From page 2, Kevin Solway wrote: “For example, Buddhists think that "hell" and "the animals realms" are places that you may go after you die, instead of realities of human existence here and now.â€
Answer: rubbish. In fact usually the latter is what is emphasised. The realm notions came from common pre-buddhist cosmology but were incorporated precisely BECAUSE in the human realm only – by definition - we continuously experience all the realms. This is why it is the only one in which buddhahood can be achieved. Whether or not you agree with all this etc., basically Solway’s statement is inaccurate and/or ill-informed. It would take only a very small amount of research just about anywhere to verify this.
….
The comparisons between male and female brains, behaviour and so forth is beside the point. I found some of Quinn’s writing extremely provocative and the part that has stayed most with me since reading it a few months ago has to do with this male-female business. My sense is that the discussion about love and emotion relates to the essential point whilst bordering on missing it entirely, in precisely the way that Quinn decries the over-emphasis, or fundamental flaw, of the feminised consciousness as he often discussed it.
My sense of the whole thing – having not read Q in quite some time – is simply this:
a) both physical males and females can be ‘feminine’ in the way he discusses it, although
b) mainly physical males can be more deliberately masculine
c) the quintessential problem of the feminine is the way it always defines itself in terms of relationship, whereas the masculine dynamic – to oversimplify – when sane and strong, stands alone, i.e. is not dependent upon dependency. In this context, somewhere around page 2 Elizabeth playfully described how frustrating it can be to ‘wait around for 12 hours’ until the guy who has slammed the door on a conversation is ready to re-engage. It is only frustrating from the point of view of a dynamic that depends upon relationship for its energy. That to me is what is meant by ‘the feminine’ tendency in all this.
d) I find what is lacking in Q’s presentation is an appreciation for a quintessential ‘feminine’ aspect of wisdom, one that is less dependent upon form and focus and more involved with pure space. Space includes all, accommodates all, and as such is both relational and beyond any relationship whatsoever. In traditional Buddhist iconography in which enlightenment is depicted as a couple in union, the ‘male’ symbolises the Buddha principle and the female the ‘awareness-wisdom’ principle. Put more simply, the Buddha ‘elements’ are form, and the wisdom aspects are qualities. So you have water as the male, and the quality of wetness (which is a function of perception-awareness) as the female aspect. From this point of view, the problems with the nineteenth century materialist scientist type point of view of objective (and to a certain extent somewhat objective and ‘masculine-type’ orientation) is that it splits the subjective and objective worlds overmuch in favour of the latter. This tendency I see somewhat in Quinn’s overall perspective, even though philosophically on the intellectual level he often displays far more flexibility and scope. Tonally however, I feel he lacks understanding of the feminine aspect of wisdom as defined above.
e) Furthermore, there is a tendency to enjoy disparaging ‘women’. On the one hand this is a very effective technique to provoke a deeper level of contemplation of such issues, for which I am grateful to him. On the other hand, there is a sort of ‘feminine’ (in the Q sense) indulgence in cat-fighting the issue, even as he decries such cat-fighting tendencies. So there is a tiny, tiny flaw there. The difference between being 99.9% enlightened and 100% enlightened is the difference which also delineates the unenlightened from the enlightened. So little flaws like this are indicative of rather large chasms leading to vast spaces. Feminine-wisdom spaces!
f) On the forum, thanks to Q’s ‘root text’ premises, I often observe the clear display of various posters, both ‘male’ and ‘female’ getting caught up in the relational dynamic, usually in the form of offering petty insults, personal remarks and so forth.
g) All in all, I still feel that much of what he offers is really worth thinking over quite seriously - albeit with liberal dose of sense of humour and intelligent playfulness.
Although death is real, the world and our lives within it is a marvellous continuum. And one of the best things within it to be treasured is the quivering, pulsing dynamic that produces our births, and comes from rubbing the yin-yang poles of so-called ‘women’ and ‘men’.
Carry on!
PS After writing this I remembered that I posted on a (basically never-visited) blog a while back an excerpt from a book I wrote, this one being specifically about the six realms. It can be read at
http://samsara-nirvana.blogspot.com/200 ... tence.html
From the intro section:
The Buddha noticed that everything arises, lasts for a while, and then goes away. Everything. Whether you believe in a solid, permanent ego or not, it still works that way from birth, to living and through to death. Each thought or feeling is that way too. It arises, it goes along for a while and then something else comes up - perhaps you suddenly fall off your bicycle - or a pterodactyl lands in your lap! The key word here is 'everything': people, flowers, buildings, bees, love affairs, football games, breakfasts, lunches, picnics, moods, moments, conversations, dinosaurs, planets, stars and solar systems. Everything. This is a simple but also profound point. The very last statement that the Buddha uttered before dying was: "whatever comes together falls apart."
Egos also seemingly arise, dwell and then cease. According to the Buddha, sentient beings - those beings who are alive, who feel things, who are born, live and then die - dwell for a while in the following worlds, or realms, known as the Six Realms, one of which is the Human Realm. These realms too arise, dwell and then cease no matter how real and permanent they might feel. They are the living dreams in which we play out our lives. We mentioned passion, aggression and ignorance as being perhaps the driving force behind evolution. From the point of view of the teachings which follow, the realms are the many dramas they direct and produce, the creative force which results in the endlessly ongoing cycle of birth, dwelling and dying.
These Six Realms of Existence are a description of where we find ourselves now as human beings. They can be regarded as a scientific definition of the external world, but it is not necessary to do so. If you find the following descriptions of the hell or god realms unbelievable, that is fine. In fact - and this is definitely the most helpful way to look at them - they also describe the six main emotional states that we go through as humans, day after day, mood after mood, moment after moment.
The Buddha's teachings help us to understand and really appreciate our human-ness rather than encourage us to 'transcend' it. As you will see, the main saving grace about being human is that we have such a broad range of experience. The palette with which each of us paints our lives offers a complete range of emotional states leading from hell to heaven and back again. Indeed, it is said that humans are the only beings who taste all six; that is what is so special about them, since only in a realm where you are not completely stuck do you have a chance to wake up out of the dream.
However, all is not rosy. It is said that all of these realms are part of the 'desire realm'. The problem with desire is that it creates an endless cycle, or self-perpetuating loop, of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Before you get what you want you have a sense of need, which is also a form of insecurity. After it is over, you again feel insecure and want something else. So there is constant need and alternation between satisfaction and dissatisfaction.
Simply put, these six realms are descriptions of various levels of intensity from the most subtle, mental, exquisite and pleasurable to the most intense, solid, excruciating and painful. Although somewhat a factual description of our world, their main service is to point out the endlessly cyclic nature of our minds and experience. For example, your household may be somewhat stuck in one type of realm or atmosphere, and then you go off to school which is another; then you have a jolly meeting with a group of friends and that is yet another. They can be described and experienced separately, but, like primary colours, they can mix themselves one with the other to create endless combinations.
In the title to this chapter, you might have noticed the word samsaric, which comes from samsara. Samsara literally means 'journeying', but in this context it also means 'cycle of existences'. It is as if we are on a spinning wheel. Sometimes we are on top and everything is fine and heavenly, but then, gradually or suddenly, we are going deeper and deeper down and everything is negative or hellish. It is constant. It never stops. The Hindu beliefs were that if one did good deeds, one could end up on top of the heap and stay there forever, which is similar to beliefs about heaven in so many other traditions. What the Buddha discovered was that because all states of mind are impermanent you cannot find a permanent resting place even in a trance or god realm; sooner or later you have to come down again, which is why it is described as a spinning wheel rather than a one-way ladder going up to heaven.
By cutting through the chains of desire that bind us to the constant craving for experience, we get off this wheel altogether. But that is later on. First, we need to examine our spinning journey on the wheel. Just for fun, let's start at the bottom...
.....
( PS I am not and this is not proselytizing either the blog or the buddhist tradition, simply contributing to the conversation on the forum here...)
