Why can't we all just be happy?

In the ultimate sense, yes...the jiva in its pure transcendental state is beyond the material dualities of happiness and distress.

Bill, regarding your points:

1. Discussed in depth in Bhagavad-gita and confirmed by personal experience!

2. That's why I never could get with Buddhism...the thought of annihilation
into a void is frightening.

Srila Prabhupada explained the widespread attraction to voidist philosophy:
Many people have suffered so horribly in material life that the idea of continuing to eternally exist as an individual is not tolerable for them.

3. Agree, and as you know there are numerous examples of saintly persons who suffered from bodily illness and physical torture...but I have to assume that their advanced level of spiritual awareness was at least a mitigating factor.

These examples seem to be the most numerous in the Christian tradition but there are notable ones in the Vedic, as well.

4. Definitely agree, and I have seen this in real life, as you have. We have to practice being charitable in both word and deed.

 

One example I know of from the Vedic tradition is that of Sri Aurobindo, who fell over and severely broke his leg. He suffered for the rest of his life from the effects of this injury.
He says in 'Life Divine' and other places, that both pleasure and pain as we experience them here are like a distortion of an original ananda, and that the Yogic method is to transmute any pain (or pleasure ) into ananda. That may well be possible for a great yogi like him, but with the broken leg he admitted that when it occured he wasn't able to do this initially, due to the severity of the pain. Later on he was able to do so.
Sri Ramakrishna too suffered from throat cancer. Some say he got it because he took the illnesses and sins of his devotees on himself. Reading the kathamrita, or the parts that deal with his illness,one can see that although he was suffering physically, still he was able to experience ananda too, even Bhava Samhadi.

There are as you say many tales of suffering and torture etc associated with the Christian tradition. A few years ago, I read an account of the trials of the members of the Order of Templars back in the 14th c. I have to say that I don't accept the charges of witchcraft, devil-worship, ritual sodomy etc that were levelled against them were true, although under torture many 'confessed'. The last master of the Temple, Jaques de Molay, refused to crack.
One morning they marched him and his equally firm-willed deputy down to see where two pyres had been prepared for them, and told they had till late afternoon to think about it. Still they refused to confess.
When afternoon came, they were both brought out and tied to the stakes. In a last attempt to get a confession, they were then tormented for some time with hot coals and being burned all over their bodies. Still they refused to confess. The pyres were eventually ignited. De Molays' last words were to affirm his faith in Christ, and to curse the French monarchy, under whose auspices this was taking place, and being observed.
How can human beings withstand that kind of thing? That's what gets me. In my book, it must mean that De Molay and his deputy were men of quite extraordinary faith and also discipline.

 

My own Gurudev traveled the world for more than 25 years giving discourses, in spite of the fact that he had a very bad heart problem (which eventually ended his body's functioning).

In his early days in Thiruvannamalai, Ramana Maharshi went to meditate in a small underground chamber of the temple. He was found there many years later, absorbed in deep meditation, covered in insect bites and ravaged by lack of nourishment. He was roused and brought out and tended by townspeople who became devotees. The point is, he himself was totally unaffected by the ordeal.

 

As for detachment and others' suffering: Those who claim to be detached and are callous are not detached, they are selfish. With true detachment comes detachment frmo our own body also, which brings with it a vision of the essential oneness, the interdependent nature of the universe, and therefore great compassion.

As for Buddhism - not all strains teach that you disappear into a void. In fact that is a great misunderstanding of Buddhism. The shunyata referred to is the state of no mind, or thoughlessness - what we call meditation. Even a cursory reading of the works of great masters like Thich Nhat Hanh will reveal the purely joyous life-affirming, beautiful approach to life that is Buddhism.

 

The 1st noble truth states 'all life is suffering'.
If the anhilation of the individual is not the goal of Buddhism, what is? Since the individual, the self and indeed the universe are regarded as mind-created illusions?

 

Somebody is way off.

I like what Tom Sawyer said about suffering in some book. Someone came along and ruined a perfectly good misery (he was being dramatically miserable, thinking about how bad his life was when one of his friends came up and made him laugh, which of course, ruined a perfectly good misery).

 

Hare Krishna!


From Bhaskar:
That was the Dalai Lama.


Thanks Bhaskar, I did not know that.

Love,

Kumar.

 

Hare Krishna!



From BBB:

In the case of most dreams I agree. However, there can also be dreams of another order - 'visionary' dreams if you like - and these can be quite valuable.


Dear Bill,

Yes, visionary dreams are quite valuable and these are the dreams which often come true if efforts are made.

Spiritually speaking, a 'Pravartak' ( Sadhaka in the initial stage) very much depends on this and slowly becomes a great Yogi.

Love,

Kumar.

 

I don't know much about Indian traditions associated with dreaming. I know however that in other cultures dreams were and are seen as very significant. In the case for instance of the plains Indians of the USA, there was a tradition of dreaming. There were 'dream societies' which comprised those who had had the same particular dream. Dreams were also thought of as prophetic - it is recoreded that on the eve of the battle of Little Bighorn, Sitting Bull dreamed of dead american soldiers falling from the sky into the Sioux encampment. This did turn out to be true.
Also, in the Old Testament, prophetic dreams and the art of their interpretation plays a major role.


Jacob's Ladder by William Blake.

 

Yeah, there is a certain pleasure in wallowing in self pity, especially with a couple of bottles of wine to go with it.

 

Very true! In the case of Buddhists though, it seems wine is forbidden.:sunglasse

I just don't like the view that everything is an illusion, a mistake even, and all our human activities are ultimately of no value, other than to build up good karma to assist one's escape, or the escape of others, from existence. And to me, whatever modern Buddhists may say, that is absolutely intrinsic in the most basic teachings of the Buddha.
I'm also not at all keen on the idea that all manifest existence is created by mind.

Where modern Buddhist schools are concerned, I also have some suspicions. I wonder if they haven't departed significantly from the original teachings of Buddha. I know of one sect who are active in the UK who charge hundreds of pounds for meditation courses and so on. To me that knocks it off the map right away, as it's clearly only aimed at those affluent enough to pay, and hence can only end up as a form of elitism, with little significance on a more universal level.
And even historical Buddhism has always been mainly a monastic path, where the best the laity can hope for is a re-birth under more favourable conditions next time. So there's elitism at the very core of the Buddha-Dharma-Sangha conception on which it is based.

 

Bill...without citing scriptural references, I'll state that according to Srila Prabhupada's tradition, material existence is indeed real. The material creation is intrinsic in the total creation and will continue to exist after the liberation of any particular jiva, whether that jiva remains as a liberated soul in the material world or enters an eternal state of yoga-maya, or transcendental forgetfulness of anything but his eternal relationship with Krishna.

It's all a matter of consciousness...one can continue to inhabit a body in the material world yet be completely liberated from material life...material life contines to be real but the liberated one is fully aware of the spiritual and is no longer under the influence of material nature.

Regarding teachings-for-cash, SP in essence gave away the Maha-Mantra and the entire philosophical structure behind it for free...and it's still free. And, a person can fully participate in spiritual life and gain every benefit that a monk would, no matter what his/her occupation is...but, anyone will concede that a monastic and renounced setting is the most distraction-free and conducive.

 

Bill, it pains me to see you also going down the road of snap judgements. The first noble truth is not all life is suffering. That is a common wrong translation. The actual statement is "There is suffering in life."
If the statement was all life is suffering, the next 3 noble truths would have been logically negated, since the second describes the causes (that which has a cause has a beginning, therefore did not exist at some point) while the third tells that suffering can be ended, while the fourth noble truth explains the way to end suffering.

Second noble truth explains that suffering in life is caused by desires, likes and dislikes. This is perfectly in keeping with Hindu teachings. So long as there is desire and there is like/dislike, there is incompleteness, there is craving, there is disappointment, there is sorrow.

The third says that suffering can be ended. This is because suffering exists within time and that which has a beginning will also have an end.

The fourth tells us how to end suffering - through the eightfold path. The eightfold path again fits in perfectly with Hindu values - Right understanding, right aspiration, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right meditation. The first two tell us to first discipline the mind, then to bring all our actions into the path of dharma and finally to sublimate everything in meditation.

The eightfold path matches very well the eight sections of ashtang yoga.
Mind is controlled by
Yama [control of the mind]
Niyama [discipline]
Body is tuned by:
Asana [posture, composure]
Pranayama [breath control]
Pratyahara [sense control]
Meditation:
Dharana [concentration]
Dhyana [meditation]
Samadhi [enlightenment]

The same in vedas also - it is said sarvam dukhamayam jagat - the world is full of sorrow. But only to one who constantly attached to the world. To a man of detachment and equanimity there is no sorrow or misery involved. It is only a terrible misconception about Buddhism, one that is rife even among many Buddhists, that has led it to be seen as nihilistic.

The destruction of individual is the aim, both in Buddhism and in Hinduism. Transcending our limited ignorant existence, and to rise beyond the mind to a higher plane of wisdom is the aim. The way it is stated is different, that is all. Whether you say the glass is half full or half empty, you are accurately describing the same contents. And both are right.

 

very well put Bhaskar

 

The destruction of the individual is not the goal of all branches of Hinduism. Vaishnavas do not seek this, nor accept that it is the goal. It seems that the same is true of the yoga of Sri Aurobindo.
The transcending of the lower mind etc and attainment of a higher plane of knowledge/being does not at all imply the end of the individual. This in my view is a simplistic notion based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of spiritual realities.

BTW - I don't base anything on 'snap descisions' - I have actually read quite a lot of Buddhist stuff from various sources over 30 odd years.

 

The big difference seems to be over the question of the ultimate destiny of the soul. Advaitins and Buddhists say there will be a final nirvana in which the seperate existence of the individual soul will be merged into the One, and any sense of individual existence will cease.
Vaishnavism seems to suggest that beyond this One is a higher One. And that the jiva won't be dissolved in God, won't 'become' God, but will exist in His presence for eternity, retaining still its seperate existence. It will know itself part of God, but not God Himself.
Sri Aurobindo says that the experience of what he refers to as the 'world negating nirvana' is only a step on the way, although one which is often taken as the final destination, because of the force of that experience. However, he says that beyond that is a state of something like 'cosmic individuality'.

To some this may seem irrelevant, or knit-picking, and not worth harping on about. But consider what is possibly at stake here.

 

There has to be both a lover and a loved for bhakti to manifest. The notion of a perfected and eternal state of consciousness in which this lover and loved have ceased to exist separately suggests of necessity that bhakti is a temporary activity and merely a stepping stone, to be discarded upon realization of one's own self as the supreme eternal existence.

My understanding of bhakti is that it is the eternal nature of the soul and what Vaisnavism is all about...Krishna continually instructs Arjuna in so many ways to worship Me, offer all of your activities to Me...and you will come to Me. He always speaks of Himself in the first person, no matter what translation of the Gita you pick up and read...it's the commentaries by individuals that define the Supreme as ultimately impersonal or void.

There is a lot at stake here...per Srila Prabhupada, the whole meaning of spiritual life...focus on God versus focus on self.

 

Is the culmination of love not in union? Can you even imagine a love so intense, so complete, that absolutely no separation remains? As Paul Simon put it - you take two bodies and you roll them into one, their hearts and their bones, and they'll never come undone.

Krishna is the supreme spirit, the soul, not just the physical form. To call him anything else would be a travesty against his own teachings. And in Mahabharat there is a story in which after all the dust has settled, Arjuna and Krishna are relaxing in a garden and Arjuna asks bhagawan to repeat the bhagawad gita, now that he is at leisure to enjoy it fully. Krishna says he cannot, because he was in a different state at that moment - completely identified with Brahman. And Brahman is what you call impersonal - a terrible misnomer, considering it is your own self, the most personal entity possible.

It is not focus on God v. focus on self. It is focus on God vs. focus on Self. And in the initial stages of Sadhana it has to be seen as a separate entity, but that eventually leads to the experience of inner divinity only. It is not focusing on the tiny meaningless jiva self, but the eternal infinite brahman, the Self, which is God. In Srimad bhagavatam that self is identified with Krishna, in Ramayana it is identified as Sri Rama, in Shiva Purana as Shiva, in Devi Bhagavat as Durga, and in upanishads as the pure true self. But if you take each literally then there will be constant contradiction, since all puranas say that all vedas and puranas are true and must be respected. But then one says this is god, the other says that is god. Which is right? Upanishads answer - sarvam khalvidam bramha - everything is God. To deny that is to chip away at God's infinitude.

 

Well Vaishnava scriptures directly contradict this. For example, in the Ramayana, Hanumanji says to Sri Rama, seen as the pure self, I am nothing but you.

World negating nirvana is step one. Then comes world-embracing nirvana. And yes, individuality exists. Individual - that which cannot be divided - is one of the many names for Brahman.

 

That's not whats meant in this context by individuality. It implies an existence of a definite spiritual entity separate from, or distinct from God.
There can't be a world embracing nirvana. Just look into the meaning of the word. It implies a state beyond all movement, so clearly it can't embrace the world with it's dynamic nature. And anyway, it would only be to embrace an illusion.
The world can be seen in a spiritual light, but I don't see how the term nirvana could be applied. To attain nirvana is said by Buddhism to be the end of all manifest existence. So logically, what could there be to embrace?

But as I quoted Sri Aurobindo as saying the world-negating nirvana is only a step, I should make very clear that he thought the mistake of Advaita in general is to mistake this for the goal. Hence it remains a philosophy of liberation from sangsara like Buddhism, rather than a philosophy of world transformation like Sri Aurobindo's.
The idea of transformation of the world is also inherent in some Vaishnava doctrines such as the spiritualization of matter. And in my view, this is one of the inner meanings of the Christian idea of the new creation in the book of Revelation. There are numerous other similar teachings.