What happens after death?

Lately I've been thinking a lot about death.

And trying to find out what a Buddhist view on death might be.

A quick internet search brings up countless pages of stuff about rebirth, the continuity of consciousness, karmic repercussions in the next life, hell realms, hungry ghosts, the possibility of deathlessness through positive actions and meditation, the promise of escape from the Samsaric cycle of birth and death.

My main question is this: do the amateur bloggers (like me), the teachers, monks, lay practitioners and so on who talk about what happens after death actually, genuinely know what they're talking about? Have they come to such realisations through meditation and genuine knowing? Or have they come to their conclusions through studying texts and deciding to adopt a certain set of beliefs?


This, to me, is an important question. So far in my meditation I have discovered no truths or certainties about what might happen after death. All I know is that I will die one day. In fact, my meditation practice, combined with general contemplation about life, plus a few more life experiences added to my belt, have led me to a place of even greater uncertainty about what it's all about. Not in a bad way, really, just more uncertain. Perhaps it would be better, and more honest, to accept this uncertainty with a confident, agnostic "I don't know" than to adopt certain beliefs or ideas about what happens when you cease to exist.

I suppose my confusion serves me right for expecting to find answers to life's turbulence and uncertainty on google.



See these links for examples of so-called Buddhist beliefs about what happens after death:


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/walshe/wheel261.html
http://www.death-and-dying.org/understanding-rebirth.htm/

See this for what I perceive to be a realistic and honest view on death:

http://www.westernchanfellowship.org/agnostic-buddhist.html

A discussion about Karma

This is a typical explanation of karma given by many Buddhists. This (unedited) quote is taken from a text I just found, written by a Buddhist:

Whatever happens to us in our life is entirely self-generated. However, this life is not the only one. We have lived many, many times before. And in those previous lives we have at times been not very nice.


Imagine, for example, the history of the Nazis. They killed 6 million Jews alone, and millions more in the remaining time of their reign. What do you think will happen to them, karmically, as a group? They will come back as a group in a situation that will hand them a very, very unpleasant life. Think Africa, severe poverty and violance, AIDS, etc.

Here is the conversation that ensued:


K (me): I find it fairly shocking that you are basically saying that people in Africa living in conditions of dire poverty, violance (sic) and suffering from AIDS deserve what they have because they were probably Nazis in the past. To me this seems like a simplistic cop-out explanation for something that neither you nor I understand, i.e. why bad things happen to good people.

It's a nice cosy explanation but I'd like to ask you a question or two:

1. Do you have evidence for it? (this being the only believable explanation that anyone has come up with so far does not count as evidence).
2. Would you be prepared to tell somebody who is ill, suffering or living in poverty that their situation is a consequence of actions they took when they were King Henry VIII and beheaded 2 of their wives?

3. Is it important or necessary to find an explanation of why bad things happen to good people? You might say that it's important because if there are no consequences of our actions, people would have no reason to perform good deeds and be compassionnate. In response to this I would say that true compassion and truly good deeds are not done in order to gain some karmic prize for goodness. True compassion is spontaneous and any reward that may be received as a consequence is totally irrelevant to the person with true compassion.
 
A (him): Why does this upset you? Rather than responding to your question, I would love to respond to your anger. Do you feel anger? If so, what is the deepest reason for that? Ask me why the Tibetans got evicted by the Chinese and I will give you the detailed reasons for it.

K: *lol* Rather than respond to your question about my "anger", I would love to respond to your clever tactic to avoid my (reasonable) question. Why did you avoid it? Why do you think I am angry?

A: Tell me how you feel....

K: Eh?

A: Already now we have deterioation of communication. I asked why you are the only person with such heavy emotional reaction. Nobody else has responded the way you do. Are you looking for an answer or an excuse for confrontation?

K: Nobody else has responded the way I do. Perhaps they aren't particularly interested in the topic.

In terms of my personal motivations, I am interested in a constructive debate / conversation / discussion / exchange of ideas and challenges about the original topic: karma.

A: Okay. So, can you summarize your question then into one sentence?

K: That's difficult: too many things to say! :-) However, the three question I asked in my first response are the important ones for me (see above).

A: You may agree when I say that karmic circumstances are both individual and collective. You may agree with me when I say that when a group of people collectively kill six million Jews, that they will collectively get a bill. That is, if you agree that an action has a consequence. Concerning the Germans, I asked myself what would happen to them? When I did ask the question, the image of the starving and suffering Jews came to me, and suddenly it shifted and I saw Nazis incarned into situations of terrible suffering in Africa. So, that is a very subjective experience, you may do with it whatever you wish.



I would be prepared to tell somebody who is suffering to explore what has caused his suffering, so he won't repeat it. I would not share my view of what that might have been.

The question of Why is this happening to me? I hear it very often. I meet a lot of people and it comes up a lot. When you are part of an active process of alleviation of suffering, this is in fact a very crucial question. Christ healed a person and then said, Go and sin no more. He meant, don't repeat what got you into trouble. This seems rather wise to me.


Here is an extra. I was not joking about the Tibetans. I have gained a lot of information about Tibetan habits, which are hard to gain. The Lamas committed many atrocious things behind monastery walls. Even the Dalai Lama said, We have driven people away from our borders for 1,200 years. We should not expect anybody to help us. We have not helped anybody. Now, that is insight.

K: OK thanks for your opinion. Can I ask you another question? ;-)

How come there is an individual karma that passes from one individual sentient being to another after each death, when the individual self is just a delusion ? Why does it go from one individual to another? It shouldn't do that since the individual is by essence an illusion.

 H (new contributor): karmic vulnerability in its self is a beautiful thing for me. the moment i start trusting in it and not live in its denial...yes i do feel the pain (the negative aspect of karma) and get angry with myself and everyone else for pointing it out to me. this action in its self has been bringing out a very healing effect upon me...and yes, what my great great grandfather did or what i have done in my past subconsciously has been driving my actions (constructive and destructive) until this realization. digging into that can of worms is one messy place to be. on the otherhand....when i come upon the realization that in the law of karma....all good deeds my great great grandfather did and all in between including me...have a beautiful positive effect upon me. now this is one box of chocolates i love to be in and will nurture in the future. it is advisable to have the guidance of a trained buddhist healer, when working on karmic pain. Quote/ Albert Einstein - every action has an equal and opposite reaction. trust my share helps.

love to all and happy new year.

A: If you are acqainted with Buddhist Doctrines, here it becomes important to know about the existance of the Doctrine of Two Truths. Truly, truly important, because I see a lot of spiritual folks tripping over this point. The Doctrine of Two Truths (you can google it, or find it on Wikipedia) talks about there being Two Truths, the one being Absolute and the other being Relative. I think Nagarjuna went heavily into this.


On the Absolute nothing ever changes and nothing means anything, even if entire galaxies come and go. It is on the Absolute level that there is no individual self and nothing changes. But on the Relative level, even if you are a Buddha, it will make a difference if in the morning you take the Absolute for a walk in your body ... if you go left in front of your house, or right.... the result will be rather different.... See More

The guru phenomena of the 80 were a good example of misunderstanding this. They all thought the Guru is the Absolute, therefore can do no wrong. Well, wrong! If the Absolute navigates in the Relative context, we have continuous decisions, no , yes, good, bad, day, night ... take a subway trip in NY at midnight... good idea, bad idea... You get what I mean.

The doctrine of Two Truths corelates to Buddhas statement, Emptiness is Form and Form is Emptiness. On the Form level there is duality and decisions and choices. On the Emptiness Level there is no such thing. But down here, if "you" or whatever causes you to act ..... slap somebody, somebody will slap "You or whatever" BACK. Simple.

To make it really complicated, You also suffer the consequences of your ancestors actions. Now, you can ask me about that next.

In my personal meditations I discovered there is no I. How did you discover it?
 
K: Happy New Year to you too H and A.


Nice quote from Einstein. I don't think Einstein mentioned anything about karma passing on from Mr Smith to a camel or a starving African child though.

I totally agree that actions that people in our distant past (even before we were born) can have an effect on us. Great Grandfather affected the emotions and behaviour of Grandma, whose emotions and behaviour in turn affected Dad, who of course had a huge influence on us in our childhood and therefore the rest of our lives and our psyche too.

If that's what we're debating, I think we're all in agreement.

What we're really debating, though, is whether an individual's actions in their current life really do have consequences in their own future lives. And as the individual self is, according to Buddhist thought, a non-existant, I don't see how these two views are compatible.
 
A: If you make Buddhist Thought your Absolute God, without having any direct experience, then we argue about air. Let us stop here. Have a good day.
_______________________________________________
 
Readers: your thoughts on this topic would be greatly appreciated, by me if by nobody else! I'm struggling with this topic. I'm finding it difficult to accept that people living in dire poverty in Africa, or suffering the effects of global warming and rising sea levels in Bangladesh, brought it upon themselves because they were war criminals or mass murderers or whatever in a former life. I mean.... what?
 
I don't have an explanation as to why some people suffer more than others, but I prefer to accept my ignorance on these matters than to take on an unconvincing, irrational, absurd explanation such as this.

Panic attack

So one day a week or so ago I had a nasty experience after meditation.

I had done a 40 minute metta bhavana (development of loving kindness) meditation during the evening, and all was well. But when I went to bed everything looked and felt weird. My head felt heavier than normal. My curtains and the pictures on my wall looked bigger and darker and different. The silhouette of my bedside lamp in the dark looked utterly strange against the white curtain with the moonlight coming through. I felt detached from myself, from my body. Panic started to well up inside me so I turned the light on. The square shape of my room, the corners of the ceiling, looked sharp and heavy, and the little specks of paint on the wall seemed to be moving the more I stared at them.

All sorts of stuff started running through my mind. My train of thought went something like this, as far as I can remember: "I'm a consciousness inside my head and I'm going to be with this consciousness for 50 or 60 years more, then I'm going to die. My mum is going to die, and my dad too, and suffering is ahead of me in life.... Ssshhhh, you don't need to deal with that now. You're freaking out because the curtains look weird. Don't think about dying right now. Shit, shit, I forgot to breathe. I'm going to suddenly stop breathing and die. I must keep control, cos I'm freaking out and when I'm freaking out I'm frightened that I'll do something totally crazy like smother myself or bang my head against the wall. Don't move. Don't move. Arrrggghhh this is what they say in Buddhism, that everything is impermanent and not accepting that makes us suffer, so I need to get over my fear of dying right now or I'm gonna be freaking out like this until I'm 80. OK so we're all going to die. I can accept that. ARRGGGHHHH the wall is moving...." and so on and so on.

It went on like that for about twenty minutes (though I'm not really sure) and eventually I put on some Mozart, focused on that, calmed down and went to sleep.

The generally accepted Buddhist interpretation of this would perhaps be that I was facing some kind of reality, i.e. that of death and non-self, and that I could have learnt something from that experience, looked fear right in the face and seen it for what it was: delusion. This, anyway, is what I suspect many Buddhists might say.

The generally accepted modern psychological interpretation of this would perhaps be that I had a panic attack and that it's perhaps not a good idea to do meditation just before going to bed.

I am concerned that the reason some Buddhists would assure me that the Buddhist interpretation of my experience is truer is that it fits nice and squarely with Buddhist teachings, rather than the person in question having had any real experience of panic attack or genuinely knowing what the best thing to do is.

I sometimes get the impression that some people might be tempted not to look at each situation and think about what genuinely would be the healthiest thing for the person who is asking for advice to do, but rather to give a nice, wise-sounding Buddhisty answer, something along the lines of "face your fear and you will see through it" or "you fear losing control because you are attached to control."

Maybe there is some truth in those statements, but I say in response to that advice: go and have a panic attack, see how it feels, then come back and tell me what to do.

Killing the Buddha

This article by Sam Harris has got to be one of the best things I've ever read on Buddhism. It's also one of the most 'Buddhist' things I've ever read, despite it being written by someone who prefers to call himself an Atheist than a Buddhist. I also love the fact that it appeared in a Buddhist magazine, the Shambhala Sun.

Very, very interesting and insightful. I wish I'd written it!

http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=2903Itemid=247

My friends: Buddhas in disguise!

OK, so yesterday I felt like I was losing the plot (see blog post before this one).

I had a big rant and yelled (at the wall), cried a lot and wrote some angry and confused things on my blog and on the Buddhist internet forum I belong to.

I partly did this to elicit a response from people, particularly the Buddhists amongst my friends and acquaintances, to see what they'd say. I feel like a prize twat now for being so self-indulgent, but I guess it's done now.

And I got lots of responses.

Every single one of them was extremely nice and thoughtful and each person was more concerned in giving me some good advice based on my current situation and state of mind, rather than trying to defend Buddhism or advise me to go and live in a monastery or something.

I feel extremely grateful to those people, and I feel that this kind of genuine, honest, compassionate conversation is far more Dharma-esque and Buddhist than anyone who would ever quote a Buddhist scripture at me or tell me that I'm just deluded and that I should meditate more. Those things may be true, but saying something like that would just not be helpful right now.

So - thank you people, and thank you world.

I often think that close friends, parents, and even strangers from internet chat forums (!) can be far better teachers than Buddhist monks living across the other side of the globe with no idea of the problems faced by lay Buddhists in the western world.

Fourth reply to question about the worldly life

The answers are coming in thick and fast now! Thanks Shozen for your reply, and thanks Laurie for your opinion - it's all much appreciated, even if only to show me that different people have different interpretations and different ideas about renunciation, so it's really up to me to decide what I think, and what is best for me.

To read the question, click here.
____________________________________________________________________________

Dear Katy,

Firstly let me Apologise for the delay in answering your questions. I am always handy for a straight forward answer.

Quote:
"I'm 25, female, British and have been practicing Buddhist meditation for about a year as well as studying the Dharma and reading a lot about the topic."
The Buddha taught there are two kinds of teachings: (1) wrong teachings and (2) right teachings.
It the UK, monks such as Ajahn Sumedho who is also a westerner can generally offer the 'right teachings'

There are two kinds of renunciation: (1) renunciation based on an ideal or superstition; and (2) renunciation based on insight or dispassion.

When one decides to enter the monastery based on an ideal or superstition, the life of a renunciate is very difficult. But when one enters the monastery due to being dissatisfied with the options the world offers, the life of a renunciate is very easy. Concentration or meditation bliss comes easily.

You appear to have been drawn in by the popular Buddhist advertising. Unfortunately, this kind of Buddhist evangelism has grown in the world, contrary to the Lord Buddha's wisdom.

Quote:
"...just a few more lifetimes of misery. it's your choice!"
This is superstition. Rebirth was taught by the Buddha in a society that already held rebirth as a pre-existing belief to assist the worldly folks to do good and avoid self-harm. The Buddha did not teach people rebirth to motivate them to ordain. The Buddha taught the worldly person if they do good, they will be reborn in heaven or as a high human being. But to ordain because one believes in rebirth is wrong. Buddha taught faith in the higher Dhamma arises from the experience of suffering & unsatisfactoriness. If one ordains due to superstition, one will spend their monastic career teaching superstition because their mind will not penetrate that state which is free from suffering.

Quote:
"I'd appreciate any advice you have on these matters. I'm feeling really quite low about it all at the moment."
Sure Katie. My advice is to do two or three 10-day silent meditation retreats. If you realize this is not for you then the monastic life is not for you.

The Buddha offered so many beautiful & wise teachings for laypeople. If meditation does not bring your mind deep satisfaction & bliss, then I advise you study the Buddha's teachings for laypeople.

In brief, if you want a loving relationship, then that is the life for you, to pursue wisely & skilfully.

Kind regards
DDhatu
BuddhaForum.org

http://www.knowbuddhism.info/2009/11/renunciation-in-buddhism.html
Yours in Dhamma
Shozen

May you be filled with Loving Kindness,
May you be Well,
May you you be Peaceful and at Ease,
May you be Happy.

Third reply to question about the worldly life

Here is another reply to my question, which you can read by clicking here

___________________________________________________________________


Hello Katy -

Thank you for letting me answer your question.

This worldly life is called "Samsara". It is the cycle of birth, ageing, sickness and death. It is a place full of suffering. Buddha Shakyamuni before he became Buddha Shakyamuni saw much suffering. So his first teaching "The First Turning of the wheel of Dharma" was about suffering - The Four Noble Truths. He taught that we are unhappy and we suffer because we do not see the world as it is. We grasp at things as permanent and unchanging that will by their very nature change. All things change. But we refuse to accept that and that leads to suffering.

Since this worldly life is full of changeable suffering, it is to be let go of. We should renounce it because all it will lead to is suffering. Instead, we should work on our minds and by working on our minds we will be able to find peace and calm. We will learn to see the world as it truly is and stop our own suffering. We will never have to suffer any more.

But as long as we cling and grasp at things like posessions and relationships, we will surely always suffer.

When I was considering whether or not to become Budddhist, I had the same thoughts as you. I loved music and pretty things and could not imagine living without them. I love Beethoven's Ninth the best too.

Buddha never said you could not enjoy things in this world. He simply said that they bring suffering. So if you like Beethoven's Ninth, continue to listen to it. But if you follow the Buddha, you will learn not to have attachment to it. It is the attachment that will cause you suffering. Let us say you love classical music a lot. Let us say it brings you much emotional pleasure - so much so you could not imagine living without it. What happens if one day, you begin to go deaf. Now you will suffer because you realize that you will have to live without something you are so attached to. However, instead when you listen to Classical music you can truly appreciate it and enjoy it but you create no attachement to it, then if you go deaf, you will not suffer. There will be nothing you lost.

Remember, Buddha taught everything so that we stop suffering.

Again, chasing after money means that you have an attachment to it and you might even hurt someone so that you get more money than the other person. Then not only are you suffering but you are causing suffering to others.

However, if you simply recognize that you must have money to live and puruse a career that does least damage to other sentient beings to get it then there is no harm. If you lose the money you have, you will not be unhappy because you know that the nature of things is impermanence. If you get a lot of money, you will not grasp at it because you know that grasping causes suffering.

But you must have money to live here in the West especially. If you have money to live where you are not always wondering where your next meal will come from then rejoice - that means you will have more time to practice the Dharma and improve yourself so you can become enlightened and if you are a Mahayana practitioner, you can then help others become enlightened.

Of course it is fine to love and be loved. Again, it is fine if you can learn to do it with no attachment. If your lover dies suddenly, you will not become depressed or commit suicide. If you can learn the tools to do this, then you will not suffer and because you are not suffering you will more easily be able to help others. Eventually of course, when you have reached a high enough state of understanding of the dharma teachings, then you will probably choose a celibate life and you will renounce the world because by doing that it will allow you time to practice the dharma more and the more time you practice the sooner you will become enlightened.

Buddha Shakyamuni taught 84 thousand teachings. Why did he teach so many? Each teaching he gave he tailored it for his specific audience.

He knew that each group or individual he taught was at a different stage in their emotional and spiritual development. So he said that just as a doctor would not prescribe the same medicine to two different people for two different illnesses, neither did he teach in the same way to everyone. He taught each person the lessons they needed to hear the way they needed to hear it.

So for some people like myself, living in a Buddhist Retreat Center and wishing to ordain as a Buddhist Nun at 51 years of age after working in professional theatre for 30 years, I am ready for a bit more renunciation than someone who has not had the life experiences I have.

You are in your prime - you are in the middle of experiencing the joys the world has to offer. So of course it would not seem right to you to just drop everything and renounce the world.

However - where all human beings are the same is that we all suffer. And Buddha did come to understand why we suffer and each of his 84 thousand teachings was trying as hard as he could to help each and every sentient being to be free of suffering.

We suffer because we grasp at things and hold on to them and expect them not to change or leave us. When the do change as they must because change is the law of the world, we suffer - unless we learn to train our minds to see things as they really are - dependant arisings - that they are created, they abide for a while and then they leave or die or disappear - like notes in a musical score.

Perhaps all Buddha was trying to get us to see was to enjoy the notes as they arise and then let them go. If we held on to the fist note of the Ode to Joy, there would be no second note. But we allow them to arise we enjoy them and let them pass away and allow other notes to arise.

We suffer because we cling to things of the past and are frightened or worried about things in the future - all we have is now - that is what the teachings say - that is what meditation teaches -

But instead we allow our egos to hold on to things in the past and don't want them to change - then we suffer when they do. If we slowly, slowly teach our egos to let go of grasping to the past or attaching to what might happen in the future then we will not suffer.

Then eventually, slowly, slowly, when we are ready we will begin to realize that this world of samsara - changeable suffering - is to be abandoned because it can only bring suffering - but only when we are ready should we renounce it - otherwise, if we renounce it before we are ready, we will suffer - and Buddha in his great compassion would never want anyone to suffer for any reason.

I hope some of that made sense.

Don't hesitate to ask any further questions if you wish.

And I hope you get to Sing Ode To Joy again soon as it is truly beautiful.

Namaste - Laurie

Second reply to question about the worldly life

Wow, this one is even longer! Thanks for your time and effort Joe - wow! :-)

To read the question, click here.

____________________________________________________________________________

Hello Katy,
Thank you for asking an excellent question. This is one that arises commonly in Buddhism and I think the issue is rarely addressed in a meaningful manner so forgive me while I give you a very lengthy response to it. Years ago I was attending a talk in a Buddhist monastery where the monk speaking said “all attachment is wrong, you need to free yourself from it,…. you must cut your hair and wear robes to be free of attachment”. After the talk I walked up to him and asked, “what about your attachment to bald heads and robes, must you give up this attachment”? He then proclaimed that he was not attached to it, that it is the sign of not being attached. I find this interesting Buddhist double speak. The idea of renunciation has resulted in a ‘spiritual’ competition’ among monks over the years. They have torn and sewn their garments to look ‘more renunciated’ than others. In my mind there’s a Monty Python skit here on ‘I’m more renunciated than you”. “Are not, I’ve got much less nothing than you do”, etc. I can hear their voices doing it. The idea of renunciation itself has become a material object and lost the point of it all. I am not saying there are not serious monks out there and that there is no validity to the idea of renunciation but you have to understand the point of it. If this is just a practice or ritual it has no meaning. If we truly realize that the things we desire and attach to will not ever bring us real fulfillment then we need not renunciate them because we have already broken through that illusion.
The illusion that wealth, sex, power or whatever will fulfill us is what drives us. In the story of the historical Buddha, Siddhartha realized that the hedonistic life was not going to fulfill him. It wasn’t that he renunciated it, it was that he knew existentially that it could not fulfill him. The mere act of renunciation without a profound realization of what is actually going on is pointless but to reach the point that you know beyond the shadow of any doubt that these things cannot fulfill you is priceless. In the midst of these things they can hold no attraction or sway over you, they have become actually meaningless. To just renunciate them causes an object in your mind that you stand ever opposed to and thus remains irresolvable. Look at the Catholic priests whom renunciate sex, are they free from the attachment to it? They must ever fight mentally to keep this renunciation and fight the self- created demons that arise from it. It is the renunciation of nature; how is it that nature is wrong here? Someone who has lived through it, has broken their attachment to it, and the illusion of it; is truly free and it holds no allure for them anymore. You don’t have to live through it to do this. When you realize about any one thing that it won’t fulfill you that will influence your view of all other attachments. When you inquire as to who it is that seeks fulfillment you will find these attachments dissolving. So what is most important is to realize where the root of your desire and attachments comes from and then you can move to resolve it.
I always go back to the early stories of Zen here. When Hui Ka went to Bodhidharma he was not told to renunciate anything, he was not told to meditate, he was not told to chant, leave his home or do prostrations but what he was told to do was to ‘show me your heart mind that I may pacify it” or present to me who it is that suffers. How can this be so ignored in today’s Buddhism? All of those other things come from the practice of Buddhism, the religion of Buddhism, that is carried on by others. They might all help but if you don’t do it with the right understanding, with the right drive and motivation, then it’s all practice without meaning. When Siddhartha gave it all up and sat under the tree he had been through renunciation and hedonism and neither worked. He knew he would starve himself to death if he kept up the asceticism. I believe William James once said, “ drink too much and see pink elephants, eat too little and see God”. In either case Siddhartha came to the point where he had to face himself in the moment and he sat under the Bodhi tree till this happened fully.
I know this is not “Zen” per say but I want to show you some writings from two prominent Indian philosophers on renunciation. Remember, awakening is awakening, Zen is just a word used to describe one method and has no real meaning in itself so because it’s not a Buddhist teacher does not mean that they are not talking about the exact same thing, they are:

From “Be as You Are” Ramana Maharishi

Q: The yogis say that one must renounce this world and go off into secluded jungles if one wishes to find the truth.
A: The life of action need not be renounced. If you meditate for an hour or two every day you can then carry on with your duties. If you meditate in the right manner then the current of mind induced will continue to flow even in the midst of your work. It is as though there were two ways of expressing the same idea; the same line which you take in meditation will be expressed in your activities.
Q: What will be the result of doing that?
A: As you go on you will find that your attitude towards people, events and objects gradually changes. Your actions will tend to follow your meditations of their own accord.
Q: Then you do not agree with the yogis?
A: A man should surrender the personal selfishness which binds him to this world. Giving up the false self is the true renunciation.
Q: How is it possible to become selfless while leading a life of worldly activity?
A: There is no conflict between work and wisdom.
Q: Do you mean that one can continue all the old activities in one's profession, for instance, and at the same time get enlightenment ?
A: Why not ? But in that case one will not think that it is the old personality which is doing the work, because one's consciousness will gradually become transferred until it is centered in that which is beyond the little self.
Q: If a person is engaged in work, there will be little time left for him to meditate.
A: Setting apart time for meditation is only for the merest spiritual novices. A man who is advancing will begin to enjoy the deeper beatitude whether he is at work or not. While his hands are in society, he keeps his head cool in solitude.
Q: Then you do not teach the way of yoga?

A: The yogi tries to drive his mind to the goal, as a cowherd drives a bull with a stick, but on this path the seeker coaxes the bull by holding out a handful of grass.
Q: How is that done?
A: You have to ask yourself the question `Who am I ?' This investigation will lead in the end to the discovery of something within you which is behind the mind. Solve that great problem and you will solve all other problems.

From David Godman in “Be as You Are”:

“This time-honoured structure sustained the common Indian belief that it was necessary to abandon one's family and take to a meditative life of celibate asceticism if one was seriously interested in realising the Self. Sri Ramana was asked about this belief many times but he always refused to endorse it. He consistently refused to give his devotees permission to give up their worldly responsibilities in favor of a meditative life and he always insisted that realization was equally accessible to everyone, irrespective of their physical circumstances. Instead of advising physical renunciation he told all his devotees that it would be spiritually more productive for them to discharge their normal duties and obligations with an awareness that there was no individual `I' performing or accepting responsibility for the acts which the body performed. He firmly believed that mental attitude had a greater bearing on spiritual progress than physical circumstances and he persistently discouraged all questioners who felt that a manipulation of their environment, however slight, would be spiritually beneficial. “

From Sri Nisargadatta “I am That”:

Q: Do you call it vairagya, relinquishment, renunciation?
M: There is nothing to renounce. Enough if you stop acquiring. To give you must have, and to have you must take. Better don't take. It is simpler than to practice renunciation, which leads to a dangerous form of 'spiritual' pride.

All this weighing, selecting, choosing, exchanging -- it is all shopping in some 'spiritual' market. What is your business there? What deal are you out to strike? When you are not out for business, what is the use of this endless anxiety of choice? Restlessness takes you nowhere. Something prevents you from seeing that there is nothing you need. Find it out and see its falseness. It is like having swallowed some poison and suffering from unquenchable craving for water. Instead of drinking beyond all measure, why not eliminate the poison and be free of this burning thirst?

And:

M: Mere physical renunciation is only a token of earnestness, but earnestness alone does not liberate. There must be understanding which comes with alert perceptivity, eager enquiry and deep investigation. You must work relentlessly for your salvation from sin and sorrow.
Q: What is sin?
M: All that binds you.



The desire to renunciate itself is an attachment and must be renunciated, right? So it creates its own set of problems. When my teacher, Masao Abe, left him home and went to the monastery the first thing he saw written above the gate was “To seek awakening itself is hell creating karma”. In other words that you seek to do this you create the problem.
I do think I have to address how this emphasis on renunciation comes up in Eastern thought because it is valid and important. When you think yourself to be the body and your thoughts you think those things that arise that please the body and mind will appease you. So mistaking ourselves to be that object of our thoughts, the thing we call ‘I’, we then pursue the objects of our desires. Ultimately these things will never fulfill us and many eventually destroy us. No matter how much we pursue the objects of our consciousness they cannot add to our fulfillment and only distract from it. The more we get, the more we want. We constantly delude ourselves that eventually the right amount of money, sex, power, relationships or whatever will fulfill us. We do not see our true self which can neither be added to or taken away from. That which is the root of our being is not affected by these pursuits. Sages of the past, having come to this as an existential conclusion then told their students that it is not till they realize how empty these pursuits are that they will be able to move forward. It became a practice rather than an existential fact. The students believed that these things don’t fulfill you and were misleading but they did not know it was the truth, they only believed it. It is the false identification of these desires as fulfilling that is the problem and not the desires themselves. There is no reason not to enjoy food, music, sex, relationships and other worldly pleasures so long as you truly realize that they and the collecting of them cannot truly fulfill you. I don’t mean understand that they can’t fulfill you, I mean profoundly and existentially know it. When this inquiry full bores into you then when engaged in those activities it will drive you to see who it is that is engaged in those activities. Nature lives fully engaging in these activities; there is nothing fundamentally wrong with them.


There is an old curse that goes, “ I hope you get everything you want”. Now, why is that such a curse? Because you realize you are still not fulfilled and cannot be fulfilled, it causes despair. It is not ‘you’ that becomes fulfilled but the overcoming of you, the profound and existential renunciation of the self that leads to true fulfillment. You as you now know yourself to be is what stands in the way of awakening.



The idea of a so-called spiritual life and a worldly life is just a construct of the mind. There are not two such separate lives that exist in distinction from one another just as there is not a separate self and true-self, this is all an illusion created by the ego. The root is always there, before birth and after death, you cannot be apart from it. In the religious world this is a dualism maintained by those who want ‘spiritual’ standing and rank. Where is there this delineation in nature? Can two such opposing worlds exist in the idea of Buddhist non-dualism? Don’t worry about such things. Let those who are attached to their non-attachment, robes and bowls, tend to such things if it makes them happy. Only you can inquire into your own self nature.

Let me make another point about the idea of renunciation. Are the poor in Dafur and throughout the rest of the world better off because they have nothing? Are they more spiritually aware and fulfilled since they have no clothes, food or shelter? They are not worldly at all and yet this is a desired state preached by many and to what ends. They have nothing to renunciate so what would one of these Buddhists tell them to renunciate? The one thing they have, that we all have, is the attachment to the idea of our self, the ego. Because they have nothing material does not mean that this relationship has changed at all, though it may. It is your relationship and identity with these things that matters and not the practice itself.

I cannot tell you to renunciate anything but what I can ask you to do is to seek who you are. If you pursue this you won’t need to renunciate anything because you will realize how fruitless those pursuits are, they will lose their meaning to you. When you love, ask who it is that loves and when you suffer ask who it is that suffers. Who is the other person that you love and ultimately who is it that was born and will die? It is not till you get to the root of your own self nature that you will answer these questions. There is no reason you cannot do this in every day life. In the ox-herding pictures of Zen the last picture is ‘Returning to the Market Place”, in other words, being in the world.
I know this was wordy but I hope it helps you.
Take care,
Joe

Reply to question about the worldly life

Here is the first response I received to my question on AllExperts.

To read the question, click here.

I'm really amazed and grateful that he put so much effort into giving this lengthy reply:

___________________________________________________________________________________

Dear Katy Yelland,

I appreciate your question and thank you for the opportunity to answer it. Your question is well-founded and deals with many things. I hope that I am able to address them all in my response.

Let me first start off with a metaphor. Imagine that you like to play a sport (take your pick - baseball, softball, basketball, cricket, soccer (football) or any other). What are the different levels that can be played?

a.Recreational –
At this level, you will play only when the desire arises AND the situation allows. You will only play when you are not working, not doing chores, and out and about with others. You will only play if you want to and feel like it. You will probably not play too long and play just enough to make you feel happy.

b.Exercise –
At this level, you will play just enough to complete a specific goal, that is, to exercise. Sometimes you will want to, sometimes you won't. However, even when you don’t feel like it, you will continue to do so, since you set a goal and that is to exercise. When you play, you will play not for the sport itself, but for the goal of the sport (exercise or fitness).

c.Team or Group play for fun –
At this level, you will find others who share your love for this sport. You will visit them often and make friends with these people. You will sacrifice some of your time to this sport and enjoy it as you do it. The many people you will play with have various skill levels, but you will all share a common above average love for this sport that others in the world might not share.

At this level, you will also compare your skill to others. When you see others who are not as good as you, you might help them get better. If you see others who are better than you, you might learn from them to make yourself better. All in all, you all help each other progress in your skill.

d.Competitive Play –
At this level, you will dedicate much of your time to training and preparing for your matches and competitions. It will permeate into much of your daily activities and thoughts. As you work, you will think of your sport. As you sleep, you will dream of your sport. Everything you do, will in some way shape or form affect your sport.

At this level, you will play often and with rigor. While not playing, you will refrain from things that would be harmful to your play. For example, if you are serious about playing your sport, you might stay away from such harmful things such as cigarettes, alcohol or drugs. You will be serious about your sport and dedicate much of your time to your sport

e.High Level Competitive Play (Olympics?) –
At this level, you will no longer work in anything other than your sport. Your sport has become the most important thing in your life. You sacrifice partying, love, family, friends and everything in order to become the ULTIMATE at your sport. You feel that achieving the ultimate goal is the only thing worth doing in your life. You live, sleep and breathe your sport. Everything you do is training for your sport. You will not be happy until you completely achieve your goal.

Now, Buddhism works in the same way as these sports. Renunciation is merely the level at which you practice Buddhism (sport).

a.Recreational practice
At this level, you might read some books about Buddhism, meditate sometimes and go to temples. However, you do not feel Buddhism is the most important thing in your life. You only think about Buddhism when you feel like it. However, you find other things in life more important.

At this level, you don’t know why you meditate, what karma means and how it affects your life. Life is suffering at times, but it is bearable. You don’t have to renounce anything nor sacrifice any significant amount of time in order to practice Buddhism.
As a result, you will feel good about practicing when you do, but not really see any major significant results in your life.

b.As spiritual exercise
At this level, you feel like you need spirituality in your life. Therefore you turn towards meditation. When you meditate, it makes you feel better about yourself. Therefore, whenever you feel bad about yourself, you will find some time to meditate.

At this level, you will also not know why you meditate or practice Buddhism. You will not understand karma and how it affects your life. You will not have to sacrifice much to practice either. However, you will have to occasionally sacrifice some time for your practice.
As a result, every time you practice, you will feel better. However, when you don’t do it, you won’t feel better.

c.Practicing with a group
At this level, you feel somewhat serious about your practice. While you still want to live in this world and have a family, fall in love, listen to Beethoven and sing in choirs. However, you begin to feel your suffering as problematic and worthy of attention. You learn to see how your suffering comes from your perceptions, but are not able to tackle all of them yet. You slowly progress and find that your life gets better.

At this level, you will know that meditation will lead to focus and contemplation will lead to finding the cause of your suffering. You will vaguely understand karma and see how it operates in your daily life. You will be willing to spend large amounts of time practicing, while not neglecting your duties.

As a result, each time you go to practice with a group, you will come home a better person. However, the longer the period of time between practice, the sooner you revert back to your old self.

d.Dedicated practice
At this level, you are very serious about your practice. You spend as much time as possible practicing. You still work and have activities and responsibilities, but all other time is for practice. Even while you are working, doing activities or taking care of responsibilities, you begin to notice that practice can be done in your daily life. When problems arise, you tackle them immediately and firmly. You progress firmly in your practice and truly become one with the world.

At this level, you will know that meditation itself will not solve your problems. You will know that you need to focus and contemplate in order to find the cause of your suffering. Once you find the cause of your suffering, you will develop techniques on how to destroy those causes.

As a result, you are happy to have certain problems develop since that means you now have something to destroy. Each time you destroy a problem you are that much more a better person. People around you notice a definite change in you and ask you what you have done. There is no reverting back to your old self since you have destroyed the cause of your suffering.

e.Ordination
At this level, you realize the real purpose of life is to see life as suffering and escape the rounds of rebirth. You ordain and practice as much as you can in whatever time you have left.

“What is the real difference between the "worldly" life and the "spiritual" life? Most things I read seem to regard the so-called "worldly" life with contempt. What is this worldly life?”

The worldly life is what the life you are living, the life I am living and the life everyone is living. The spiritual life is the life of understanding you develop as you journey through the worldly life. In the worldly life, the things you do, the money you make, the things you obtain stay with the world when you die, however, in the spiritual life, the things you understand, the perceptions you develop, these things go with you after you die.

As for all the examples and questions you asked, (money, Beethoven, choirs, love…) some of these are worldly some of these are spiritual. It is often very hard to separate each one into different groups. However, one thing I want to point out is that just because the world does it, the world encourages it, or it feels right, doesn’t always make it right. Some quick examples are:
1. The world used to think the world was flat
2. The world used to think that having slaves was ok (some people still do)
3. The world thinks killing is sometimes justified
4. The world often thinks women are not as valuable as men
5. Some people in the world like to do drugs, drink alcohol and fight because it feels
good to them

So, as you see, not all things the world encourages, teaches, sets as laws or even do can be considered right.

There are many clarifications I can make on each of the points you asked, but that might end up being a 20 page response. I would like to offer the above as a preliminary over simplification.

If you would like more clarification on how to practice or for me to address any particular topic in detail, please feel free to ask a follow up question.

I hope I have answered your main question.

Sincerely,

Phra Anandapanyo

Phra Anandapanyo
San Francisco, Ca
"Problems are created by us, therefore must be fixed by us."

Buddhist qualities

I’ve noticed some really distinctive qualities in the Buddhists I’ve met so far:

1. All of them have a very calm way of behaving and speaking.

2. Most of them seem genuinely kind people. Many take an interest in me and my life, asking questions about my family and job and friends and so on. They do so in a careful way, and none of them are the type of person to go on one of those train-of-thought monologues about their own life or what they did that day. Because so much interest is taken in me, I sometimes end up feeling silly for talking about myself so much!

3. A curious quality I notice in some of the more experienced Buddhists I meet or observe is a way of looking you in the eye and holding your gaze for longer than most people do. I don’t know why this is. The person in question is perhaps generally calm and relaxed (see point 1), and therefore less fidgety and anxious than most.

4. An extension of number 3, something that I have experienced with one or two experienced Buddhists, is the impression that they can see right through me. That my outer personality shell of chatter, humour etc is laughably transparent and that the real stuff, the real feelings, anxieties, obsessions and all, are on display for everyone to see. I had this feeling a few weeks ago when I met a woman who has been involved in Buddhism for many years, occupies a senior position in the Buddhist order she belongs to, and is an experienced meditator. She impressed me and intimidated me by her presence. I know a non-Buddhist or two who have the same effect on me. There’s a highly intelligent, self-assured (though not arrogant) aura surrounding these people which makes me feel completely frivolous in comparison. I think that says as much about my own neuroses than it does about the people in question.

Anyway, I asked this woman a question about relationships and families in Buddhism and whether these things are just too worldly to be advisable. She said some things about the Buddhist perspective and then told me she was married and had two children. I asked her how old her children were. The oldest is 25. I told her that I am also 25 and she smiled. We talked for a minute or two about our own families. We had a small moment of human connection, which actually felt more important and powerful to me than her original answer to my question, which I have since forgotten.