Search the Community

This is a topic of great interest of mine. The Rishis are the Seers of yore, to whom we owe the debt of presenting the Shruti (Transmission) of the Vedas. These mystics, in deep meditation, heard the transmission of the eternal wisdom, which were subsequently formatted into the Vedas. In Hindu tradition, there are three broad categories of knowledge that have been transmitted down from the ages (some modern researchers find astronomical data in the texts pointing to as early as the 15th Millennium BCE). The three being -- Shruti - Heard transmission - these are the Vedas including the Upanishads Smriti - Remembered transmission - these the various Puranas (such as Vishnu Purana, etc) Itihaasa - History (these include the epics Ramayana, Mahabharata). One could argue that the Shruti (heard transmission or the wisdom of the universal Self) is also transmitted via memory. But the status of Shruti is given to the specific texts because the premise is that any seer, who is of a certain level of attainment can access these transmissions (which are always present). These Rishis were very interesting and not much is written about them these days. People know about the Varna system of Hindu India. Interestingly enough, the Rishis came from all varnas (brahmin - scholar kshatriyas - warrior, vaishya - traders and shudra - workers). Not all Rishis were renunciants, neither were all celibates. The Rishis mainly lived in the forests, in hermitages (ashrams), many were married and had children. Some meditated in solitude, while others taught students in their residential schools (gurukulas). The texts like Tripura Rahasya, Yoga Vasishtha have wonderful descriptions of these sages and their capabilities. One category of Rishis were called Brahmarishis and these Rishis were able to create their own Universes via the power of their consciousness. In other words, their will was so strong, and aligned with their awareness, that whatever they willed, came into existence. Quoted below is one such story from The Tripura Rahasya Chapter 12 & 13 --

I was put in a situation recently, where I was not sure whether speaking the truth was the best course. To tell a lie for an assumed greater good, or simply to keep silence. All options seemed to cause some harm to other(s) -- in my perception. I always have trouble with the 'silence' as a choice. When someone asks me a question directly (speak, email, etc), or ask for help, I always try to respond, even in situations where silence and not responding, may be the best course of action. In rare cases, I have kept silence or not responded. When I had this dilemma, I recalled the story of Satyavrata from Devi Bhagavat Purana. This story has been described in different ways. I have described the story as I remember with few sentences from a book. In some versions of the story, they say Satyavrata kept silence. That which sees is the organ eye and it has no capability to speak. That which speaks is the mouth, and it has no capacity to see. What Satyavrata did in his condition is described as the right course of action for him. I just wonder, if this justification is valid, even in his case? "Purāṇa are called Purāṇa because they make the Veda “Pūrṇa” (complete). "

So I was watching a Youtube vid about the Prophecy of Maitreya's Future Buddhahood when there was a line translated in the vid that talked about cultivating the Four Dharmas of Attraction. For some reason that line popped out at me tonight like it never had before ( I really like that video as it always makes me feel so happy and delightful when I watch it - especially when Maitreya Buddha honors Mahakasyapa and is honored in return by Mahakasyapa). Anyway...I wondered what that meant - the Four Dharmas of Attraction as I'd never noticed them before so I ran a search on it and found some commentary by Master Hsuan Hua translated into English from the Avatamsaka Sutra (isn't that the same as the Flower Ornament Sutra?). There was a transcription of a small bit of the sutra followed by Master Hua's commentary and I noticed it was giving an exacting description of precisely the things one needs to put into practice daily to attain to the 4 Dharmas of Attraction. Those being 1. Attracting living beings 2. The power to use kind and loving words to inspire them and inspire joy 3. Beneficial Conduct 4. Similarity in Deeds Master Hua states the first two are the beginning practices on the path to being a Bodhisattva and it all starts with the daily mental practice of seeing yourself giving offerings to all the Buddhas of all the time periods and all directions. Then you immediately imagine any reciprocal benefit coming to you from the first step - you then turn around and imagine yourself giving that benefit to the ground of all-wisdom. I presume the all-wisdom is prajna wisdom, yes? the article never really states what is meant by "all-wisdom" I assume it means 'prajna' wisdom. To my great surprise I noticed this document was a description of some things I like to do. I did them just because it's to a point that envisioning such is simply expressing a true desire I have. I was not aware it is actually considered a real cultivation method for the mind but apparently it is. I just do it because I want to at that particular moment when it pops up. Was not aware there is any particular kind of fruit from that practice but it seems to be that there is. Now where I am somewhat perplexed is with the final 2 "practices". Beneficial Conduct and Similarity in Deeds. Master Hua says these are not quite the same as practicing the paramita of giving (ie generosity). Practicing giving is a practice of the first two but not completely of the last two. That is...it shows this person is a beginner, a white belt, a greenhorn on the path to becoming a Bodhisattva. Which made me laugh because now I can definitely state I am a noob - Mind-wise - on the path even according to other Buddhists. Back to the last 2 dharmas. They seem obvious at first glance. Until I really started to wonder what those 2 practices must actually consist of as a daily routine. And that I confess I don't know for sure. Beneficial Conduct seems kind of happenstance...maybe that day you'll be lucky enough to practice it if you're around enough people but if you live alone or for whatever reason don't have much daily contact with other people it might not pop up as an opportunity at all. Or perhaps it involves some kind of practice I'm not aware of. Nor did the article extract mention one. Similarity in Deeds is even more puzzling. About the only thing I can think of is that old saw some religious people ask themselves, "what would Jesus do in this situation?" or "what would the Buddha do in this situation?" and then hopefully intuit the answer (Buddha-dharma-compliant of course). I want to practice the other 2 dharmas as well. Does anyone know if the Avatamsaka Sutra itself explains those last two and gives examples? I don't own a copy so unfortunately can not read the source document. Is there anyone here who practices along these lines daily to cultivate the four dharmas of attraction? If so what do you do and what has been your experience of such? Here is the extract I found: http://www.drbachinese.org/vbs/1_100/vbs93/93_3.html The original Youtube vid I watched:

Thoughts on how Buddhist books are utilised in the West - how they're read, what is read and whose reading them: https://www.vajrayanaworld.com/long-bits/the-state-of-buddhist-publishing

The above verses from bhagavad gita, one from chapter 3 and the other from chapter 18, look the same to me. Anyway, the message conveyed it seems to be is to perform activities (all in the world in accordance with one's one inherent nature. It says, better die, than doing something that is not natural to you. This is interpreted in n number of ways. Some traditional religious say, we get the swadharma by birth. Other's say, it's not by ones birth, but based on one's gunas or vasanas (impressions) carried from the past (lives?). Swami Chinmayananda explains these verses beautifully in his Gita talks. I have also heard some analogies. The essential nature (swadharma) of poisonous snake is poison. The swadharma (essential nature) of bitter gourd is it's own unique flavor of bitterness. Similarly, everything and every one in the universe seems to have their own essential nature or swadharma. This is the way, I understand it. I read an interesting article about winners of huge lotteries. A study was conducted to see, how they were after a decade or two. The results were nothing but disturbing. While a minority seemed to have taken the sudden shift in life well, adjusted and carried on with their lifes, turning lottery winnings to their advantage. It was described that majority of these huge lottery winners were not living a happy life after a decade or more. That may be an understatement. Many expressed that they wish they never won the lottery. Some said, they were isolated from their family and friends. Some it seems got addicted to drugs or whatever and died within the decade. Money as a goal by itself does not seem to be the goal with just this lottery example. In the context of this, looking at the words from gita, the strong words does seem to make sense. It is better to die doing what is aligned with ones own nature; or the essence of one, rather doing something that is unnatural though it could be profitable. Here is the confusions that I have. Sometimes, it is not clear as to what one's swadharma or essential nature is. At least, I get confused. Some work that I do, feels like, it is not my swadharma at all. There is an expressing, working for the paycheck. People want early retirement. On the other hand, I see some working passionately in their late 70s or 80s. Even though their body is giving up, they don't want to stop their work. Many of these people have money to retire, and it doesn't seem that they are working for money. Sometimes we feel that we know what our swadharma is. Other times it is not clear. Not knowing what swadharma is, one engages in worldly activities including work. Working to make money, work that is not in alignment with the person's nature. There is suffering and misery. There is a longing for the weekend. Monday morning anxiety or anxiety or whatever. Some people watch the clock (nothing wrong in this). At 5 PM, they get up and leave. It seems that they were tied to that seat til 5 PM. At 5:01, it feels like release, freedom, get up and leave. Is this the right way to live the life. On the other side, a grihasta or house holder has duties to perform. Take care of one's family, provide for them the life style they are used to. Strive to provide at least. Therefore invariably, many end up doing what they do not enjoy to make the life style demanded by their circumstances. Many a times it does feel like the camel walking slow with heavy burden that he has described. He hits the nail (swadharma) with the words "his dharma-be". Clearly stating that when one performs against his "dharma-be" as he calls it, results in lethargy, despair, etc. Seems in-line with the words from gita. The solution presented on the book, is prayer. Yes, prayer does help. So does meditation, yoga, etc. But, even after performing these (may be more time and patience is needed), one is struggling to find what his swadharma is. Trying to get the balance of performaing according to one's nature (if it is known) and balancing the needs (duties) that one has to perform towards his family & society. What is the way to find one's swadharma? What is the right duty for each person? How does one conclude some work is his swadharma or not? How to balance it with the duties of a house holder? The answers to my questions may already be there on gita itself, may be I can't grasp it. Would love to hear the views (answers?), from others on this topic...