Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 17:45:39 -0500
From: Unka Bart <mendicant-AT-buddhist.com>
Subject: re: The wheeeeeee...l and the energy


> "What is soundless, touchless, formless, imperishable
> Likewise, tasteless, constant, odorless,
> without beginning, without end, higher then the great,
> stable, by discerning that, one is liberated from the mouth of death"
>                                                     Upanishads
>
> But all religions operate on many levels, or rather, they are "used" on many
> levels. The emotional, the practical, the social and the mystical.
>Hinduism or
> Buddhism are religions which lend themselves to a mystical understanding of
> the universe, But how many use them that way? How many people wish to
> understand the interconnectedness and underlying truths of the universe?

Damn, Ali, that's downright profound!  I'm serious.  You probably know by now
that I'd disagree with you on whether the Eastern philosophies are indeed,
religions; since in my lexicon "religion" implies a diety to be worshiped
and some sort of power structure that exists to "interpret" the "holy" word
for the worshipers and specify the acceptable manner of performing such
worship.  The big three western monothieistic religions fit all those
tests, but all of the isms fall short to one degree or another.  That said,
your questions are cogent and I don't know the answers to them.  I know
that the answer is a number, at least one, perhaps even more...

> I feel that the percentage in any population of people with mystical desires
> is relatively constant. So even prosaic religions like islam and judaism
> invented sufism and the cabala to serve this minority. While in mystical
> religions, only a minority use the religion mystically.

I'm sure that you are correct.  However, the mere fact that only a minority
of users of any tool use it correctly, does not change the essential nature
of the tool.  Or do you see it otherwise?

> Perhaps the curve is skewed in the west. Because of the popularization of
> Hinduism and Buddhism in the '60's and '70's as an alternative mysticism to
> the judeo-christian cabalistic tradition (which is a bit of a pain:-), the
> mystic minority adopted them, therefore all the buddhists you meet are
> mystically inclined. *grin*. The immigrants seeing which way the wind is
> blowing, would also tend to adopt a more "socially" mystical view.

What I just said.  That I recognize that a path exists that will lead me
where I want to go, is sufficient for me.  And while I have not taken the
vow of a boddhisatva (to reject liberation for myself until all sentient
beings have achieved it), I still find myself with a flashlight in hand to
aid the occassional searcher who crosses my path, to find the way for
herself...

> I know the above is a gross simplification, but I am really interested in
> this. We have a hindu minority here in Pakistan, and I have been to India on
> numerous occasions (Fatima, my wife, is an Indian), so I have had chance to
> observe different caste hindus in their natural environment. :-). and
> recently, the Maharishi World Television has started brodcasting in
> India-Pakistan. They hardly get any viewership at all. Comparing their
> programming to the normal Hindu religious TV programming, you would be
> forgiven to think that these were two completely different religions.

You illuminate a situation that plainly exists.  I started to say, "a
tragic situation...." but that is not necessarily the case.  It is
possible, even probable, that those who fail to see the path are not yet
ready.  If the wheel truly turns as advertised, perhaps they have a few
revolutions to go before reaching sufficient spiritual maturity to grasp
this.  But the isms, and most especially buddh-ism, contain clear
directions for a seeker to use to find the path.

One of the greatest contributions of buddh-ism is the clarity of the
directions, aka "the Dharma," the Four Noble Truths.  And while I would
always argue that Zen exists completely independent of buddh-ism; I would
count the development of Zen as buddh-ism's *single* greatest single
contribution to the seeker of the path.

Then again, perhaps I am (merely) as full of shit as a christmas Turkey...

> How would you compare the American Buddhists to, say, the Taiwanese
> Buddhists as a group? Or any group which has adopted a religion and one
> native to it?

I don't mean to be flip, but, not being quallified to make that comparison,
I wouldn't expend the energy.  Further, if I were so quallified, I still
would have to decline.  I'd rather argue about how many angels can dance on
the head of the unmentionable one. (Hint, angels don't dance on pinheads).

Yer Kindly Ol' Unka Bart