greed. Or I may feel this world is too much for me. It burns me, either way. So I withdraw from this world into my own 'I' or self and become dissociated from this 'terrible' world. To the degree 'I' withdraw into my own world and become less and less sensitive to the world (Samsara). I seem to become more and more free from natural suffering entangled by anger, hatred, dislike of the world or attachment, like, greed of the world. However, this is a false freedom. This is just moving from one prison, the prison of Kama and Krodha (attachment and hatred) into the prison of Moha (insensitive stupidity). That is why the Buddha rejected all such methods where the self is withdrawn from the outer world of here and now into an inner self, while the suffering (Dukha) of Kama (desire, attachment) and Krodha (anger and hatred) seems more pronounced. It is not correct to think that Moha is not suffering (Dukha). If Moha, delusion, stupidity means freedom from Dukha, the all drug addicts are free from suffering. If you are shown something that you dislike, like your enemy or a piece of shit, your reaction is to become angry, irritated, etc. This is what is called Krodha/ Dvesha (anger, hatred). If I show you a beautiful rose or somebody you like, you will like it. This is called Kamacchanda/kamaraga/kamavasana/lobha (attachment, greed, desire). If I show you an ordinary pencil, your reaction is neutral, you neither like it or dislike it. This is called Moha, which can be translated into English as dullness, stupidity, confusion or inability to be sensitive.

208. State of moha opposite of here and now Staying in a neutral, dull state with no attachment, hatred or dislike towards anything is Moha and this is not the Buddhist enlightenment state. Nor was the

Buddha in that state. Moha is also a Sanskara and remaining in the state of Moha which appear to be neutral (tatastha) is not really freedom from all Sanskaras. To be truly free from Sanskaras, one needs to be free from Moha also. If one is free from Moha, one is alert to the world here and now, not lost in some inner world, imagined or real. In the Indian Subcontinent, after Buddhism vanished due to the Islamic invasion, which literally destroyed Buddhism and all its support, etc., it has become the culture to believe that enlightened beings are like stones, who are neutral and feeling-dead to the world of here and now. But such a state is retrogressive going backwards towards the animal and mineral kingdom, rather than progressing towards growth which should even with simple logic become more aware, more sensitive to your surroundings. As long as this 'I' is considered as the centre of your world, the only way I can be free from suffering which appears to be coming from the world out there, is to withdraw from that insufferable world into oneself. This result is the same whether one capitalize it as Oneself or calls it oneself. This is at best only a temporary solution which only blocks the suffering temporarily as the root cause of that suffering has not been destroyed but only blocked off. Secondly, in such a modus operandi there may not appear to be suffering as it is temporarily blocked off but the downside is that there is no authentic joy too. But it is just a dull state like a desert-wasteland. This is Moha. However, this is not a state free from suffering and joy but a state so dull that one does not feel either the suffering or the joy. This is not really different from an alcoholic who gets fully inebriated so as not to feel the suffering of his/her personal life. Well, the guzzler will not feel any suffering as long as she remains drowned in alcohol but neither will she feel any joy too - a joy that is the result of real freedom from suffering. So freedom from all Sanksaras would have to include freedom from the Sanskara called Moha too. The second method of freeing oneself from Sanskaras is to see that 'I' am not the centre of the world but am just a Sanskara like all the Sanskaras and am not really different.

209. Vipassana in Pali or Vipashyana in Sanskrit found in different Buddhist systems The method of freeing oneself from Sanskaras is to see that 'I' am not the centre of the world but am just a Sanskara like all the other Sanskaras and am not really

different which appears to be out there separate from me (due to Sanskara). This is the true meaning of Vipashayana. The now famous word Vipassana is only the Pali word for the Sanskrit Vipashyana and both the Pali and Sanskrit traditions define Vipashyana as Visheshena passati as seeing, especially seeing holistically (Vividena). And Vipashayana is found in all forms of Buddhism as its main meditation practice and is not the special property of the Theravada tradition. Nor is there only one method of Vipashyana which is taught in the centre in Budhanilkanta in Kathmandu as taught by Sri Goenka ji. Even the Theravada texts do not validate such historically misleading notion. There are many other methods of Vipassana of the Theravada traditions still being taught by authentic teachers in Laos, Thailand and Cambodia, and Burma certainly is not the only Theravada country where somehow the so called pure Vipassana/Vipashyana methods of the Buddha survived. Another such misleading notion, which is rampant amongst these Acharyas (who should know better) is that they spread the quaint notion that Vipassana doesn't exist in Mahayana Vajrayana. Needless to say that these Theravada Acharyas have made such concepts based solely on their ten days or more retreats and without studying their own Pali literature what to say of any study of Mahayana systems and texts. Well, the Pali texts themselves contradict the quaint notion that only what Sri Goenka ji teaches is the so called pure and true Vipassana. Even the Buddha himself taught many forms of Vipassana and the many Ajhans(Acharyas) of Thailand and Laos are living proofs of that fact. They all teach Vipassana according to the Theravada methods and none of them are even closely like the method of Goenka ji, but actually quite different from his methods. And what is more interesting is that even the Pali Suttas and their Burmese commentaries and the Athakathas (which are older commentaries) validate the method of Vipashayana as found in all forms of Mahayana and Vajrayana. We shall go into greater details into them when we come to the Marga Satya (the truth of the Path of the Noble Truths Chatvari Arya Satyani). Right now, we are dealing with the second Noble Truth (Arya Satya), which is the Samudya Satya or the cause of suffering. 210. Vipashyana for recognizing and eliminating sanskaras

In the process of understanding the root cause of suffering we began to see into the twelve links of interdependent origination (Dwadas Nidan). And of the twelve links, we have finished Avidya (nescience or ignorance), we are currently

analyzing Sanskara (conditioning). Without Vipashyana, one cannot dislodge the Sanskara, which posits the 'I' as the centre of our world. That is why Vipashyana is the one and only way (Ekayana Magyo). But we must be careful here to fully understand that we are talking about Vipashyana as the Ekayan Maggo (the one and only way or the only way leading to freedom or Mukti from all the Sanskaras) and that Ekayano Maggo does not by any means the one and only special "special" meditation methods taught by any one particular Master. There are many ways and methods that Vipashyana can be done and has historically been done since the time of the Buddha himself. Vipashyana is not a name of one particular method of doing Vipashyana but a generic term for many methods. A couple of years ago we went into great details to define Vipashyana according to both Theravada and Mahayana traditions and we shall go into them again when we come to the Marga Satya (the Noble Truth of the Path). Suffice to say in a very simplified and short way that Vipashyana is any method that helps in seeing (Pashyana or Passati) specially (Vi) that all Dharmas (phenomena) are not really the way we see them but rather Anitya/Amicca (impermanent), Dukha (suffering), not me not my (Anatma/Anatta Anatmiya) and Sunya/Suyya (Empty). It is through mindfulness and discerning awareness called Smriti Samprajanya that we become aware of our own Sanskaras. Without Smriti Samprajanya (mindfulness and discerning awareness) which is a key element in Vipashyana/Vipassana meditations, no one can possibly become aware of our hidden Sanskaras lodged so deep in our unconscious. Normally, our Sanskaras are very powerful because they are lodged very deeply in our unconscious mind. Because they are so entrenched rather strongly in our unconscious mind we tend not to be aware of them. Because we are not even aware of them they are very powerful. Actually, most of them are more unconscious than subconscious in the sense we do not even know about them and are not aware of them and they are not brought into awareness easily. But exactly because they are in our unconscious mind, they are more powerful in controlling us. Even in modern psychotherapy, one of the main objectives of psychotherapists is to bring up ones unconscious material (Sanskaras) up to the conscious mind, i.e. to help patient become aware of them.

211. Awareness key to eliminating sanskaras

The founder of Gestalt therapy, Fritz Perls, says, "Awareness is Curative". So even just to become aware of what Sanskara we have and how it has influenced my behavior, how it is controlling us, how it defines what I can see and what I want to see or sometimes cannot see, how I perceive the world out there, how I interpret the world of my experience, etc. etc. can in itself be curative. That is why the practice of Smriti Samprajanya (mindfulness and discerning awareness) is so crucial to becoming free from our Sanskaras. Meditation systems not based on Smriti Samprajanya cannot help us become aware of our Sanskaras. If the meditation is not about remaining mindful with discerning awareness (watching what comes up neutrally with mindfulness or Smriti, and discern (not thinking)), the fact that whatever arises is impermanent (anitya) and therefore not some permanent, real thing that I cannot be free from, that it is suffering or the cause of my suffering (Dukha), which is what we were never told to realize and thus continue to propagate as if that Sanskara was dear and near to me, and that it is neither me or mine (Anatma Anatmiya), therefore I can gently let it go even though until now I thought that that Sanskara or these constellation of Sanskaras were what made 'ME'; then such a mediation can help us free ourselves from those Sanskaras which are one of the major cause and conditions of our suffering. Such meditations are called Vipashyana/Vipassana. Other meditations like concentration on some light on the third eye or some object (no matter what the object is) do not and will not necessarily make us aware of our unconscious Sanskaras etc.. And thus they will not help free us from those Sanskaras. Even in various methods of psychotherapies, one of the major elements used is to help us become aware of our unconscious elements, which are causing us problems. It is very important to understand that if we cannot become aware of our Sanskaras and their workings, we cannot possibly become free from them in anyway whatsoever, even according to modern forms of psychotherapy. The more we are unaware of these Sanskara constellations, the more powerful they become in controlling us and our life, the more powerful they become in making our lives dysfunctional. If we want to free ourselves from these Sanskaras, which are making our life dysfunctional, the first and foremost step is to bring up into our awareness what or which set of Sanskara are causing these dysfunctional behaviors in us.

212. Recognizing and eliminating sanskaras

In modern psychotherapeutic language, they (Sanskaras) may be called complexes, traumas, etc., but all such catagories are subsumed under Sanskaras. If we are not even fully aware of what Sanskaras control us, there is no way we can become free from them. The more aware we are of any of our Sanskara/conditionings, the weaker they become in controlling us. It is those Sanskaras of which we are so totally unaware that we tend to even deny the fact that they are in us; that are the most powerful in controlling us like puppets on strings. These Sanksaras which are in the unconscious mind have more power in controlling us from inside than those Sanskaras that we are aware of. Therefore, from this point of view which is also the point of view of modern psychotherapy, Sanskaras that we are not aware of and thus may think we do not have them, or may even deny we have them when somebody else points it out to us, are the strongest, most powerful and most dangerous in the way it controls our behavior, our views, our beliefs and the way we experience our world and how we interpret our world. But because it is in the unconscious mind, we are not only totally unaware of them and how they can control us but also it is not so easy to be aware of them even if we wanted to become aware of them. However, their influence in us is seen by those around us and those who are trained to see it, as they raise their heads up in our daily behaviors and activities, actions and reactions to the situations of life. They usually tend to show their heads above the deep in times of stress and problems when our controlled, learned, trained balance tends to go out of wack. But if you train yourself systematically in Srimit-Samprajanay (mindfulness and discerning awareness) then to the degree you have trained yourself; you can become more and more aware of their presence. And as Fritz Per, the founder of Gestalt therapy says, "Awareness itself is curative"; becoming aware of these Sanskaras and the role they play in our lives is the first step towards becoming free from them. However, to be truly free from these Sanskaras, it is not enough to be vaguely aware of them through some mindfulness meditation learned from books, although even that has some benefits, but one needs to learn the practices of Smriti-Samprajanay systematically in a proper way. 213. Categorization of sanskaras This is the true meaning and purpose of Vipashyana/Vipassana excerpt last

week's article: To be truly free from Sanskaras, it is not enough to be vaguely aware of them through some mindfulness meditation learned from books, although even that has some benefits, but one needs to learn the practices of Smriti-Samprajanay systematically in a proper way. It is Sanskaras based on and fed by Avidhya (nescience), which produces Trishna (craving), the seventh link, and then grasping, the eighth link of the chain of interdependent origination/causation(Pratitya Samayutpad) triggered by a series of other factors in the chain. And this seventh link, which is Trishna (craving) of which we will discuss later, which is the independent cause of all our suffering, of which too we will touch upon although we have already gone into greater details about it when we took on the first Noble Truth (Arya Satya), which is the truth of suffering (Dukha Satya). Right now, we are discussing the second Noble Truth, which is the truth of origination(Samudaya Satya). In the Abhidharma of Sarvastivada and the Abhidharma of the Theravada, we find various categorizations of the Sanskaras but in an article like this, we need not go into such details. Suffice it to say that the Abhidharma categorizes 46 Sanskaras called 46 Chaittas or Chaitasikas (mental factors), while the Theravada Abhidharma categorizes 54 Chetasiks in Kamavachara (the realm of desire). But all of these can be subsumed into the three major Sanskaras. They are: Kama (attachment, desire, like, greed), Krodha or Dvesha (anger, hatred, irritation, dislike) and Moha(dullness, stupidity, non clarity). Their opposites are also Sanskaras in a way, however, we do not eliminate them or pacify them, which is the correct meaning of prashamana. Actually the purpose is not to completely eliminate all Sanskaras as that would make humans into total unfeeling stones or perhaps a more appropriate analogy in the modern world would be a cyborg or a robot with no feelings at all. It is not the objective of Buddhism to produce the borgs like those found in Star Trek, who are more like mechanical computer beings with no feelings at all. The Buddha or an arhat or high level bodhisattvas who are bodhisattvas above the eighth Bhumi are not like the Queen Borg in star trek who is more like some sort of a rational computer machine who is emotion-dead. Such borg-like beings could not possibly have any compassion at all. Without compassion there is no Mahayana Enlightenment of the lowest level, what to speak of a Buddha. 214. Sanskaras' link to karma

It is not the objective of Buddhism to produce Borgs like those found in Star Treks, who are mechanical computer beings with no feelings. A Buddha or an Arhat is not like the Queen Borg in Star Trek, who is some sort of a rational semi-machine but emotionally dead. Such a state of mind with no compassion (Karuna), no empathy, no sympathy or in the language of Star Trek, where compassion empathy sympathy becomes irrelevant is a monstrosity still immersed in Moha (mental confusion). A person can be very sharp in linear thinking but still be in Moha, where his own mental activity only confuses him more and more. Such beings that are emotionally dead, neutral to all feeling or incapable of feeling like love, compassion, empathy, sympathy but have immense intellectual rational acuity are monstrosities rather than enlightened beings. In Mahayana, the purpose of all practice is to pacify all the negative Sanskaras, which is what the word prashamana means normally, and develop all the good qualities already inherent within our true nature, which is called Buddha Nature. Our Buddha Nature has infinite positive qualities, which should be developed if a person is to be enlightened. If a practitioner practices types of meditation or paths which fosters remaining in the neutral feeling- dead state of Moha, such a method is certainly not going to develop the inherent qualities already present in our Buddha nature. Without their full development, one does not move in the direction of the Buddhist enlightenment. However, an integral part of the path of the Buddhist enlightenment is dealing with the Sanskaras, which are contributing factors to our suffering (Dukha). Klesha (emotional defilement) is very closely related to Karma because all our Sanskaras are related to Karma. We shall go into greater details about Karma when we come to the tenth link of the chain of interdependent origination (Pratithya Samputpada) but before that, let it be said here that Karma does not mean fate or some programme handed down by some God out there, but your own mental, physical etc., actions that you perform yourself and their results. It is your own actions which conditions you. Even when two people go through the same experiences they would/could interpret that very same experience in two different ways. It is that interpretation of that experience which conditions (Sanskara) the two persons in two different ways. That interpretation is one's own individual mental action or Karma and it is this interpretation which contribute to creating our Sanksaras. 215. World of words

It is Karma and Klesha which bind us to Dukha (suffering). It is Karma and Klesha (emotional defilements) which causes craving, the eighth link in the chain of interdependent origination. That is why Nagarjuna says Karma Klesha Chayaan Moksha which means liberation from suffering is attained when Karma and Klesha are pacified. He goes on to say Karma Klesha Vikalpita, which means Karma Klesha arise from Vikalpa. Now what is Vikalpa? The word Vikalpa is usually translated as concepts or conceptual thinking in English. In the Abhidharma, it is defined as Vishaya (object), Kalpana (imagination); from Vishaya Kalpana we have Vikalpa. So technically defined Vikalpa means the imagination or imagined ideas of the objects (Vishaya) of our sensory experiences, experienced by the six senses. So Vikalpa is the imagination or fantasies we have about the objects of our experiences, which believe in as true. These imaginations or thoughts or concepts are heavily based on verbal thinking; that is why Vikalpa can also be defined as verbal thinking. Man has created words and language which makes him more sophisticated than his other animal brothers. But it is this very language and verbal thinking based on the language which takes him away from reality and this initiates suffering. It is as if man created the motorbike to ride on it to facilitate his transportation but somehow the motorbike begins to ride on him. Man created language and words to communicate but these words and verbal thinking based on those words to communicate began to define his world. Our words, language, language structure defines what we can see and what we fail to see, what we experience and how we experience it and how we interpret it. A scientific research has been done to see the effect of different languages in the brain and it was found that different cells in the brain fired when different languages were spoken. Although the full implication of this is yet to be evaluated, we can safely say that our language structures do define the world of our experiences. The Eskimos have around fifty or so words for snow whereas the English or Nepali language have just a few words. Now, as a Nepali, it is easy to see that because of our language we cannot even imagine let alone experience fifty types of snow. Therefore, when an average Nepali goes to Alaska, s/he would fail to see more than what s/he calls 'hiu/snow'. We can guarantee that s/he will not experience/see more than one (or two kinds of snow). But an Eskimo would see and distinguish

and experience fifty or so different types of snow. 216. The real seeing An Eskimo can see, distinguish and experience fifty or so different types of snow. But that's not all. Even your Weltenschauung/world view i.e. the way you think, feel, experience and interpret your world, the world of your experience is heavily colored by your language. Then Nagarjuna says Karma and Klesha (emotional defilement) arise from Vikalpa (verbal and conceptual thinking). Conceptual and verbal thinking relies heavily on words and languages. We cannot possibly have thoughts and concepts without words and language. Now what is Vikalpa, verbal thinking or concepts? The Pragyapradip of Bhavavivek says, 'Dukhaadukha sakala kalpana vikalpebhya'. This means, - all imaginations like happiness and suffering etc. etc. arise from Vikalpa (conceptual thinking). And Vikalpa (verbal-conceptual thinking) itself is, as we have said, the imagination of the objects of our experience (the Kalpana/imagination of vishaya/objects of the six senses). This imagination is heavily colored by our Sanskaras (conditionings). Thus, when I 'see' Ram Lal, I may see him as a horrible man, a cut throat, a crook, an enemy or someone I hate, but when Anita looks at or sees the same Ram Lal, she may see a handsome, smart, intelligent, adorable, lovable young man. Now that raises two questions. First of all, how can the same Ram Lal be both lovable and hated, and secondly, who or what or which one is the Real Ram Lal? Obviously, Anita and I see Ram Lal according to our Sanskaras, which label him as either loveable or a cut-throat. But then, it is our Sanskaras- colored reading of Ram Lal and not the real Ram Lal as he really is (Yathabhuta). Ram Lal is just a unit of our world but Ram Lal is our world. That is how we experience the world and we never see, experience, know the world as it is (Yathabhut or Tathata). When I see a lump of shit, I dislike it, I find it disgusting, and that is based on my conceptual thinking (vikalpa), the imagination of the object (lump of shit here) acquired (sanskaras/conditioning) through familial and socio-cultural training. I've been taught by my parents, society and my language that a lump of shit is disgusting, yucky et al. but how many mothers have seen their little infant gleefully play around with their own lump of shit and enjoying it too as if it were a lump of clay, until she shrieks sky high to the infant's total surprise?

217. All sanskaras are learnt When I see a lump of shit, I dislike it. This is based on my conceptual thinking. I have been taught by my parents, society and my language that a lump of shit are disgusting. It has become such a strong part of my conditioning (Sanskara) that I take it as a fact, without even questioning that a lump of shit is disgusting, it is yuck. But how many mothers have seen their small infant play around with their own lump of shit as if it was a lump of clay and enjoying it too before she shrieked to the infant's surprised. If a lump of shit was really, really yucky as we feel it now, then the infant too should have felt it without the mother shrieking to the infant to stop it. So we can see that the yucky-ness of the lump is a conceptual process learnt by us (as infants) and acquired rather than innate. This example is a very good example of how concepts can be so strong that they overwhelmingly override facts and create their own facts. Even after intellectually understanding the actual fact a lump of shit will still be so strongly yucky to many people that even the thought of it can make them puke. Now, in the same way, if I showed you a bouquet of roses you would smile and be attracted towards it. But if I showed you some weed flowers, you would not react in the same way even though if we were to waive aside our conditioned conceptual reflex towards what we have been taught as beautiful roses and dirty weeds, we can see that some of the weed flowers are as beautiful if not even more beautiful than the rose. Related to this, below is a very famous Haiku by a famous Zen Master and haiku poet of Japan, Basho {1644-1694}: Yoku mireba Nazuna hana saku Kakine kana; which means When I look carefully/nazuna is blooming/beneath the hedge. Nobody notices a Nazuna (a weed flower which lies full bloom under the hedge. Why? Conditioning (Sanskara) is the answer and that is reinforced by our conceptual, habitual patterns learned by us through training within our familyculture-constellation. So the roses is a "wow" to us while a Nazuna is to be

trampled on or weeded out and not even noticed. If you put a Nazuna flower (weed) and a rose in front of an infant, she would not see the difference we see between them because she has not been adulterated by her socio-cultural norms.

218. Categorizing sanskaras

A rose is not really a rose but what the word rose charged with all my sociocultural-linguistic Sanskaras make it out to be. A Nazuna from Basho's haiku in the previous article) is not a Nazuna and we do not 'see' it as it is (Yathabhutha). The object rose or nazuna or a lump of shit are not experienced as they really are or as it is (Yathabhuta). But they (the Vishaya or object) are coloured by our imagination (Kalpana) and so we experience the imagination of the object or Vikalpa(the Vishaya Kalpana). So we do not per se experience the world as it really is per se but more through our own conceptual goggles. So the lump of shit is yucky, Ram Lal is cute handsome or cut-throat as the case maybe. So now going back to the more classical category, when I see a lump of shit, I dislike it and that is hate, anger, etc. called dvesha, krodha, etc. When I am shown a beautiful bouquet of roses I like it for the same kind of reasons I dislike the lump shit. I reach out for it, I find it attractive etc. etc. and this is greed, desire and attachment, etc. etc. called Lobha, Kama and Raga, etc. etc. If someone were to show me or you an ordinary pencil, I would neither like it nor dislike it but react neutrally to it. Now, this Moha, often translated into English as stupidity, dullness, insensitiveness or confusion. It's a kind of mental state where one is incapable of being aesthetically sensitive to the fine aesthetical qualities (called rasa in Sanskrit) of our experiences, like as if we were in a very subtle unrecognizable stupor, as if our mind were dulled or mesmerized. When we are feeling drowsy, tipsy, drugged, it is easy to see that the mind is in a state of Moha but in normal states, we do not easily notice it, but normally when we are in a so-called neutral state like when we experience an ordinary pencil, we are in a state of Moha. Many spiritual systems mistake this neutrality as some kind of an enlightened state. But that kind of neutrality comes at the expense of loss or clarity or by dulling one's awareness. If awareness is keen, sharp and sensitive, it cannot also be insensitive to feelings. Neutrality comes only when awareness becomes insensitive. Any loss of sensitivity is a marker for loss of awareness is called Moha, which is confusion-stupidity-dullness-unclearness are all rolled in

one.

219. Sanskaras are learned

We find that most spiritual systems seem to be trying to decrease the attraction or greed as well as repulsion, hatred, dislike towards things (Dharmas), but simply arriving at a state which is neutral to these two only lands us squarely into Moha. But most spiritual traditions are not even aware of this and thus instruct people to cultivate this neutral state (Tathasthata), which in effect is Moha. That is why simply remaining in awareness in a neutral state, no matter what name you give that awareness like Choice-less Awareness, Sakchi (witness), Drasta (Watcher), Gyata (Knower), Pure Awareness by itself (Chin matra), Atman (Self), etc. etc. does not free one from the neutral state of Moha. This is so even if that so called Awareness is without thoughts and concepts and non-dual. Going back to Nagarjuna, we have already mentioned that he has said Karma Klesha Cchayaan Mokcha or liberation is attained when Karma and Klesha (emotional defilements) are pacified etc. He goes on to say in his Magnum Opus, the Mula Madhyamicakarika (Tsa Uma) that Karma Klesha Vikalpata or Karma and Klesha (emotional defilement ) arises from Vikalpa (Vikalpa as we have seen is verbal conceptual thinking). So what this means is that it is our conceptual thinking pattern which create our Karma and our Kleshas (emotional defilements). Let's analyze this a little more on the basis of all that we have covered so far. When I see a rose, emotions of my liking it, etc. etc. are stirred up in me, which is Kama Cchanda or desire, attraction, liking. Now, this is heavily based on my conceptual thinking acquired through my upbringing etc. that that is a rose and a rose is 'beautiful', a rose is nice, a rose is a rose is a rose by whatever name you call it, etc. etc. Well, to an untrained un-sanskarita, not yet conditioned child, a rose and a lump of shit are the same. All this is not to say that Buddhism vouschaffes for the state of mind when a rose and lump of shit are the same as that is what we have been explaining as Moha (confusion or dullness). However, the point here is that those conceptual frameworks in us that tells us that the rose is beautiful and the lump of shit is yuck also binds us to the fact that they arise merely from learned concepts to such an extent that we are ready to murder strike or even go to war for

those concepts forgetting that they are acquired conceptual frameworks through which we are supposed to experience the world aesthetically.

220. Concepts and meditation techniques Conceptual frameworks in us that tell us that the rose is beautiful and the lump of shit is yucky (example from previous article) and that bind us to the fact that they arise merely from learned concepts to such an extent that we are ready to murder, strike or even go to war for those concepts, forgetting that they are acquired conceptual frameworks through which we are supposed to experience the world aesthetically. Therefore, merely stopping conceptual thinking by stopping thoughts through various methods is not enough. As first of all, these concepts remain latent and come out with a vengeance once allowed to appear. Even if they are suppressed through various kinds of methods like Nirvikalpa Samadhi for many Kalpas, they would just remain latent and remain ready to pop their heads up as soon as the Samadhi ends. That is why going into various Samatha-style Samadhis or just remaining thoughtless or non-conceptual does not really free us from Karma and Kleshas (emotional defilements) which bind us. We do not become liberated or free from Karma and Klesha (emotional defilements) by just practicing remaining in some kind of a thoughtless or concept-less state. Within Buddhism, there are two major categories of meditations. One is the group of meditational techniques which help calm down the mind by decreasing thoughts and concepts. There are many kinds of meditations which can achieve this and Buddhism by no means is the only repository of this kind of meditation which helps to calm down the mind of thoughts and concepts. Various meditation techniques from within Hinduism or even Sufism or Christianity or Jainism all belong to this category. In Buddhist technical language this form of meditation is called Samatha. 'Sama' means to remain in the 'same or unchanged' state, which means quiet without changing with new thoughts etc. every second, and 'stha' means to remain. So Samatha means to remain the same or quietened or tranquil or pacified free from thoughts and concepts. All the various types of meditation found within the Indian subcontinent today followed by various schools of Hinduism and Jainism and even new schools of thoughts like Rajneeshism or Krishnamurti ism all fall within this category of meditation called Samatha. True, it is that Krisnamurti claimed he had no method as all methods are

conditioned wrong, etc. etc. but in spite of his claim of a pathless path and following no methods, he did advocate remaining choice-lessly aware moment to moment. Well, that is a method and it is a type of meditation which comes under the category of Samatha meditation.

221. Samatha meditation in detail Krisnamurti claimed he had no method as all methods are conditioned wrong, etc. etc. but in spite of his claim of a pathless path and following no methods, he did advocate remaining choice-lessly aware moment to moment. Well, that is a method and it is a type of meditation which comes under the category of Samatha meditation and has been used by both Buddhism and Kashmiri Shaivism for thousands of years. It is definitely not new as Krishnamurti seems to imply, and within Buddhism just remaining choice-lessly aware of whatever happens is only a kind of mindful mediation and in itself does not automatically liberate us from Karma and Klesha, and thus does not liberate us from the conditioned mind (to put it in Krisnamurti's own words). No Samatha type meditational methods will liberate us and remaining merely in awareness certainly is not a new, fresh method discovered by Krisnamurti. Various methods of dropping thought so that only a kind of pure awareness by itself remains (chin-matra or Awareness only or Drasta-matra, watcher alone etc. etc.) no matter what method is used and no matter what name is given to that method like Kundalini yoga, Dynamic meditation, etc. etc. are all plain and simple Samatha methods. And as we have said often and again it is a very basic tenet of Buddhism that there is no freedom from Karma and Klesha emotional defilement, which means there is no liberation (Mokcha, Mukti, Tharpa in Tibetan) and thus no enlightenments by practicing only Samatha types of meditation. Why? Very Simple. All such types of meditation only stop thoughts and concepts temporarily by blocking them (Viskhambana) or suppressing them. But even while they are blocked, they continue to remain latent in the mind ready to pop their head up as soon as the person comes out of the Samatha or Samadhi. Samatha or Samadhi only push or block the emotional defilements temporarily, like suppressing them into the unconscious. When the person is in the SamathaSamadhi, all such Kleshas or emotional defilements are blocked, so the person appears to be free from them but since nothing has been done to cut their roots and thus really destroy them, they will pop their head up as soon as the person comes out of their Samatha and the causes and conditions for them to appear arise. Thus,

we have stories of ancient cities being destroyed by Rishis or Seers in spite or in anger even though they had the capacity to remain in Samadhi for long periods. 222. Samatha meditation in detail II Let me make it clear that every type of meditational practice found within all nonBuddhist systems can all be subsumed under Samatha type meditation, no matter what their name and how exotic they may appear. Let us again try to understand Samatha. Samatha is an important aspect of the Buddhist meditation. It is mainly about cultivating the capacity to remain one-pointed on any object. As the classical definition goes: Samadhir Upaparichaya Vastuni Chittasaik Agrata. Samadhi is the one-pointed concentration of the mind on the object of its investigation. Of course, there are many levels of one-pointed concentration on the object of its investigation and only one pointed concentration beyond a certain level can be called Samadhi. There are many levels of Samadhi. In the Buddhist categorization, there are four or five levels of Samadhi depending on the categorizing method used. These four are called: First Dhyana, Second Dhyana, Third Dhyana and Fourth Dhayan respectively as one achieves higher and higher levels of Samadhis. Samadhis create various Siddhis such as abilities to read others' mind and future and past, etc. etc., but such abilities have nothing to do with enlightenment or liberation (Mukti/Moksha). Such abilities are developed through the practice of Samatha type of meditation and we have already said that such types of meditations only block Kleshas (emotional defilements) temporarily and do not really uproot them. As the Kleshas (emotional defilements) are not uprooted, they cannot be free us from Dukha/suffering as Karma and Klesha are the root causes of Dukha. As practitioners of samatha type samadhis are not liberated or freed from Dukha/suffering yet, they cannot be called liberated (Mukta) even though they seem to posses all sorts of fantastic super normal powers called Siddhi-Riddhi. In the Indian Subcontinent (Bharat Vasha), there are two meanings of the word Siddha, which is often not distinguished by the average layman. The word means 'achieved' or 'attained'. So the person who has achieved or attained liberation is called a Siddha or Mahasiddha as the famous eighty four Mahasiddhas are called. However, there are many Yogis who have achieved super normal powers through rigorous practice of Samtha type of Samadhis and since such super normal powers are called Siddhi-Riddhi, such people are also called Siddhas. However, such people have not attained liberation (Mokcha/mukti) and thus are not Siddhas in that sense. Very often these two meanings are hopelessly mixed up in the psyche of

the people of the Indian subcontinent. So this has to be cleared up. The Buddha was very emphatic that the two types are not the same.

223. Use of miraculous powers in Buddhism Just because a person has miraculous powers (Siddhi Riddhis) does not guarantee that the person's also liberated (Mukta) or enlightened (Bodha Prapta), but an enlightened person will have some extraordinary powers. However, many enlightened persons normally do not display them throughout their life except in exceptional cases. This is a rule of law by Buddhist Masters as it was the command of the Buddha himself not to display one's miraculous powers (Siddha Riddhia) in the public. There is a story of Bharadwaj Pindola, a bhikchu and a disciple of the Buddha himself who had miraculous powers. One day while returning from his alms taking round, he saw a competition being held in a public arena. Atop a tall poll was a fish and it was announced that whoever could bring that fish down without touching it,it would prove that his Master was the greatest Master alive. Many people tried all sorts of tricks but failed to bring the fish down. When Pindola Bharadwaj heard this, he felt I could easily fly up and bring the fish down. Why not use my power to prove to the world that my Master is the greatest living Master right now? So he flew up to the top of the pole and picked the fish up and came down. He was of course applauded and his Master Gautama, the Buddha, was declared the greatest Master. Pindola Bharadwaj was very happy that he had helped declare the Buddha as the greatest Master with the help of his miraculous powers. He was sure the Buddha would pat him on the back and appreciate it. However, when the Buddha heard this episode, he called Pindola Bharadwaj and chastised him in front of all the monks and said - let it be known that whoever displays miracles (Siddhis) like this, that this is a sign that, that person is not my follower. Although Maudgalayayana, Aniruddha and Sagatha, many other disciples and the Buddha himself did continue to use miracles, they were always in a very specific context, always as part of the Dharma and never as an ego display. And in later centuries too in India, Tibet, China, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Burma, etc. etc., great Masters continued to use miracles when appropriate but never as some sort of display or ego play. In Buddhism, the Dharma (teaching) is more important than the personality of the Guru. It is the Dharma (teaching) that is primary, not the person and his siddhis for quite often people with siddhis do not have any

liberating teachings to give to their disciples. The patanjala sutra of the Hindus says "Janma ausadha mantra tapa Samadhi ja siddhayor" ie- siddhis are born from birth (some have it at birth itself), medicinal drugs, mantras, austerities and from samadhis (here it means samatha-samadhis as explained before). And many Buddhist text say to the same effect. So a person can have siddhis-riddhis (miraculous powers and not be enlightened and not have authentic teachings that can help liberate others through her/his teachings.

224. Use of miraculous powers in Buddhism II In Buddhism, it is the Dharma (teaching) that is primary, not the person. Miracles are displayed to attract people to the charismatic personality and miracles are also displayed to attract people to the liberating teaching which will help them. There is a fine dividing line between these two which is sometimes muddled up by the average layman but to distinguish between the two is paramount to Buddhist culture. Whereas one develops a personality cult which always in the long run leaves the followers empty handed once the personality is gone, except perhaps with fond memories of the charismatic person. In the second, besides the charismatic personality who is always secondary to the teaching (Dharma), the followers have a liberating Dharma to help them continue their way to liberation after the charismatic personality is gone, in the form of the lineage which has other enlightened beings or advanced beings who will continue to propagate the Dharma, and in the form of the Sad Dharma (authentic Dharma) on which people can rely (with the help of the enlightened lineage Masters of course) to continue their path to liberation and enlightenment. In the case of the personality culture, there is only the fond memory of the personality to worship and no Dharma or enlightenment lineage to continue the practices. This is why in Buddhism the greatest miracle that the Buddha performed is considered the miracle of the Dharma because for over two thousand five hundred years, this Dharma (teaching) has liberated people from generation to generation. The Dharma includes the theoretical aspects related to the practice and the practical aspects. What is normally considered as miraculous powers are not really miraculous after all the best it does is make the people become interested in the entertainment it provides. They do not per se contribute to the alleviation of suffering (Dukha) of sentient beings. But the Sad Dharma contributes to helping sentient beings free themselves from the suffering if applied. And through that Sad

Dharma contributes to societies as a whole. If a Dharma (teaching) does not produce enlightened, liberated persons from generation to generation who can pass on the knowledge to the next generation the knowledge of the possibility of liberation and the knowledge of the technology through teachings and example, then it is not a Sad Dharma (authentic Dharma). If in the name of Dharma, man is made into only a blind slave to some ideologies or Sanskaras (conditioning) for which s/he is even willing to blindly kill others or die for it with no sight of any genuine authentic means to free oneself from the oppression of deep-rooted suffering in the here and now (and not merely a promise of happy future in some heaven after death, etc.), then according to Buddhism that is not a Sad Dharma, or an authentic, genuine and true Dharma as it does not alleviate my suffering in the here and now.

225. Importance of learning from an authentic master It can be said without contradiction that the only true miracle is the miracle of the Sad Dharma, which liberates you in the here and now or helps us liberate or helps start the process of liberation in the here and now which by the way are and should be experiential, not merely intellectual. Mere intellectual-conceptual understanding of the Dharma is very important as it provides the road map or compass but such knowledge of the Dharma doesn't in itself liberate. However, it is part of the process of liberation. If there is no proper compass or road map, the person doesn't even know where s/he is headed. It is like a blind man walking down a road without knowing where he is going and why he is going. That is why just sitting down to do this or that meditation without any road map at all is not conducive to liberation. Such meditation can relieve stress and relax the person if done properly but such experiences do not automatically produce liberation automatically. One does not need to be a Pandit but one does need a road map or compass before starting out on the journey. That is why such methods are not the Buddhist ways. Within Buddhism itself, there are many ways a Master or a lineage provides you the road map. The most common and well known throughout the Buddhist world is to study under a qualified Master until at least the development of Srutamayi Pragya/Wisdom arisen from listening. Srutamayi Pragya means wisdom developed through listening to the Master by hearing his teachings, etc. In ancient times, books were not so easily available as it

is today. However, it must be said that books do not and cannot replace a living Master's teaching. Books are not primary but rather can be at the most only secondary sources of developing the Srutamaya Pragya for many reasons. These reasons are, first and foremost, books do not have the energetic connection that you get when you are sitting at the foot of any authentic Master. The energetic connection (called blessing) is an integral part of the process of understanding the liberating Dharma at this beginner's level. Books can never provide that. That's why many seekers have found that difficult part becomes easy to understand when in the presence of an authentic Master. And I'm not talking about the skill in teaching the Dharma which comes naturally to a Master who by virtue of having travelled the path herself can easily understand

226. Development of shrutamaya pragya with authentic master The second problem with trying to develop Srutamaya Pragya from mere books alone is that you cannot ask questions to confirm if your personal interpretation or understanding is correct and in accordance with the unbroken, enlightened lineages. That is why a so-called self-acclaimed Master who has not really studied and practiced under at least one lineage Master belonging to an unbroken, enlightened lineage cannot be considered an authentic Master (Sad- Guru) within the Buddhist culture. And finally, the idea that you can get everything out of a book and you do not really need a living Master to help you is only a form of intellectual hubris which is highly detrimental to the spiritual path. After all, this is the display of an ego that due to her own psychological insecurity is afraid to surrender her ego to somebody else. As the whole purpose of all forms of spiritualism in general and specifically Buddhism is to let go of the ego, insisting on only truly understanding solely through the help of books and avoiding commitments to a living Master (Guru) is counterproductive to any spiritual endeavour, to say the least. And by living Master, we have to exclude so called visionary Masters based solely on their own visions or those who base themselves only on one's own intuitive ideas or channels or media etc. etc., as until one is fully purified or at least purified to a great extent through proper methods learnt from a living Master which in the Buddhist context includes a living linage, all such methods are only stooges of one's own ego therefore still counterproductive especially to Buddhist spirituality. Then there is what is called the "Pith Instruction" from a living Master which can

boycott long periods of study. However, that still requires continuous and long periods of validating with the Master over and over again as all such short path instruction by virtue of being skeletal- bare and short are more prone to misunderstanding or misinterpretations than not. In the case of untrained people, they can veer off at a tangent and land in places (interpretations) which can be quite contradictory to what the Master of the pith instructions means or intends. Words are not as simple as most people believe. Words are charged with intellectual and emotional connotations and innuendos and thus the more pithy the instructions are, the more liable to be misunderstood or misinterpreted. This automatically demands easy access to the Master to verify and validate and confirm one's understanding again and again from various angles and such a thing cannot be done merely through books. So this is the development of what is traditionally called Srutamaya Pragya/wisdom developed through listening, the first step in Buddhism. 227. Importance of investigating the path for yourself Even in the system of Pith instruction, the Pragya (wisdom) is not eschewed but rather the bare essentials are presented by the Master. The disciple still has to listen to the Master's Pith instructions, etc. In the Burmese and many Thai traditions, it is considered that one must study the Abhidhamma before embarking on the practice of Vipassana/Vipashayana. However, just listening to a Master (Guru) is not enough to complete the Path. Buddhism does not believe in blind faith, just acceptance, or what the Buddha said or what the Master (Guru) said. It is paramount to investigate whether what he taught is true or correct or valid. Buddhism does not believe in accepting whatever the Buddha said. That is not the teaching of the Buddha and it is certainly not the Buddhist culture. One must investigate, analyze and find out for oneself whether those teachings are true, correct or valid. And this is done not only conceptually or intellectually but more importantly through experience, where it is applicable. This in the Buddhist technical language is called Chintamaya Pragya or wisdom arising from deliberation of what was taught. It is very important to confirm for oneself that what was taught is valid, authentic and correct. That is why it is called Chintamaya Pragya, i.e. Pragya (wisdom) based on cognition and contemplation. This is where you put the teachings to the test, where you investigate through various means to conclude finally for oneself that the teachings (Dharma) are true, authentic, correct, valid, etc. etc. Once one has understood, at least intellectually first, and then experimentally the concepts, views and ideas of the teachings

(Dharma), then one needs to see for oneself if they are valid, correct or true. Many people believe that if you can experience it, it is true; but one can experience a snake in a rope but that is false, so just experience alone is not enough. One needs to validate whether that experience is true or false, whether that experience is in accordance with the Dharma or not, where the experience helps liberate us or binds us more into the chains of Samsara. That is why there are right views and wrong views, right Samadis and wrong Samadhis correct paths and false paths. Most laymen believe that if a person can go into Samadhi that's the litmus test he/she is a Yogi worth the salt, and we can learn from him how to liberate oneself. That is simply an over simplified and rather na ve idea according to Buddhism. 228. Investigating the path to move forward The Buddha himself warned that there are Mithya Samadhis (false Samadhis). If a person can go into any Samadhi, even a false Samadhi, it is an experience. Therefore, just experiences are not enough and are not a litmus test for the teachings. It is the contemplative wisdom (Chintamaya Pragya) that distinguishes all these fine points and gets us on the right track. But just thinking alone too is not enough as there are straight, correct thinking and distorted and wrong thinking. Even in straight correct thinking, there are many kinds of thinking, like linear thinking, like analytical mathematical thinking, like non-linear, circular thinking, and metaphorical thinking. And one may not be trained properly to think in sophisticated ways. That is why we need a Master who can help us by answering our questions. That is why at this stage, it is necessary to ask questions, even challenge the concept of the Dharma to make one's own view sharp and correct. Just blindly accepting what the Master says is detrimental to the development of Chintamaya Pragya, even if the Master is a Great Master. This is where Buddhism encourages each person to find out for themselves whether what the Buddha taught is valid or not. And this can be done only be investigating, analyzing and asking questions. It is very important to clarify any doubt one has by asking questions to the Master or whoever is qualified and not politely accepting whatever is said as that will not help clarify one's confusions about the views etc., although one has to go beyond doubts and should not remain a Doubting Tom forever, otherwise there is no progress. This also does not mean that these doubts should be suppressed or waived aside or politely swallowed but rather clarified by asking questions. At this stage, it is very important to doubt and ask questions to clarify the doubts and not accept things simply because the Buddha said it or the Master (Guru) said it or it is

written in the texts or it is helped by the lineage (Parampara) etc. In Kalam Sutta, the Buddha has said very clearly that: "Don't go by reports, by legends, by logical conjecture, by probabilities, by tradition, etc. etc., but find out for yourself (with the help of wise ones, meaning qualified Masters) whether that is true or not, especially find out from your own and the wise ones' experiences" (extracted from Thanissaro Bhikhu s translation). 229. Importance of investigating the path with a master In Kalam Sutta, the Buddha has said very clearly that: "Don't go by reports, by legends, by logical conjecture, by probabilities, by tradition, etc. etc., but find out for yourself (with the help of wise ones, meaning qualified Masters) whether that is true or not, especially find out from your own and the wise ones experiences"(extracted from Thanissaro Bhikhu s translation). And among the list in the Kalama Sutta, which the Buddha told to the Kalamas was, "Do not accept it simple because it was said by person who happen to be your Guru but Kalama when you yourself know, these things are good (conducive to my progress) these things are blamable, these things are praised by the wise, understood and observed; these things lead to benefit and happiness, enter on and abide in them." So we need to find out for oneself with the help of the wise ones (Master or Masters) whether or not these things are valid. One needs to be convinced fully first and then accept them and move on (enter and abide in them, as the Sutta or Sutra says). Sutta in Pali is Sutra in Sanskrit are the words of the Buddha himself. This Kalama Sutra is found in both Pali and Sanskrit literatures and not only in the Pali Theravadin literature as some Nepalese Theravadin's new fangled followers imagine. Some new Modernist interpreters interpret it as if the Buddha himself taught not to believe in anybody but to find out solely by oneself (somewhat similar to J. Krisnamurti's ideas), but this kind of interpretation would contradict what is said in the Sutra itself and many other Suttras like Majjihima Nikaya 961,95; Anguttara Nikaya 7.79 and 8.53, Majjihima Nikaya 110, Anguttara Nikaya 4.192 and 8.54. So it is not correct in Buddhism to believe blindly or accept simply on faith to anything within Buddhism and you are required to vigorously think, contemplate and ask questions, verify, clarify for yourself whatever has been taught until you yourself see for yourself, at least conceptually if not experimentally that what has been taught is valid, true, correct, fruitful, factual, etc. etc.. However, such thinking, cogitating, contemplating, analyzing, etc. etc., does not mean to not

depend on anybody else, just find out for yourself. This is not possible. It would be like saying do not depend on any scientists but to find out for yourself if whether, whatever science says is true, fact, real and correct or not. Such an idea is absurd, yet many self-styled modern Theravadins of Sri Lanka and their followers in Nepal stricken by out-dated Modernism go around parading this quaint nonsensical think 230. Investigating the path does not mean not trusting anyone Many self-styled modern Theravadins of Sri Lanka and their followers in Nepal stricken by out-dated Modernism go around parading this quaint nonsense thinking they are being Modern and scientific, whereas such a notion not only contradicts the scientific mode of thinking but also is outmoded and not modern at all in this post-modern age. And furthermore, the Anguttara Nikaya, Kalama Sutta does not say do not trust or accept or depend on tradition, wise ones, logic at all. It says very clearly, it intends very clearly do not accept merely on the basis of the fact that it is tradition, or it is in our Pitaka (Dharma texts) etc. etc., but find out for yourself. Here the intention is very clearly not to eschew all traditions, Masters, Dharma texts and try to re-invent the wheel on one's own self in every generation; but rather not to accept any of them blindly but to see for oneself whether what they say is true or not, in short as the Buddha himself said "Ehi Passiko"-ie- come and see for yourself. To see for yourself here does not mean do not take any help from anybody else but rather see in one's own experience whether it is true or not, valid or not. This point is made very clearly in the commentary called the Atthakatha. If the meaning was simply not to accept anybody else and to find out only by oneself alone as some Modernistic Theravadins have tried to interpret, then we would come to the absurd conclusion to not accept this Kalam Sutta also as it is 'our Dharma text' too. This is where Chintamayi Pragya comes in. It is an integral part of the process and means wisdom arisen from the contemplation process of liberation. That is why it is said by most Theravadin Masters of Vipassana that you cannot really practice Vipassana without first studying the Abhidharma/Abhidhamma. And many Theravadin Vipassana Masters say the Vipassana without first thoroughly studying the Abhidharma is not so fruitful. Even according to the Tibetan system, the Abhidharma is considered as the top of the mountain from where you can see and observe and understand Buddhism as a whole and get the correct Buddhist view/samyag drishti. Without the Abhidharma, one does not really understand Buddhism. It is only after the foregone first two steps viz- 1. Srutamyi Pragya, which we have said is wisdom arisen through listening to an authentic lineage Master and we can add now-a-days through studying and reading etc.also, 2. Chintamayi Pragya, which is wisdom arisen from investigating, analyzing, reasoning, seeing for oneself whether what was said is

valid or not, that the third type of Pragya called Bhavanmayi Pragya, which could be translated as wisdom arisen from meditation has any meaning. So vipassana/Vipashyana cannot really be called authentic vipassana/Vipashyana if a person without the correct view just sits and watches his mind or sensation or body etc etc. That would be a kind of samatha, not vipassana/vipashyana by correct Buddhist standards. It would contradict the Buddha's own teachings in the Theravadin suttas themselves, let alone Mahayana sutras. 231. Vipashyana practices in different schools of Buddhism

This last stage of development of Pragya or Wisdom (Bhavanmayi Pragya) is what is meant by Vipashyana is Sanksrit and Vipassana in the Theravada in Pali tradition. Vipashayana is by no means the sole property of the Theravadin school of Buddhism as is often claimed by half baked Theravadin practitioners and Assistant Acharyas (Assistant Masters) of Nepal. Vipashayana or Vipassana has always been the main practice, the central practice of all forms of schools of Buddhism, be it the different types of Pramitayana practiced all over China, Korea, Japana, Vietnam, etc, etc., or Vajrayana practiced in Tibet, Mongolia, the entire Himalayan belt and many parts of Central Asia and to some extent in China, Japan, Korea and Vietnam too. The Tibetan word 'Lhag Thong' is the accurate translation of Vipashyana. Lhag means 'Vi; which means special, total, holistic, etc. etc, and Thong means 'pashyana', which is rooted in the word "seeing" in Sanskrit. The word Vi Passana is just a Pali version of the Sanskrit Buddhist word. In a similar way, the Chinese word Kuan and its derivatives like Kan in Japanese, Kwan in Korean, etc. etc., all are translations of the word Vipashayana. So it is historically a completely false concept to believe that somehow Vipassana exists only in the Theravadin systems or even that somehow Vipassana survived only in the Theravadin tradition of Burma. Vipashayana not only survived but also exists fully active in the Vajrayana tradition of Tibet and in the various traditions of China, Japan, Korea and Vietnam. And even the Theravadin Vipassana tradition not only survived but also is alive and healthy in Thailand, Laos, Cambodia as is witnessed by great Masters like Ajhan Jha, Ajhan Mun and many, many others, some of whom like Ajhan Jha were even considered as Arhats, etc. etc.. There is another point that needs to be clarified in the context of Nepal or Nepalese Vipassana history.

1. The form of Vipassana taught by the Venerable Sri Goenkaji is neither the one and only form of Vipassana taught by the Buddha, as can been seen clearly by anybody who reads and studies the Theravadin Nikayas and Suttas. 2. Nor is that specific form of Vipassana anymore pure or correct than any other forms of Vipassana taught in Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, etc. etc. 3. Nor is the Satipatthana type of Vipassana the only type or form of Vipassana that the Buddha taught even according to the Theravadin Suttas themselves. 232. Refuting the existence of Vipashyana only in Ven. Goenkaji's Theravada practice There are many other kinds of Vipashayana that the Buddha taught and one good example is the Anguttara Nikaya, Unuttariya Vagga, Udayai Sutta of the Theravada itself, where the Buddha himself enlists a series of various methods through which 'yana dassan labhaya ti ti', as the Buddha himself mentions. By the way, even though all the methods like Diwa Sangya Ratri Sangya Pabhassar Chitta, etc., are mentioned in this Theravadin Sutta itself as ways to 'yana dassana/Gyana darshana', meaning enlightenment in laymen's terminology, and therefore automatically are various modes of Vipashyana as taught by the Buddha himself, many of them are not found within any Therevadin lineages so far, unless available in the hidden caves of Laos and Thai monasteries. But they are still available fully and practiced fully in the Tibetan Vajrayana traditions. Devanussati or Devanusmriti is only mentioned in the Theravadin text but no one uses it and how Devanussati can be used for both Samatha and Vipashyana is not available in the Theravadin tradition (as far as I know). But a detailed method and practice not only exists in texts but is fully alive and fully practiced in the Tibetan Vajrayana traditions. The reason why I have mentioned all these is not to criticize the methods of Venerable Sri Goenka but to refute the false idea propagated by the Acharyas of Sri Goenkaji in Nepal that his and only his method of Vipashyana is the one and only true and pure teaching of the Buddha and all other methods(even Theravadin methods) are either impure, or created by later acharyas or methods not taught by the Buddha. And that there is no Vipahsyana in Mahayana which the Ven. Sri Goenkaji himself seems to have propagated by having falsely said so much, as reported by many who heard him say it to vipassana groups in which they were present. Well, in that case an Acharya of the Mahayana tradition has every right to

clarify or refute this false statement. It is also very important to understand that refutation is not the same thing as criticism. Refutation is part of the Dharmic culture of Buddhism specifically, and the Indian Dharma culture generally. It began with the Buddha himself who has said very clearly in the Anguttara Nikaya that one should refute what should be refuted and praise what should be praised. And the Tathagata (the Buddha) himself went to debate with mendicants and famous Gurus of the time when he found out they had come to the city where he was or were staying in a nearby forest. 233. Importance of refuting in all Buddhist traditions It was customary for the Tathagata himself to go to meet mendicants and famous Gurus of the time of other traditions and discuss with them. In fact, most of the Buddha's disciples were such Gurus and mendicants who were defeated in such discussions and realized their mistakes as was the cultural tradition of India in those days of very open and authentic search for the truth. They often immediately took refuge in the Buddha. It is historically incorrect to claim that: 1. Vipashayana exists only in the Theravada tradition 2. That Mahayana does not have Vipashayana 3. That Vedanasmriti or Vedanannssati is the one and only form of true Buddhist Vipashayana 4. That the pure Buddhist mediation called Vipashayana or Vipassana survived somehow only in Burma 5. That the Buddha spoke in Pali, therefore, Pali Suttas only are the words that came straight out of the Buddha's mouth and all others are late inventions of later Acharyas These are all false premises that I have refuted. I have given historical, linguistic and in-text proof from the Pali Suttas themselves to prove my point. If any scholar can refute my points, I welcome them to try to refute using historical, linguistic and in-text sources not just through their own personal ideas and interpretations. However, I want to make it very clear once and for all that refuting the points mentioned above is not a criticism of any form of Vipashyana including Burmese Sukhaa Vipassana styles or a criticism of any Theravada Acharyas, including Sri

Goenkaji as a whole. I personally believe that the Theravada school is a genuine Sravakayana school as taught by the Buddha himself, but it is not the one and only school that the Buddha taught nor is it more pure than other forms of Buddhism,in spite of the claims of Theravadins, and thus I have immense respect for it, as I have for all things related to the Buddha. I have great respect for Theravada Vipassana Teachers like Achan Jha and Achan Dhamadharo and Acham Naeb (all of them from Thailand) as teachers who have transcended the narrow bounds of one school. To loosely claim such things like Mahayana has no vipashyana, that all the things found in Mahayana were created by later Acharyas and really not the words of the Buddha is not only unfair but also slandering the teachings of the Buddha himself because there is no such proofs that the teachings of the Mahayana are not the teachings of the Buddha. To the contrary it can be proven using Theravada Suttas themselves that every principle and practice taught within the Mahayana is in accordance with the teachings of the Buddha and specially the Abhidharmic teachings of the Buddha. Therefore I challenge those Acharyas and Asst Acharyas who go around mouthing that Mahayana doesn't have Vipashyana and that the teachings of the Mahayana are not the teachings of the Buddha himself but rather the distortions of later Acharyas to prove it using Pali and Mahayana Sutras- not their own personal ideas and beliefs. 234. What are Buddhist Sutras and Sastras So with that said and done, let us turn back to our main topic. We were talking about Samatha and Vipashyana (Vipassana), and we said that according to the teachings of the Buddha himself, he has clearly laid out three clear steps in the development of Vipashayana. They are: Srutamayi Pragya Chintamayi Pragya Bhavanamayi Prgaya It is this step by step development of Pragya that is called Vipashyana (Vipassana). Just sitting down to meditate to watch the Vedana (feeling, sensation), Kaya (body) and chitta (mind) without any background study, etc., to build the Samyag Dristi (correct view) at all is not correct in Vipashyana (Vipassana) even according to the Buddha's own words. That is why in almost all Buddhist traditions, including Theravda traditions of Thailand, Sri Lanka, Burma, Laos, Cambodia, it is often

said you cannot do proper Vipashyana without first studying the Abhidharma (Abhidamma). This is also the general idea in Tibetan Buddhism. Some half-baked people may think that Zen Buddhism does not require the study of scriptures. That is simply not true. It is a clear misunderstanding of the Zen style. First of all, the Koan system (called Kung an in Chinese and Kong an in Korean) itself introduces you to the deep philosophical contexts of the Sutras in its own unique way. But in most schools that use Koans, there are specific Koans that ask questions related to quotes from Sutras, etc., too. It is also good for those of you who think that you can practice genuine authentic Buddhist meditation without having the correct view (Samyag Dristi), which needless to say require thorough study of the scriptures) and who use Zen as an excuse - to know that amongst all the Buddhist Masters of the far east, the Zen Masters are renowned to be the most well studied and well versed in the Sutras and Sastras and the Abhidharmas. For those of you who are only used to the Hindu meaning of Sutras and Sastras, that within Buddhism, Sutras (Suttas in Pali) mean always and only the words of the Buddha himself, and the Sastras mean the commentaries on the Buddha's words by later Masters or independent writings of the later Masters (Acharyas). Sastra in the Buddhist context does not mean all Dharma texts, as within the Hindu context, but commentaries and writings of the Buddhist Acharyas like Nagarjuna, Asanga, etc. etc.. Besides the Sutras (and the Sastras which are intimately related to the Sutras), we have the Abhidharma (Abhidhamma), which is the special philosophical analytical teachings of the Buddha. 235. Buddhist pure traditions of Mahayana and Theravada

The Abhidharma (Abhidhamma) is the special philosophical analytical teachings of the Buddha, and without studying the Abhidharma, no Vipashyana can be called authentic. And as I have said before studying can mean pith instructions from a qualified Master. The Vinaya are the rules or codes of conducts laid down by the Buddha himself to the monks and nuns. Of the Vinaya for the nuns, the unbroken lineage in all but one school in Taiwan has been broken. There seems to be some confusion amongst the Theravada Bhantes of Nepal that the Vinaya vows taken by Mahayana monks are the special Vinaya of the Bodhisatvayana. But all Vianayas are Sravakayana vows like Mahasangikas, Mulasarvastivadins, etc. etc., which are all Sravakayana Nikayas like the Theravada itself. And Huen Tsang, the Great Chinese Guru, who

came to India to study Buddhism, has mentioned in his travelogue that there were many monasteries in India where the monks took the Theravada Bhikchu Upasampada and were practicing Mahayanist practices. And even today, there are Theravadin Theras and Bhikhus of Laos and Thailand who are studying and practicing Mahayana and Vajrayana with me. It seems to be the special over zealousness of Nepali Theravadins, be they Bhikus or Vipasssana practitioners, who falsely think that only their Nikya or Vipassana is specially pure and that Mahayana in all its forms are distortions and therefore should not be even looked at etc.. This is somewhat like the extremist style of Catholics in the Philippines whose priests tell their followers to close their ears when passing by Protestant churches. Such views and style and such methods of being faithful to Theravada is totally non-Buddhist to say the least. We Mahayanist encourage our practitioners to study Sravakaya (from ancient times) and meet Sravakayana teachers like Sravaka Bhantes because we are confident that Mahayana does not contradict any Theravada teachings. So I challenge all those Acharyas and assistant Acharyas of Sri Goenkaji in Nepal and all neo-Theravadin enthusiasts to prove that what they go around saying all over Nepal to either prove their statements or stop saying such utterly false and incorrect notions, and just teach their own teachings as per orthodox Theravada. Not to lie is one of the five Shila that the Theravadins also take like all Buddhists. To go around saying things about Mahayana which they do not know because they have not studied and which they themselves know very well that they have not studied properly is to lie. 236. Buddhist pure traditions of Mahayana and Theravada II If I go around saying something which I do not really know and I myself know that I do not really know much about that point, but nevertheless go around saying it even when I myself know that what I'm saying is not fully validated, but nevertheless I continue to say it because it serves my own purpose, ideas or beliefs, then such statements are plain and simple lies and is a breakage of the Shila of not to lie(mrishavada). And this would amount to those very people who go around mouthing that Mayananist do not keep their Shilas, breaking their own Shilas without the slightest hesitation. So they should either prove their statements historically, scripturally using Suttas (Sutras) etc., or stop lying to innocent Nepalese public who have no knowledge about these issues or stop calling yourselves the followers of the Buddha. These kinds of statements coming out of neo-Theravadins of Nepal are no different

than statements made by Hindus who have not studied the facts but nevertheless go around saying Buddhism is a branch of Hinduism etc etc.I have not refuted Theravada per se which I consider true Buddhism as much as Sarvastivada or Mahayana/Vajrayana. I want to make it clear that I'm refuting those NeoTheravadins of Nepal, who go around preaching that only Theravada is pure Buddhism and that Mahayana is a distorted version of Buddhism created by latter day Acharyas and that only Theravada has Vipasssana/Vipashyana and Mahayana doesn't have Vipassana/Vipashyana and that Mahayanists do not have shila but only Theravadins have shila that Mahayana doesn't have the Dwadas nidana/the twelve link of interdependent origination and many more such blatant lies and stuff that have been spread by educated Theravadins directly or indirectly through gossip,talks, lecture or books written in Nepali certified by Theravadin Theras and Mahatheras who should have known better, since the last fifty or so years to Nepalese public, who do not know the details, all over Nepal. I do not believe Theravada is purer than Mahayana and Vajrayana as there is no historical or scriptural or hermenuetical proof of such a statement. Some Theravadins think I'm critical of Sri Goenkaji or Theravada. But I'm just refuting what they themselves have said. If Theravadin Acharyas and Theras and their disciple spread wrong views about Mahayana, these same people have no right to say I'm critical of them when I refute their ideas and lectures. Either they should accept what I say or be able to properly refute what I say, if they claim to be true Buddhists. All the basics of Buddhism that the Theravada boasts of like the Five shila, The Bikshu Upasampada, the pancha skandha, the dwadas ayatana, the astadasha dhatu, the 37 Bodipakshika Dharmas, the sapta bodhyanga, the dwadas nidana, the Four Arya Satya, samatha and vipshyana and their details like kama dhatu/mahadgat dhatu/arupa dhatu and the various levels of samadhis like first dhyana, second dhyana, third dhyana, fourth dhyana or fifth dhyana and their instructions and the kartsnyas/kasinas related to them, the smritypasthana sutras, the four smrityupasthana/four sattipathan like kayagatanusmriti/kayagatanussati, and vedananusmriti/ vedananussati and chittanusmriti/chittanussati and dharmanusmriti/dhammanussati and all the instructions related to them and the manifold ways of doing them, the lokadhatus, the principle of karma-phala and all that is related to it, punarbhava, dukha-anitya-anatma,sunyata/dukha, anicca, anatta, sunyato, the tripitaka, the abhidharma/abhidhamma, udaya-vyaya,the principle of pratityasmutpada/paticcasammuppada, the principle of hetupratya/causes and conditions, nirvana or nibbandhatu/chittadhatu/dharmadhatu, sadgati and everything related to it, and everything else that the Theravada boasts of are clearly found in Mahayana and are still being taught by authentic

Mahayana/Vajrayana Masters/Acharyas. So how is Theravada a purer form of Buddhism than Mahayana? All those neoTheravadins and their disciples of Nepal who have spread these lies for the last forty or so years about Mahayana/Vajrayana need to justify their position by using Sutta/Sutra, abhidhamma/Abhidharma and the later commenteries of Theravadin and Mahayana Acharyas and critical analysis/pramana-yukti to prove their points and not use their own personal ideas and beliefs as such nonsense do not count in a debate. And if they cannot do it then they should stop slandering Mahyana directly or indirectly, if they are true Buddhists. 237. Continuing with Dwadas nidan Now, with that (how Mahayana is equally as pure as Theravada tradition) in the background, let us continue with the Dwadas Nidana (the twelve links of chains of interdependent origination), which is indeed one of the most important tenets within Buddhism. We had already said that there are two different meanings to this or two different ways this is understood within Buddhism, although the two different ways are aspects of the same point. One way of looking at it is the twelve links or chains which is what the Buddha saw clearly (another meaning of Vipashyana/seeing clearly) on the morning of his full enlightenment. And this is what we have been explaining and will continue to do so, a little later. And the second meaning of Pratithaya Samutpad (Paticca Sammuppad) is the fact that all Dharmas are Partitatya Samutpanna, or interdependently arisen, which means they arise through causes and conditions (Hetu Pratya). This second meaning is the more profound meaning which literally colors the whole of Buddhism and we shall deal with it later after we finish the twelve chains (Dwadas Nidan). Now in the Dwadas Nidan, we finished Avidhya, which conditions Sanskaras and we were talking about Sanskaras (conditionings), which conditions Vigyan (consciousness). Since it has been a long time we mentioned the twelve chains for those who are new and do not have the twelve chains at the fingertips, here are the twelve chains (Dwadas Nidana) again. 1. Avidhya Pratyaya or conditions 2. Sanskara Pratyaya or conditions 3. Vigyan Prataya or conditions

4. Nama Rupa (mind and form) Pratyaya or conditions 5. Sadayatana (six senses) Pratyaya or conditions 6. Sparsha (contact) Pratyaya or conditions 7. Vedana (sensation) Pratyaya or conditions 8. Trishna (craving) Pratyaya or conditions 9. Upadana (grasping) Pratyaya or conditions 10. Bhava (becoming) Pratyaya or conditions 11. Jati (birth) Pratyaya or conditions 12. Jaramarana (aging and death) Pratyaya or conditions Soka (sorrow), Parideva (lamentation), Dukha (pain), Darumanassya (grief) and Upayas (grief), which can all be summed up in Dukka (suffering). The word Dukha can vary in both the meaning as suffering which includes Soka, Parideva, Dukha in the sense of pain, Daurmanassya and Upayas and also can mean pain depending upon the context and that is how it is used in Nepali and other Indic languages too. This chain is also known as the wheel of Becoming (Bhava Chakra) or the Wheel of Samsara. This is how Samsara (the flow of the world system) continue like a wheel with no beginning in sight (meaning no beginning) and no end without being created by One Universal First Cause or God (Ishwar). 238. Continuing with Dwadas nidan II If you understand the principle of how Samsara (the flow of the world system) continues like a wheel with no beginning in sight (meaning no beginning) and no end without being created by One Universal First Cause or God (Ishwar), it is easy to understand why Buddhism does not believe in a First Principle or a First Cause or a Creator God called Ishwor in Hinduism, even though it does believe in the existence of gods and goddesses or Dieties, who live in the heavenly realms called Deva Lokas or Swargas. But the concept of Devi-Devatas in Buddhism has an important difference from Hinduism. Within Hinduism, gods and goddesses are more or less eternal beings who live up there and are always gods. But like all things within Hinduism which is normally a conglomeration of millions of elements, even the concept of gods and goddesses are not homogeneous but

manifold and sometimes even contradictory. Nonetheless, we can safely say that as a whole the average concept of gods and goddesses within Hinduism is that they are eternally existing powerful beings who will always remain as gods and goddesses who are manifestations of the One and only God. They are not beings(pranis/satvas) like us who too will die and be reborn like us). But it must be said that in some places within Hinduism, the idea that these gods and goddesses come and go does exist; however, that notion is not the common understanding of gods and goddesses within Hinduism. So there is one Brahma, one Vishnu and one Shiva called Mahadeva nowadays although many other deities are called Mahadevas in the Vedic system. These three are the Creator, the Sustainer and the Destroyer of the world and are three aspects of the eternal God, therefore they themselves are eternal. I would like to repeat that this is what has been commonly accepted as the Hindu view of gods and goddesses for the last century or so, but like all concepts within Hinduism, they are by no means the only notions about gods and goddesses found within all forms of Hinduism. There are texts which will contradict this notion and texts which will validate this notion and many more as, after all Hinduism is a mixture of every kind of religious notion that grew within the Indian Subcontinent (Bharat Varsha), which extended beyond Afganistan to Burma, once upon a time. And this includes Buddhist and other Shramanic concepts too taken in by Hinduism through the century besides the Brahmanis-Vedic concepts and later additions and transformations of the Brahmanic-Vedic systems called puranas and Tantras. So it is not so surprising that many contradictory concepts about gods and goddesses are found within what is called Hinduism today. We can observe in the famous 19th century debate between the famous founder of the Arya Samaj, Swami Dayananda versus two hundred or so pundits of Benaras that even the concept of Allah being a Vedic concept had already been integrated within the Hindu system and there was already an Allopanishad extant to validate it. If Swami Dayananda had not refuted that as a non-vedic concept, by today we can safely assume Hindus would have included Allah as one of their gods, and the average layman would proudly announce that Islam is a branch of Hinduism. Exactly the same type of logic is used by Hindus today to prove that Buddhism is a branch of Hinduism. It is also interesting to note that according to Swami Dayananda in that debate, there are no gods and goddesses existing up the true purport of the Vedas. Now this concept is exactly the antithesis of what popular Hinduism holds today regarding gods and goddesses/ devi-devatas. So whenever we compare Hinduism, we need to understand this variegation within Hinduism, and can only discuss what is the most popularly held notions at that point in history.

Now taking that as a backdrop for comparison, let us go into the Buddhist notion of gods and goddesses. Like the accepted form of Hinduism, Buddhism accepts that there are gods and goddesses living in the heavenly realms and the majority of the deities found within Buddhism are the same as those found in the Vedic systems- Indra, Yama, Varuna, Vishnu, Brahma, Rudra etc etc. However, they are just pranis/satvas who have accumulated a lot of punya/virtuous merits and their karma has propelled them to be reborn in one of the higher realms especially the Devalokas/heavenly realms often called Swargas. Humans or pranis/satvas/sentient beings who have accumulated a vast amount of punya/virtuous merit will die as humans or even in the lower realms like the hungry-ghost realms/Pretaloka or hell realms/Niraya gati or Natraka; and also can be reborn as devas/gods- even as an Indra a Vishnu or a Shiva. These Shivas and Vishnus live their life in their respective Devalokas, as per their punya/virtuous merit, and even though during that period they are very powerful beings by virtue of their punya/virtuous merits, their life too will end, albeit compared to human lives they are unimaginably longlived, and when they ultimately die, they could be reborn anywhere in the various realms of existence, in accordance with their karmic accumulation. And there are thousands of Indras, Shivas, Vishnus not just one of them. Of course this concept of thousands of Shivas and Vishnus are also found within nooks and crannies of Hinduism too, if one were to search for it; however, that is not the normally accepted concepts of Vishnu and Shiva and Brahma. These gods and goddesses when propitiated can help to some extent but unlike the present day Hindu concept, they are not Omnipotent as they too are not free from their karmas and thus cannot help us free from suffering/dukha ultimately. Then within Buddhism, many of these Brahmas and Shivas and Indras and Vishnus took refuge with the Buddha himself or with later day Arhats and Mahasiddhas and so today they are accepted as Dharmapalas/Protectors of the Dharma and propitiated thus. Some of them are still worldly gods/deities/devas and some having practiced the Dharma have become Aryas at various levels of the bodhisattva Bhumis and are highly revered within Buddhism as bodhisattvas. In these groups of Dharmapalas are also local deities of whatever place Buddhism spread who also took refuge with the then Mahasiddhas or Gurus at that time. Thus we have many local Tibetan gods included in the list of Dharmapalas. There probably were many local dharmapalas of Central Asia, the silk route etc etc who had also promised the various Gurus to protect the Dharma but since these areas were all Islamized, they are lost to history. Then within Buddhism especially Mahayana- there are the bodhisattvas like Manjusri, Tara (again here is a good example of how Hindu Tantra has appropriated Tara and made her their goddess in a theistic sense), Vajrapani, Samantabhadra, Avalokiteshwara, Akashgarbha,

Kshitigarbha, Nivaranavikshambhi etc. who are often mistaken as gods by nonBuddhists, as the Buddhists worship them somewhat in a similar manner as the theistic systems like Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism worship their God or gods. However, it is a rather gross misunderstanding to imagine that they are gods in the theistic sense or even representative of some God or aspect of some single God. They are bodhisattvas, which means again they are sentient beings just like us who have achieved very high levels of spiritual achievements on the Bodhisatva path- not some other path, to be sure. 239. Concept of Creator in Hinduism and Buddhism Part II In the Indian subcontinent, Buddhist and other Shramanic concepts too was taken in by Hinduism throughout the centuries besides the Brahmanis-Vedic concepts, and later additions and transformations of the Brahmanic-Vedic systems called Puranas and Tantras. So it is not so surprising that many contradictory concepts about Gods and Goddesses are found within what is called Hinduism today. We can observe in the famous 19th century debate between the famous founder of the Arya Samaj, Swami Dayananda verses two hundred or so pundits of Benaras, that even the concept of Allah being a Vedic concept had already been integrated within the Hindu system and there was already an Allopanishad extant to validate it. If Swami Dayananda had not refuted that as a non Vedic concept, by today we can safely assume Hindus would have included Allah as one of their Gods, and the average layman would proudly announce that Islam is a branch of Hinduism. Exactly the same type of logic is used by Hindus today to prove that Buddhism is a branch of Hinduism. It is also interesting to note that according to Swami Dayananda in that debate, there are no Gods and Goddesses existing up the true purport of the Vedas. Now, this concept is exactly the antithesis of what popular Hinduism holds today regarding Gods and Goddesses (Devi Devatas). So whenever we compare Hinduism, we need to understand this variegation within Hinduism, and can only discuss what are the most popularly held notions at that point in history. Now, taking that as a backdrop for comparison, let us go into the Buddhist notion of Gods and Goddesses. Like the accepted form of Hinduism, Buddhism accepts that there are Gods and Goddesses living in the heavenly realms and the majority of the Deities found within Buddhism are the same as those found in the Vedic systems- Indra, Yama, Varuna, Vishnu, Brahma, Rudra etc. etc.. However, they are just Pranis of Satvas, who have accumulated a lot of Punya (virtuous merits) and their Karma has propelled them to be reborn in one of the higher realms especially the Devalokas (heavenly realms) often called Swargas.

Humans or Pranis of Satvas (sentient beings) who have accumulated a vast amount of Punya (virtuous merit) will die to be reborn as humans or even in the lower realms like the hungry-ghost realms (Pretaloka) or hell realms (Niraya gati or Natraka); and also can be reborn as Devas (Gods) - even as an Indra, a Vishnu or a Shiva. 240. Concept of Creator in Hinduism and Buddhism Part II According to Buddhism, the Shivas and Vishnus in heavenly realms live their lives in their respective Devalokas as per their Punya (virtuous merit), and even though during this period they are very powerful beings by virtue of their Punya (virtuous merits). But their life too will end, albeit compared with human lives they are unimaginably long-lived. When they ultimately die, they could be reborn anywhere in the various realms of existence, in accordance with their karmic accumulation. There are thousands of Indras, Shivas, Vishnus not just one of them. This concept of thousands of Shivas and Vishnus are also found within nooks and crannies of Hinduism too, if one were to search for it. However, that is not the normally accepted concepts of Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma. These Gods and Goddesses when propitiated can help to some extant but unlike the present day Hindu concept, they are not Omnipotent, as they too are not free from their Karmas and thus cannot help us free from suffering (Dukha) ultimately. Then within Buddhism, many of these Brahmas, Shivas, Indras and Vishnus took refuge with the Buddha himself or with later day Arhats and Mahasiddhas. So today they are accepted as Dharmapala (Protectors) of the Dharma and propitiated thus. Some of them are still worldly Gods (Deities or Devas) and some having practiced the Dharma have become Aryas at various levels of the Bodhisattva Bhumis and they are highly revered within Buddhism as Bodhisattvas. These groups of Dharmapalas also include local Deities whatever Buddhism spread as these local Deities also took refuge with the then Mahasiddhas or Gurus of that time. Thus, we have many local Tibetan Gods included in the list of Dharmapalas. There probably were many local Dharmapalas in Central Asia, the silk routes etc. etc., who had also promised the various Gurus to protect the Dharma but since these areas were all Islamized, they are lost to history. Then within Buddhism especially Mahayana- there are the Bodhisattvas like Manjusri, Tara (again here is a good example of how Hindu Tantra has appropriated Tara and made her their Goddess in a theistic sense), Vajrapani , Samantabhadra, Avalokiteshwara, Akashgarbha, Kshitigarbha,

Nivaranavikshambhi etc., who are often mistaken as Gods by non-Buddhists, as the Buddhists worship them somewhat in a similar manner as the theistic systems like Hinduism, Christianity, Islam and Judaism worship their Gods. However, it is a rather gross misunderstanding to imagine that they are Gods in the theistic sense or even representative of some God or aspect of some single God. They are Bodhisattvas, which mean again they are sentient beings just like us who have achieved very high levels of spiritual achievements on the Bodhisatva path - not some other path, to be sure. 241. Worship of Bodhisattvas and Gurus in Buddhism vis-a-vis worship of Gods in other religions We said that non-Buddhists often mistake the Bodhisattvas like Manjushri, Tara, Vajrapani etc. etc., as something like their Gods, as the Buddhists seem to worship them somewhat in a similar manner as the theistic systems like Hinduism, Christianity, Islam and Judaism worship their Gods. This needs to be clarified. When we humans worship or pay respect to or venerate anybody, the format used all over the world is archetypal. Therefore, they can appear to be very similar in many ways than one. We can respect the CEO of a big company and we can respect a father or a mother and we can respect a God or as a Buddhist we can have deep respect for a Bodhisattva or a Guru. In Sanskrit, the word 'puja' is used interchangeably for both respect and worship. And the way we respect can appear very similar all over the world, meaning the rituals can appear to be very similar since as humans we tend to have the same kind of or similar archetypal patterns in our unconscious mind. However, the attitude which is the essence of all worship/respect can be worlds apart. There is a saying found also in the Hindu Tantra which clarifies very beautifully this point. It goes: 'Bhaavohi chumbitaa kaantaa bhaavohi duhitaananam'- which means that we kiss our wives and we kiss our daughters and the ritual of kissing is the same but there is a great difference between the two due to the inner feeling attitude/emotional tone which is an integral part of the kissing. It is this emotional tone that is the essence of the kissing and defines the meaning of the kissing and not the mere physical ritual alone. One might add here one kisses one's dog as much in the same way but no one ever equates the kissing of his dog with the kissing of his wife even though the modus operandi isn't really different. Therefore, it is wrong to equate the worship done by Buddhists to their Bodhisattvas and even their Dharmapalas (Protector Deities), who are in effect Gods and Goddesses (Devi & Devatas) simply because the

modus operandi appears to be similar. Of course, they will be similar just as the act of kissing a dog, a lover and a daughter is similar too. But nobody would be so confused that they would proclaim that those three acts of kissing have exactly the same meaning and thus are they same even though they are all related to love. 242. Worship in different religious systems As we mentioned before, there is a great difference between the forms of worship in different religions even though they are all related to some form of respect. Let me elaborate the differences and the feeling tone/emotional tones related to Buddhist worship of what appears to be substitutes for the Gods and Goddesses or the One and only God of the theistic systems. First of all, the God is some all mighty eternal being up there who created the universe and us and thus. I'm just a slave eternally and it is not my choice that I'm his/her slave and I shall remain his/her slave (Daas) forever, for all eternity. Some systems have Gods and Goddesses but in the more sophisticated systems these Gods and Goddesses are all aspects of or incarnations of the same One and only God. And the rest of the attitude, emotional-feeling tone towards those particular Gods is the same as towards the one and only God. In some theistic mystical systems, we often begin with the attitude of I am the slave (Daasoham) and as the mystical experience deepens, we begin to experience oneness with that omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient God until we merge completely with him and that is called 'I'm-one-with him' stage (Soham). Finally, I dissolve so completely with Him, the omnipotent-omnipresent-omniscient one that there is only Him and no more this little me/No-me stage (Naaham). Worship of Him/Her changes with these stages but the feeling tone towards Him being the Almighty One is still the same even if He and I are one or only He remains. These levels are found one way or the other in all theistic mystical systems. For example, within the Hindu system we have as mentioned earlier on: 1. Dasoham: which means I am the slave of that particular God/Goddess and I meditate/pray to that Almighty God who is my Master/Lord etc. If I practice properly according to proper methods with deep devotion to my Master, gradually I will begin to feel one with that Master (some systems do not allow this and call this heresy). However, in proper theistic mystical schools, one is encouraged to be one with the Master and this is called: 2. Soham: which means I am that. There are also Shivoham/I am Shiva (which has

deteriorated to BOM BOM which is common with many Sadhus), Bhairovoham/I am Bhairava, Saham/I am her in the case of Mother goddess worshippers like Kali/Tara/Sundari etc.. Finally, if the meditator continues on the path s/he will start vanishing into the Master, and this stage is: 3. Naham/ No I Am: which means there is no me anymore and only the Supreme Master/Lord/God. 243. Worship in different religious systems II The same stages, more or less, can be found in the Vedantic system even if it is not a devotional system. Pragyanam Brahman (This awareness) is Brahman, and Ayam Atman Brahman (This Self) is Brahman are closer to the Dasoham stage, where the little self is identifying itself with Brahman but there is the sense of the little self trying to identify itself with the Brahman, although there is no sense of being a slave here. Then, Tat Tvam Asi (that thou art) is akin to Soham, which also means I am that and Aham brahmasmi (I am the Brahman), which again is not very different from saying Shivoham (I am Shiva). And finally, Sarvam Khalva idam Brahman (All this is verily Brahman) which would imply there is only Brahman and no me. The only difference here between these two is that there is no personal God and Goddess like Shiva or Vishnu but rather an impersonal abstract God- The Brahman. This kind of experience seems universal to all theistic systems as we have more or less the same kind of format in other theistic systems too. Although, not as well categorized in the Christian Mystical system as within Hinduism, the Christian-mystical system does begin with surrender to The Christ who is the Lord and Master (Dasoham - I am the slave). The famous nineteenth century Christian Mystic says the more I know Christ the more I become Christ, which could be counted as the Soham (I am him) stage very easily. And finally, the twelfth century Christian Mystic Meister Eckhart says when there is no me there is no Christ meaning there is only that One God and no me. This could easily be categorized close to the Naham (no me stage). But these have to be read and are not as clear cut as the three stages of 1) Dasoham, 2) Soham, 3) Naham within the Hindu system. However, it must also be said that, by no means, all forms of Hinduism subscribe to the idea that such a grading to the higher levels is the truth. Like orthodox Christianity, many forms of Hinduism like the Madvacharya school, prescribe to Dasoham (I am the slave) stage as the only true and correct form and the other two are aberrances. Then again we have a very similar categorization

within Sufism of Islam. 244. Worship in different religious systems III In Sufism of Islam, Hu al Haque (I am the slave of Truth) is the beginning stage and obviously akin to Dasoham (I am the slave of that God), then once the Sufi meditates on that Haque (truth), which is another name for Allah, gradually he begins to feel one with that Haque/truth/Allah. We can easily see that this is not really different from the Soham (I am that God) or Shivoham (I am Shiva) or Aham Brahmasm (I am Brahman), or the more I know Christ the more I become Christ. It is in essence the same type of mystical experience with only the object of meditation/devotion different. And finally in Sufism, we have Haque (The truth) alone, which would mean I have vanished and there is no me anymore but only the Haque (Truth), and this can easily be seen as equivalent to Naham (No Me) stage. Again, like some forms of Hinduism and orthodox Christianity, orthodox Islam doesn't agree fully to these levels and experiences and say that Allah is always the Master and we are always the Slaves. What we have seen above are the similarities and universality of the experiences within theistic types of meditational systems. What is important to understand is that the Buddhist meditational system does not have equivalent to the above three stages of the theistic mystical meditational systems as the Buddhist system is a paradigmatic shift from any kind of Theistic system- personal Deity or impersonal abstract Deity like the Brahman. This is what most scholars influenced by theistic cultures, including Hindu scholars from the very ancient times till today seem to completely miss out and constantly attempt to categorize Buddhism within theistic Hindu concepts. Let us take some examples. Buddhist Vajrayana has Tara while Hindu Tantra has Tara. Now this becomes a rich field for misunderstanding and seeing the two as the same with a few minor differences. But let us check and see if they are essentially the same with only some minor outer trappings different or are they essentially different with some minor outer trappings similar.