Hey Amy! I doubt you'd remember me from Woodstock, but thanks for your essay.

My perspective is that OF COURSE sitting meditation and yogasana are wonderful complements. But I don't frame it as "Yoga and Meditation" but rather as "Asana and Meditation," as meditation IS a form of yoga practice. Some would say meditation IS yoga, but that would seem to discount karma and bhakti as being forms of yoga, so I won't be so doctrinaire.

Again, thanks!
metta
frankjude

Wow!!!! It is so sad to see and hear such delusion as spoken by this 'christian' I have few words for it! Such a mean-spirited, twisted worldview.

And on the other hand, I am deeply impressed by such an example of corporate integrity! Way to go Home Depot! I'll be sure to buy all my home maintenance necessities there from now on!

Thanks for sharing this, Waylon!

Ramesh, while my own point of view on some of the history differs from yours, the central point of the Buddha being a yogi -- both before and after enlightenment -- is one I am in total accord with. In Zen, we often say that there is "Sudden Awakening" followed by "Gradual Cultivation." The Buddha practiced meditation right up to the day he died!

Perhaps pertinent to this discussion, it the fact that within the Buddhist traditions, there has been a philosophical tension related to ontology and soteriology as to whether the mind is inherently pure or defiled, or whether enlightenment is extrinsic or intrinsic to the mind. In East Asian Buddhism, the world-renouncing tendencies of much Indian Buddhism was rejected in favor of the basic compassionate humaneness of the Mahayana, as enunciated in its vision of enlightenment for all -- not just an elite group of 'specialists.' They used the Tathagatagarbha concept, based upon the inherent nature of enlightenment in all beings to 'justify' this vision of universal enlightenment.

This led to the East Asian Buddhist (notably in the various Zen traditions of China, Korea, Vietnam and Japan) claim that the 'mundane world' is the ground of enlightenment ("Samsara is Nirvana," as it is often phrased). Awakening
(the term I prefer over 'enlightenment') is thus not envisioned as some state of transcendent otherworldliness, but as the realization of the non-obstructive, interpenetrating, multivalent web of interdependence of all phenomena -- or, as Thich Nhat Hanh would put it: interbeing. Awakening is available in the here-and-now, and not particularly requiring any practice to 'attain' it. As Dogen puts it, praxis becomes not a path of attainment, but rather the expression of our buddha-nature/intrinsic awakening.

Here's a quote from Robert Buswell:

"Even though the mind as tathagathagarbha may be innately pure, it is so obscured by the conceptualizing tendencies of mind (parikalpa) and the attachment to the things of the mundane world (abhinivesa) that the hapless individual mistakenly believes he in truth is defiled. The false impressions created by the fundamental perceptual error are retained, that is 'stored' in the alayavijnana. It is through a transformation (parivritti) of one's perception that this deception is corrected and the innate purity and integrality of the tathagatagarbha restored. Such a transformation principally involves abandoning the inveterate tendency to perceive things always from the pont of view of onesefl -- what the Buddhists term the ego-conceit (asmimana)....

"When the deluded sentient being finally completes the process of actualizing his enlightenment, he finds that his ordinary state of mind is nothing more than his intrinsic enlightenment that has always been present."

So, yoga practice is not accurately described as the 'cause' of enlightenment so much as the process of actualization or the intrinsic or original 'enlightenment.' Or, as the Zen tradition asserts the Buddha to have exclaimed upon awakening: "How marvelous; each and every being, perfect and whole, lacking nothing, just as they are!"

metta
frankjude

Padma, I must respectfully remind you that not at all do ALL Buddhists believe this idea that the Buddha's enlightenment was simply "wisdom display." You tend to speak as if you speak for all Buddhism, and this is both inaccurate and a bit arrogant.

metta,
frank jude

Bob,

Actually, when I teach the Gita, I first acknowledge what's written, and how culturally and historically bound it is. Then I either reject it (as in choice number 1 above), or if it makes sense to re-contextualize it as a metaphor as in choice number 2, I do that. However, I DO reject the metaphor of 'battle as inner spiritual battle' as I think that metaphor is less than helpful! And finally, choice number 3 is something I may also choose.

The point is, whether I'm teaching the Gita, the Yoga-Sutra, or any Buddhist sutra, I FIRST explain how it seems to have been understood in it's cultural and historical context. And only then do I critique it from a naturalistic, contemporary context. What I find intellectually dishonest is completely ignoring the unsavory parts. I think we have to face them, and be as clear as possible why we think they are unsavory and no longer relevant.

And truly, as you've read at least one of my essays on my Zen Naturalism blog, you know I call it as I see it, often reserving my strongest criticism for those aspects of Zen (and Buddhism in general) that I feel are repugnant, wrong or just unhelpful for those of us practicing today.

metta
frank jude

PS: One final point. I think it should be clear I do not think the Yoga-Sutra 'came along to save us.' I've got serious issues with Patanjali! And I wouldn't be thanking god anyway as I don't believe in one!

Bob, I understand your critique of Matthew's and Scott's understanding of the Gita, but it IS true that the Gita reinforces caste structure. The fact that it does (along with it's 'justification by nature') in the Vedas is one of the reasons the caste system has proven so recalcitrant to change! After all, sages such as the Buddha were already pointing out that caste was culturally and socially constructed and NOT part of Dharma/Nature 2500 years ago! But the Gita is the most popular scripture of Hinduism, and thus has been used to support and uphold this offensively noxious system to this very day!

I think many contemporary yogis still do not realize how radical Patanjali is on this point, though he spells it out in II.31, in describing the yamas as the 'great vow' of the yogi: "These (yamas) are valid in all spheres, irrespective of birth, place, time and circumstance, constituting the great vow." This is in direct contrast to Krishna explaining that he (Krishna, as a Brahmin) would not take up arms, but that Arjuna, as a member of the warrior caste should.

Bob, I think perhaps, being so personally moved by the Gita in your own life and practice, you may be a bit overly touchy on this. But read Chapter 18: 39 - 45 and you'll see clearly how Krishna teaches each has their own sva-dharma based upon gunas (nature). This, the Buddha and Patanjali reject.

Yes, there are lovely passages in the Gita, where we are told that the enlightened "can act impartially toward all beings, since to them all beings are the same." But, it seems, until we are enlightened, we should act accordingly -- and expect others to act accordingly -- to their caste.

Personally, I find their use of Jayne's theory quite interesting, and in line with quite a bit of my own speculation. Thanks for posting!

Thank you so very much for this essay. I had the pleasure to meet James Fox after he contacted me about my book back in 2004. After he told me about the program, and how the inmates were using the sole copy of my book they had access to, I went into class I was teaching in New Paltz told my students about is and "passed a hat." We raised enough to buy a box of books (18 copies) and sent it to James.

A year later, while teaching at Spirit Rock, James invited me to offer a class to those in the Insight Prison Project down at San Quentin. I have to say it was one of the most inspiring days of my life! It was the first day of Ramadan, so the room where the yoga usually happened was being used by the Muslim inmates. We were given a dusty room next to the metal shop to practice in! After the guys helped sweep out the room, we began our practice.

It was so loud at times, I had to yell above the noise: "BREATHING IN, RAISE YOUR ARMS OVER YOUR HEADS." Savasana was really funny! And meditation? "BREATHING IN, KNOW THAT YOU ARE BREATHING IN; BREATHING OUT, KNOW THAT YOU ARE BREATHING OUT."

But throughout it all, I saw committed dedication, concentration and mindfulness like I've never experienced in any other class! These guys were 'in it' totally, body and mind. Afterwards, I commented on my observation and one of them said: "You know, this is a voluntary program. There are lots of guys here (in prison) still blaming the system and others for their situation. We know we fucked up! I lost it one night and killed a man. Now, I've learned how to stay with my feelings and not act out of impulse."

What I was hearing is what in Zen we refer to as "Atonement." Or as Daido Loori Roshi used to say, "at-one-ment," taking ownership of our actions. The Gatha of Atonement says: "All evil karma committed by me from beginningless time, born from body, speech or mind, I now atone." Very powerfully, such a practice and realization empowers one, leaving you no recourse to ever see yourself as a 'victim' again. These men had atoned!

When leaving, James gifted me with a tee-shirt. On the front was the logo for the Insight Prison Project. On it's back was the slogan:

"Leaving prison before you get out." It is a lesson I am eternally grateful for.

in metta
frank jude

As you can see from the dictionary definition of "cynicism" here:

1. An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others: the public cynicism aroused by governmental scandals.
2. A scornfully or jadedly negative comment or act: "She arrived at a philosophy of her own, all made up of her private notations and cynicisms" (Henry James).
3. Cynicism The beliefs of the ancient Cynics.

the first two main definitions do indeed point to the 'jaded,' distrustful attitude connotation of the word it seems you responded to.

Interestingly, as for the last definition, regarding the Philosophical School of the Cynics, again you'll see the absence of the questioning Matthew emphasizes (again, more accurately a description of skepticism), but rather an emphasis on a method and training that sounds a hell of a lot like a form of YOGA! :-)

From Wikipedia:

Cynicism is one of the most striking of all the Hellenistic philosophies. It offered people the possibility of happiness and freedom from suffering in an age of uncertainty. Although there was never an official Cynic doctrine, the fundamental principles of Cynicism can be summarised as follows:

The goal of life is happiness which is to live in agreement with Nature.
Happiness depends on being self-sufficient, and a master of mental attitude.
Self-sufficiency is achieved by living a life of Virtue.
The road to virtue is to free oneself from any influence such as wealth, fame, or power, which have no value in Nature.
Suffering is caused by false judgments of value, which cause negative emotions and a vicious character.

Thus a Cynic has no property and rejects all conventional values of money, fame, power or reputation. A life lived according to nature requires only the bare necessities required for existence, and one can become free by unshackling oneself from any needs which are the result of convention. The Cynics adopted Hercules as their hero, as epitomizing the ideal Cynic. Hercules "was he who brought Cerberus, the hound of Hades, from the underworld, a point of special appeal to the dog-man, Diogenes." According to Lucian, "Cerberus and Cynic are surely related through the dog."

The Cynic way of life required continuous training, not just in exercising one's judgments and mental impressions, but a physical training as well:

[Diogenes] used to say, that there were two kinds of exercise: that, namely, of the mind and that of the body; and that the latter of these created in the mind such quick and agile impressions at the time of its performance, as very much facilitated the practice of virtue; but that one was imperfect without the other, since the health and vigour necessary for the practice of what is good, depend equally on both mind and body.

None of this meant that the Cynic would retreat from society, far from it, Cynics would live in the full glare of the public's gaze and would be quite indifferent in the face of any insults which might result from their unconventional behaviour. The Cynics are said to have invented the idea of cosmopolitanism: when he was asked where he came from, Diogenes replied that he was "a citizen of the world, (kosmopolitês)."

The ideal Cynic would evangelise; as the watchdog of humanity, it was their job to hound people about the error of their ways. The example of the Cynic's life (and the use of the Cynic's biting satire) would dig-up and expose the pretensions which lay at the root of everyday conventions.

Although Cynicism concentrated solely on ethics, Cynic philosophy had a big impact on the Hellenistic world, ultimately becoming an important influence for Stoicism. The Stoic Apollodorus writing in the 2nd century BCE stated that "Cynicism is the short path to virtue."

in metta
frankjude

Hmmm, I think Matthew may have mis-stated his own position. The kind of 'questioning' he seems to be speaking about may more accurately be called "skepticism."

I 'came out' as an adherent of 'scientific skepticism' in a post on my Zen Naturalism blog, from which the following is an excerpt:

"Not only are scientists not afraid of uncertainty, they find life, purpose, and even a sacred truth in the uncertainty which they find lacking in religious certainties, and dogma. Here is Ann Druyan speaking of Carl Sagan: "He never understood why anyone would want to separate science, which is just a way of searching for what is true, from what we hold sacred, which are those truths that inspire and awe. His argument was not with God but with those who believed that our understanding of the sacred had been completed. Sciences's permanently revolutionary conviction that the search for truth never ends seemed to him the only approach with sufficient humility to be worthy of the universe it revealed. The methodology of science, with its error-correcting mechanism for keeping us honest in spite of our chronic tendencies to project, to misunderstand, to deceive ourselves and others, seemed to him the height of spiritual discipline. If you are searching for sacred knowledge and not just a palliative for your fears, then you will train yourself to be a good sceptic." I think it a sad commentary on our culture that this noble word has become something of a pejorative. It simply means "thoughtful" from the Greek skepscepticus and its Latin derivative, scepticus means "inquiring" and "reflective."

In ordinary usage, skepticism refers to:
(a) an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object;
(b) the doctrine that true knowledge or certainty in a particular area is impossible; or
(c) the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics (Merriam–Webster).

In philosophy, skepticism refers more specifically to any one of several propositions. These include propositions about:
(a) an inquiry,
(b) a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing,
(c) the arbitrariness, relativity, or subjectivity of moral values,
(d) the limitations of knowledge,
(e) a method of intellectual caution and suspended judgment.

Continued in following comment:

Ramesh, while I share the non-dual understanding with you, I think you are inaccurate to use such generalizations as "The yogi claim of union is this; that one can feel one with the ocean, in other words spiritually swim in oneness with the ocean, not just be in awe of it. Being in awe of the ocean is duality, being one with the ocean as an inner experience is union, yoga."

The fact of the matter is, there ARE dualistic yogis. Wasn't it Ramanjula who, in debate with the advaita-vedantins said: "I do not wish to be sugar; I wish to taste to sugar."? His point was the experience of god was only possible when there is some distinction.

Again, I'm not arguing with non-dual understanding. I'm simply pointing out that yoga is too vast to make such a sweeping generalization that all yogis are non-dual. This goes for Buddhism as well. NOT all Buddhists are 'non-dualists.' Just ask Bhikkkhu Bodhi who wrote about non-duality making no sense!

in metta
frankjude