To: K-list
Recieved: 2002/04/25 12:29
Subject: [K-list] Re:Quotes from "Lawlor"
From: Copper
On 2002/04/25 12:29, Copper posted thus to the K-list:
Lawlor also addresses the differences between indigenous and patriarchal
>religions. He points out that Christianity and Buddhism focus on the
>individual "by concentrating on personal salvation and enlightenment." (You
>have to get YOURSELF saved or enlightened before you're qualified to run
>around proselytizing to everyone else.) Lawlor says: "Buddhist meditation
>and Christian prayer place the individual in the center of spiritual life.
>Although the ego is considered the source of evil and suffering, it is
>nonetheless the center of attention." The spiritual practices of Eastern
>traditions are designed "to turn the attention to the individual's inner
>thoughts and mental activities. Mastery of ... mind and perception is
>considered essential to achieving the ultimate state through meditation."
I'll do a bit of sticking out of my own neck here regarding my personal impressions of Mr. Lawlor's bent toward seemingly any direction (!) to prove HIS point. Personally, I feel he may have served himself much more respectfully if he would ascertain facts to present to the public eye which deal with the whole picture (as regards Buddhism, at least) instead of merely presenting a limited and self-serving biased view. I've spent the better part of "this day" now as a 'Buddhist', as it turns out not always by my own choice. By this I mean that what I've come to experience and realize, prior to finding the words and methods to express this realization and experience, has come to my attentions to be clearly and systematically expressed in the philosophical treatises of Tibetan Buddhism, specifically the Nyingma School ('old tradition'), and even more specifically the Tantric Traditions of Dzogchen, said by anyone who's "in the know" about Dzogchen, to be the pinnacle doctrine of all the traditions of Buddhism. All the "lower schools" point to this, and beyond this is, ...well...my (our) experience. It is so old and controversial that in fact it is mentioned in the earliest extant texts about it, that it is a doctrine which is expounded in no less than thirteen other world systems! (yes, we're talkin' Solar Systems and Galaxies, friends!) ...ie. It's a Tradition not exclusively of our "neck of th' woods!" These are not 'my' words, but the words of Masters, dating from the present back through history to (the earliest written) the 7th and 8th centuries. They speak of dimensions and inconsistencies in our concepts regarding space, location , time, the mind and activities. I've thought many times that this makes Einstein look like a kindergartener.
Any ways...the Buddhism which Lawlor speaks of HAS a real following, true. BUT...it is not exclusive (the only one) in Buddhism as a whole. In fact, it is a "snow-flake in the Antarctic", by comparison.
What Lawlor's rendition refers to best fits the 'level' of Buddhism known as "pratyeka-
buddha" (Tib.= rang rgyal) It's description is as follows: "Solitary enlightened one. A Hinayana arhat (Hinayana is considered a lower, or, beginning form of Buddhism) who attains nirvana ('K' awakening) chiefly through contemplation of the twelve links (sound familiar?) of dependent origination in reverse order, without needing teachings in that lifetime. He lacks the complete realization of a buddha and so cannot benefit limitless sentient beings as a buddha does." (me, again)> His 'path' is limited strictly to the benefit of her/himself, without concern, consideration or the compassion of selfLESSly aiding others on the path as well, toward the goal of liberation. (Bodhisattvas, on the other hand, dedicate their entire existence to these ends!)
Now, in liberation, the "self" is realized as being (already) blended with the infinity (as ontologically distinct from the theological doctrine of 'eternity') of the Universe/Cosmos, and the "concept of self" is known at this point to be a fabricated illusion. ...ie. there is no self 'anywhere' whatsoever! For anyone, absolutely! The self and the concept of self along with it, simply dissolves like magic within 'our' minds and right at "this point" before 'our' very eyes. If "you" happen to "arrive" at this point at any 'time'...don't worry, you don't die or 'become nothing'...contrarily, you become, or realize, everything. At this 'point' you understand what true "oneness" is...and why it's soooo difficult to describe! Like...virtually impossible! lollol! In fact, "oneness" is 'realized' at 'this point' to be a fallacy also...because 'here' can be no second, or other, FROM which to determine it's singularity!
My point, for this 'present' discourse is that the "concentrating on personal salvation and enlightenment" of Mr. Lawlor...can NOT be a sustained and realistic goal, because unless one DOES consider and aid in the attainment of and by ALL...one cannot attain true liberation thinking that it is only for ones-self! The dynamics of true libertation can NOT be supported by such a view! It can NOT possibly be a 'personal' salvation! Even Jesus Himself knew this as He said "There can be no friendship or dedication greater, than that one would lay down his life for his friends!" He Himself didn't have the slightest idea of 'personal salvation or enlightenment'! and...I'm not even "Christian", but I know truth when I hear it...I don't care if it comes from a gold fish! LOLLOL!
More to come...TTYL(8R)
Love and Bless All, all Ways
Copper ~^~
http://www.kundalini-gateway.org
http://www.domin8rex.com/serpent/spirit/kindex.htm
DISCLAIMER!
Home | Archive Index | Search the archives | Subscribe
K. List FAQ | Kundalini FAQs | Signs and Symptoms | Awakening Experiences | K. list Polls | Member Essays | Meditations | List Topics | Art Gallery | Cybrary | Sitemap | Email the moderators.
symbol.