Descend into the valley of life, rather than climb the mountaintop

At first I didn't like a book I have about Pure land (Shin) Buddhism. But I've come to enjoy "River of Fire, River of Water" by Taitetsu Unno. Here's some passages about embracing the valley of life

The ideal of monastic Buddhism is transcendence of mundane existence, as if one were ascending to the mountaintop. In contrast, the praxis of Pure Land Buddhism takes place by descending into the valley, the shadow of the mountains. 

We find a similar contrast in Chinese civilization. Like monastic Buddhism the Confucian ideal may be symbolized by the soaring mountain peaks , manifesting the highest achievement of the literati. 

And like the Pure Land, Taoism is found in the valley and lowlands, a haven for those who do not fit into conventional society for whatever reason. But it is in this valley that life and creativity flourish. In the words of Tao-te-ching: 

The Valley Spirit never dies.
It is named the Mysterious Female.
And the Doorway of the mysterious Female
Is the base from which Heaven and Earth spring.
It is there within us all the while;
Draw upon it as you will, it never runs dry.

...In Japan, traditional Buddhist monasticism -- whether Tendai, Shingon, or Zen -- aims at the transcendence of earthly passions. Its basic  precepts consist of renouncing all family ties, maintaining celibacy, mastering rigorous disciplines, avoiding contact with the opposite sex, and engaging in elaborate rituals.

In contrast, Pure Land is the trans-descendence into the opposite world, the self-awakening to the immersion in the swamp of anger, jealousy, insecurity, fear, addiction, arrogance, hypocrisy.

...Shin Buddhism comes alive for those who live in the valley and in the shadows. It challenges people to discover the ultimate meaning of life in the abysss of the darkness of ignorance.

...Pure Land Buddhism might suggest an otherworldly orientation, but its primary focus is on the here and now. Not the here and now grasped by the controlling ego-self, but the here and now cherished as a gift of life itself to be lived creatively and gratefully, granted us by boundless compassion.

The bountifulness of great compassion makes possible our liberation from the iron cage of our own making.

 

Comments

[Albert]

To date, my favorite post. Thanks, Brian! I feel the love.

[Spence Tepper]

It's nice to see different paths to peace, acceptance and understanding.

Some, avoiding strong emotions.

Others, who can't avoid the storms, can find themselves in momentary peace of the storm's passing.

But in all events our destination is within. Because that is where we are.

We are not the trees, the mountains or the valleys.

We are not the sky, the seas or the planes.

We are not the winds, the breeze, all the creatures and people around us not even this body we occupy.

But we are connected to all of it.

Did we get caught up on one place or one person or another?

Return.

Return whether you think you are on a snowy mountain top.

Or in a valley forest.

Because in all events you are here.

Find that place within.

[Tendzin]

How then is Shin Buddhism any different from Sant Mat?

I mean actual Shin Buddhism, and not some modernized version.

"Shinran advocates reliance on tariki, or other power (他力)—the power of Amitābha (Japanese Amida) made manifest in his Primal Vow—in order to attain liberation. Shin Buddhism can therefore be understood as a "practiceless practice", for there are no specific acts to be performed such as there are in the "Path of Sages". In Shinran's own words, Shin Buddhism is considered the "Easy Path" because one is not compelled to perform many difficult, and often esoteric, practices in order to attain higher and higher mental states."

Sure sounds familiar. To Sant Mat that is. An "easier" wayh, with no specific rituals like other religions (which are all fallen in this dark age), but lots of chanting to petition the inner Master Power/Deity in order to free us from our karma? Sant mat by any other name still smells the same.

Let's get real. The problem with Sant Mat is that we see a living guru as an offense. When we were young, we saw Guru as a blessing. But when we get older, the same guru grievously offends us.

And so we go find another Sant mat, one without a guru. But the theology and practice is pretty much identical to the religion we left behind.

[Uchit]

"Descend into the valley of life, rather than climb the mountaintop."

The soul has truly descended on this prison planet with limited opportunity in the so called matrix. The lowest point of descent is definitely being caught in the web of RSSB under the villan Gurinder Singh Dhillon, where you are made to worship a so called guru for no real benefit to yourself at all - what a one sided deal. How can you escape a magician that has pulled the wool over your eyes making you believe that he is the modern day jesus ? Apply a little common sense and simple google research and begin to ascend the mountain back to their own sovergien power and out of the clutches of demonic entities falsely masceraded as love and light , the false light, Lucifer and satan. Start to enjoy your own life once more again.

[Dungeness]

@ Tendzin [ The problem with Sant Mat is that we see a living guru as an offense. When we were young, we saw Guru as a blessing. But when we get older, the same guru grievously offends us. ]

Why? You could distance yourself from the stage
actor persona and hone in on the non-worshipful,
non-grievance-inducing aspects of the practice if
you choose. Or, do you refer to certain jihadists
and their surrogates here who deem every aspect
of the practice satanic?

[Spence Tepper]

It's funny. At one point I was suspicious of Gurinder. But now he seems like a champion: weathering abuse, illness, family weaknesses and personal tragedies, A Man For All Seasons, shouldering on elegantly in each chapter with simple truths that still are surprisingly beyond so many.

I think it's important to see all views, as each is only of a single point.

But as for my one point, it is astounding. A sun brighter than ten thousand. Be tough, mentally tough in pursuit of your bliss. Be Gurindar tough.

[Ron E.]

Have just looked at this information detailing Pure Land (Shin) Buddhism:-

“The essential practice in Pure Land Buddhism is the chanting of the name of Amitabha Buddha (which means Immeasurable Light) with total concentration, trusting that one will be reborn in the Pure Land, a place where it is much easier for a being to work towards enlightenment.
Those who follow the Shin school say that liberation is the consequence of a person achieving genuine faith in Amitabha Buddha and his vow to save all beings who trusted in him.”

I know little about it but do understand that chanting can produce certain brain-based experiences – and I would be skeptical about this ‘reborn’ issue and relying on faith! Also, I would be a bit suspicious about this particular quest for enlightenment.

I feel that Pure Land Buddhism would fulfill the same basic religious needs for people as does the Christian church.

[Tendzin]

@Dungeness

When I say "we" I'm referring to the general RSSB exer community. The same people who gladly accepted RSSB and Charan when they were young but who are now passionately opposed to the organization and its current guru.

There are those who remake Sant mat to fit their new views. They redefine Sant mat to be a guruless, dera-less, karma-less, God-less practice. They redefine the very essentials of the religion to fit their taste. Usually they stay vegetarian and still meditate and "keep the vows," and are sure to mention this frequently. But what they're doing isn't Sant mat.

Not that I care. We all have to get along in this world and we can only do so by being honest about what we believe. But I've seen a number of exers who instead of either leaving or staying in Sant mat pitch contradictory arguments. They portray themselves as somehow being faithful satsangis while preaching atheism, or they pledge allegiance to other religions that are carbon copies of Sant mat while also preaching atheism. They say the do this in the cause of honesty, but when you point out the glaring contradictions inherent in their spiels they often get quite defensive.

[Dungeness]

@ Tendzin [ But what they're doing isn't Sant mat. ]

I respect that objection but the dissonance between what we
believe/parrot and our realization of its actual meaning is often
enormous. Many of the religious, including RSSB'ers, chant
their mantras/scripture emptily without understanding. How
does that differ from those who claim fealty while espousing
"heretical" interpretations? They're both lacking the requisite
experience within for a mature understanding.

That's why mystics don't indulge in religious argumentation
or insist on absolute scriptural purity and/or fealty. Actual
experience is what counts in the end. A child insisting on a
wooden sword sees its worth in battle and discards it for one
made of steel.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Tendzin!

You wrote "They say the do this in the cause of honesty, but when you point out the glaring contradictions inherent in their spiels they often get quite defensive."

Who really thinks they are wrong?
What purpose does it serve to point to someone else's inconsistencies when that is a universal condition?

The equipment and its built in programming modules are the same universally.

The program is just running its diagnostics. You can argue that it chose to stop running software, or you can argue that the software is broken and that is why it doesn't run. Or that it should never run the software.

But in truth it is just running diagnostics right now, loading updates, deleting obsolete code, cleaning out bad sectors, deleting old code.

It'll start up like clockwork at exactly the moment this diagnostic is completed. And run as before, maybe better, working through the problem of living exactly where it left off.

It's not even worth commenting about.

[Uchit]

@It's funny. At one point I was suspicious of Gurinder. But now he seems like a champion: weathering abuse, illness, family weaknesses and personal tragedies, A Man For All Seasons, shouldering on elegantly in each chapter with simple truths that still are surprisingly beyond so many.

The evidence is mounting of a controlled RSSB agent and a believer of Lucifer aka satan. Gurinder Singh Dhillon is a crook, his actions are all out of despiration to try and save his disgraced family from going down as the most shameful and embarrassing cult in history. Don't forget he is the master mind behind fraud of billions while his nephews are squabbling in prison; a land mafia; also his billions speaks to the likes of politicians and Bollywood stars; his hand picked recruited and initiated sangat in key positions in his shell companies, I could go on and on. Hes not a hero, but a mafia mogul craftly hiding behind the mask of a second rate saint. What's more GSD has zero enlightenment and has done no real meditation. His garbage satsangs are nothing but second hand information from other religions reconstructed to fit the RSSB mould and to sell the idea of a living master. His QandAs are hand picked questions , answers to which google could provide more clarity.

[Tendzin]

@Dungeness
I get your point, and it sparked me to recall the brilliant line by Eric Hoffer, one of the first cult busters: "people believe most what they understand least." More Hoffer gems here:
https://quotes.thefamouspeople.com/eric-hoffer-1354.php

But I'm not sure who you have in mind who qualifies as a mystic, i.e, a person who's epistemic awareness is purely founded on experience and not on faith.

The closest example I can think of would be Ramana Maharshi, but even he said that repeating mantras can be a useful means of stilling the mind.

Anyway, back to Hoffer, who incisively points out the problems with faith. Yet faith is also a necessity and a large part of the power of human social evolution. And so, I believe it's totally useful for the world to have both promoters and critics of religion.

My specific point though was that if one is going to be a wholesale or parochial critic of religion, then they need to be consistent. For example, if an RSSB critic has argued that the dera should be closed down and the guru should immediately resign, and the RSSB path is a "lie," it would be nice if they amended that view given that they've announced they still attend local satsangs. A similar consistency might be nice for critics who call on everyone to reject "all religious belief" yet pledge allegiance to belief in Buddhist teachings and practice.

[Tendzin]

@Spence

"What purpose does it serve to point to someone else's inconsistencies when that is a universal condition?"

Life itself is impossible without the pointing out of inconsistencies. Everything in life is based on the search for truth, and not merely "truth" in some mystical definition, but accuracy, fidelity to facts, and honesty.

To get specific, if an RSSB critic broadcasts for many years that this religion is in multiple ways a lie and the guru is a fraud, but later lets slip that he still goes to satsang, then he should probably post an essay where he revises his views. But as you point out, who likes to admit they are wrong?

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Tendzin!
You wrote:
"if an RSSB critic broadcasts for many years that this religion is in multiple ways a lie and the guru is a fraud, but later lets slip that he still goes to satsang, then he should probably post an essay where he revises his views. But as you point out, who likes to admit they are wrong?"

That would seem nice, according to some ethic you are applying to them.

But everyone has truths they would rather not bring up. Especially about past views that they no longer are proud of, or personal habits they don't wish to discuss with others.

I think that's fine.

It's much easier for a person to grow if they don't have to explain their past to anyone.

And if they do, then they find themselves having to defend views they no longer believe in, just to avoid being called "wrong"..

But if you are not willing to allow yourself to be wrong, how can you learn anything?

And if you do allow yourself to be wrong, then I don't think you need to prostrate yourself in public at any time, if that is a problem for you.

For me, personally, we are all ignorant of many things. It's a universal condition. So no one ever need apologize for that if they are doing their best to learn and grow.

And one of the big lessons from that understanding? Judging anyone else is going to be at least inaccurate, and probably wrong, in ways we have no clue about.

And changes of opinion and view? That only reflects growth and movement.

Holding to a view doesn't make it the truth. It is still just an opinion at one single point of time and space. I say, don't prolong it past its due date.

Toss it out when it gets old.

If you are not your body, or your mind, you are certainly not your opinion either. You are far more than that.

[Dungeness]

@Tendzin [ But I'm not sure who you have in mind who qualifies as a mystic, i.e, a person who's epistemic awareness is purely founded on experience and not on faith. ]

Experience is foundational to increasing awareness but faith is key along
the way, IMO, too. Ramana Maharishi is spot on about repeating mantras:
mis-steps and resilience become part of the journey. I agree totally with
you about the role of faith.

RSSB has a list of markers for who qualifies as a "perfect mystic". But I
think you'd need experience within to actually know. In the end, badges
of honor aren't as important as the journey itself. I like to parrot the late
Ishwar Puri who said [paraphrasing] : any mystic path, who says truth is
inside and you must go there to find it, is the right one.

P.S. I love Eric Hoffer and studied "The True Believer" fervently growing
up.

[Tendzin]

@Dungeness

I think there's a lot that could be said about the divide between a mystic path that's based on experience and religious that are heavy on adherence to orthodoxy. Probably most people who were attracted to RS were so because it offered a way to directly perceive spiritual reality rather than just kowtow to church rituals and dogma. Going the gnostic way would seem a no-brainer.

But there's another side to this. For one thing, gnosticism was rejected by the early Christian church and they had their reasons for doing so. Some of those reasons we may reject, but some make sense to me. One being that If everyone is running around having their own revelations, it’s completely disorderly, and what happens of my revelation is different in your revelation. What happens if God told me doing X OK but God told you doing X is not OK?

But then that's not what we have in Sant Mat. Everyone is given the gnostic technique to gain direct experience with the Almighty, or at least get near to It through the shabd.

Or do they? Given that a Sant mat org like RSSB has a sole authority who runs a tight ship, completely determines doctrine, and allows no one to talk about spiritual experiences or elevate themselves, then even this supposedly gnostic path is as fraught with orthodoxy as most religions.

Another point about the gnostic path, one that dawned on me only after decades within it: Does it even work? Sure, blisses and trances and "vistas" (as Rajinder Singh calls them) are certainly possible. But does this numinous phenomena really change the meditator at depth, enabling a dramatic spiritual evolution and experiential awareness of the Beyond, freeing them beyond all doubt that they are merely mortal beings?

[Dungeness]

@ Tendzin [ But does this numinous phenomena really change the meditator at depth, enabling a dramatic spiritual evolution and experiential awareness of the Beyond, freeing them beyond all doubt that they are merely mortal beings? ]

Mystics say their practice changes them irrevocably, beneficially, and
certainly does provide the insights and enhanced awareness you have
cited. Notwithstanding the proven physical and cognitive benefits of
meditation though, it's not possible to know. Transcendent experience is
uniquely, inherently ineffable. The mystics reductively say only "neti,neti"
(not this, not this) if asked to talk of it. Or, they resort to metaphors which
hint at best. That ineffability would certainly apply to the metaphysical
impact of those transcendent experiences on meditators themselves too.

Incidentally, mystical paths, at least ones I'm familiar with, have no rigid
orthodoxies. Bans against revealing internal experiences for example
are suggestions based on mystic knowledge of the pitfalls of doing so.
No "whipping, shaming, or excommunication" penalties will ensue. It's a
mystic's followers who hint at or inject orthodoxy.