tariki

Grok or whatever, chemistry or whatever. I like the way Stephen Batchelor demystifies Buddhism and all its terms.

Thanks Steve, I've taken a quick look and will take longer next time. First impressions are that difficult concepts are made as clear as they can be for heads like mine ( that tend to turn to jelly at the very first paradox ) When I get back to first base I see that I have what could be called sn existential grasp of this, that it relates to how we live and interact with others beyond "judgement". That there is an unbroken line of continuity between the worlds most macho male and the worlds most effeminate female - each human being are themselves, unique, precious beyond all price. There are no fences in reality dividing us from each other. Words like "thief" or "prostitute" should in an "empty" reality be verbs only, not nouns. Conventional words like "gays" or whatever have limited application and invite us to miss seeing the truth before us. They invite judgement. I have a few ebooks on Nagarguna and suchlike and if I can drag myself away from Candy Crush Saga for a while I'll give them a look. Thanks

As far as "getting it", ultimately does that have anything to do with "eastern" v "western" mindsets? I would relate any such thought to the old Chesterton Chestnut mentioned by Thomas - about Christianity not having failed, just never been tried. It has certainly been "believed", we have had the great "ages of faith". And still the world keeps turning, as today's newscasts of Yemen and Syria testify. Here is a cut and paste of a previous post I made, which perhaps is relevant here..... One of my favorite Buddhist authors is Stephen Batchelor, who often comes into a lot of stick on Buddhist Forums forhis "agnostic" attitude towards such "truths" as rebirth. Being that way inclined myself, I see no problem. One of his books is "Buddhism Without Beliefs" which opens with a short passage concerning the dictinction between the "Four Noble Truths" as something to "believe in" as distinct from how they are actually spoken of in the Theravada Canon itself, as truths to be acted upon (Note, Stephen Batchelor uses the word "anguish" rather then "suffering" for the Buddhist "dukkha") ".....the crucial distinction that each truth requires being acted upon in its own particular way (understanding anguish, letting go of its origins, realizing its cessation, and cultivating the path) has been relegated to the margins of specialist doctrinal knowledge. Yet in failing to make this distinction, four enobling truths to be acted upon are neatly turned into four propositions of fact to be believed. The first truth becomes: "Life is Suffering", the second: "The Cause of Suffering is Craving" - and so on. At precisely this juncture, Buddhism becomes a religion. A Buddhist is someone who believes these four propositions.......and are thus distinguished from Christians, Muslims, and Hindus, who believe different sets of propositions." To my mind this distinction exists within all faiths in various forms and ways. It also seems to me that if we people of faith acted upon such distinctions, seeking the true heart of our faith, we perhaps could all meet at the centre, instead of arguing on the perimeter of the circle! Well, easier said than done......... So there is knowing and believing etc etc. As the zen master once said, the main man at a monastery housing about 5000 wannabees when asked:- "Just how many followers do you actually have?" "Oh" he replied "about two or three". Basically I am one who does not get it, whatever "it" is. And the longer I live the less I care, which just might be a way of getting it.

One thing I like about Stephen Batchelor is his unpretentious style. Catch him on Utube and there are no robes or any indication of being a guru/master. And even the name.............no attempt to have a pretentious "eastern" sounding name like tariki or whatever. I once read a book "The Survey of Buddhism" by Sangarakshita and was bolstered somewhat by knowing I was dipping into the real mckoy, getting the Dharma straight from the horses mouth so to speak............eventually I found out that Sangarakshita was plain old Dennis Lingwood who hailed from Romford. Nothing wrong with Romford of course but it does not quite have the ring of Sri Lanka or Tibet. And as for Wei Wu Wei..........just where do aristocratic Irishmen pick up such names? Anyway, thinking about it (not always a good idea) just what is more "exotic" - a camel or a cow, an oak tree or a palm tree? Well, I'm waffling as usual.........maybe too much time on my hands.........where was I? Oh yes, Stephen Batchelor. Apparently he spent a lot of his youth, and certainly his twenties, in the hands of Tibetans and their monastic community, learning the ropes. He seems to have spent some time staring at walls and suchlike, but whatever his pedigree, for me he writes some good books. The aim of them all, as he says himself, is just how to live the Dharma in our modern secular age. For me he hits the spot.

Well, when my own mind begins to turn to jelly I tend to head off to the Pure Land chanting the nembutsu, but Merton was made of sterner stuff. At the time of his musing he was dipping into the heavy going tome of T V Murti "The Central Philosophy of Buddhism". Rather then frustration, his musings seemed to bear fruit, as evidenced by his experience that he recorded in his journal on a later occasion, when viewing the statues of Polonnaruwa...... The vicar general, shying away from "paganism," hangs back and sits under a tree reading the guidebook. I am able to approach the Buddhas barefoot and undisturbed, my feet in wet grass, wet sand. Then the silence of the extraordinary faces. The great smiles. Huge and yet subtle. Filled with every possibility, questioning nothing, knowing everything, rejecting nothing, the peace not of emotional resignation but of Madhyamika, of sunyata, that has seen through every question without trying to discredit anyone or anything - without refutation - without establishing some other argument. For the doctrinaire, the mind that needs well-established positions, such peace, such silence, can be frightening. I was knocked over with a rush of relief and thankfulness at the obvious clarity of the figures.................looking (at them) I was suddenly, almost forcibly, jerked clean out of the habitual, half-tied vision of things, and an inner clearness, clarity, as if exploding from the rocks themselves, became evident and obvious. The queer evidence of the reclining figure, the smile, the sad smile of Ananda standing with arms folded.....The thing about all this is that there is no puzzle, no problem, and really no "mystery". All problems are resolved and everything is clear, simply because what matters is clear. The rock, all matter, all life, is charged with dharmakaya.....everything is emptiness and everything is compassion. Anyway, for me, that the "conventional truth is the absolute truth" tells me - and reassures me - that the Dharma does not betray THIS world for some imagined "other". THIS world is affirmed, the only one we know. Anyway, Stephen Batchelor, in his latest book "After Buddhism: Rethinking the Dharma for a Secular Age" speaks of what the Tibetans taught him when he trained with them in his youth............that "ultimate truth was an emptiness of something that had never been there in the first place", which Batchelor - much like Merton - transforms into a positive agenda for living in this world, a disclosure of just what it is to be fully human. The book must be read, but Batchelor writes that "emptiness is not a truth to be understood correctly in order to dispel ignorance and thereby attain enlightenment". Rather the point is to dwell in emptiness. He speaks of the danger of duality, which does not so much lie in oppositional thinking, rather it lies in how we use such thinking to reinforce and justify our egoism, cravings, fears, and hatreds. Well, enough. Namu Amida Butsu!

Thanks for the smiley Rom. The facilities on my Kindle are limited, but I'm now on my Laptop so if the need arises.......... A knife cannot cut itself, just so, as we are an intrinsic part of Reality we can say nothing about it without creating some degree of paradox. So as I see it, in that sense, nothing can be said with certainty. Rather like the character in a Terry Pratchett novel, who either knew where he was OR where he was going, but never both at the same time....... Nevertheless, can we LIVE reality without paradox? Would such a life be that which is to be "saved"? Thomas Merton captures the paradox. Speaking of a true communion with others, he said that we were already "one", yet did not know it, that what we must be is what we are. Again, in a poem, he wrote that we already possess God, yet "how far we have to go to find You in Whom we have already arrived." And so it goes on. Recently I came across a comment somewhere that although zen is that which is a reality "outside of scriptures", there is yet a strand in it that insists that there is a very correct word, and one only, for each thing in the moment. This seems to be another way of saying what another said when asked "what are the teachings of a lifetime?" and answered;- "An appropriate statement". This would seem to be some sort of resolution of the "objective"/"subjective" argument concerning morality/values. That is a sense it is BOTH! Each moment will have just one "appropriate statement" (of word or action) which cannot be known before, nor after. It is free, pure freedom. (Merton said somewhere that God is pure freedom) So truth can be lived. I agree, in one sense there is no alternative. Now is now, we are undoubtedly just where we are...........is the resolution of the paradox just a trick of the mind? To finish with a excerpt from the Buddhist Theravada texts:- "Well now, good Gotama, is suffering caused by oneself?" "No indeed, Kassapa," said the Blessed One. "Well then, good Gotama, is one's suffering caused by another?" "No indeed, Kassapa." "Well then, good Gotama, is suffering caused by both oneself and another?" "No indeed, Kassapa." "Well then, good Gotama, this suffering which is caused neither by oneself nor by another, is it the result of chance?" "No indeed, Kassapa." "Well then, good Gotama, is suffering non-existent?" "No Kassapa: suffering is not non-existent. Suffering exists." "Then the good Gotama neither knows nor sees suffering." "No, Kassapa, it is not that I neither know nor see suffering: I know suffering, I see suffering." "Well now, good Gotama, when I asked you, 'Is suffering caused by oneself?' you answered 'No indeed' Would the Lord, the Blessed One expound suffering to me! Would the Lord, the Blessed One teach me about suffering!" "'He who performs the act also experiences [the result]' — what you, Kassapa, first called 'suffering caused by oneself' — this amounts to the Eternalist theory. 'One person performs the act, another experiences,' — which to the person affected seems like "suffering caused by another" — this amounts to the Annihilationist theory. Avoiding both extremes, Kassapa, the Tathaagata teaches a doctrine of the middle..... End of text. So just what is the "middle"? Not a halfway point between two extremes, but a no-position that transcends ALL positions (as Merton mused on his Asian pilgrimage)

Hi Thomas, just to say that perhaps twenty or so years ago* in one of the letters of Thomas Merton ( in this case to Aldous Huxley ), Merton spoke of true mysticism as being necessarily "the contact of two liberties". Much water has passed under the bridge since, as that little phrase has been discussed and debated and thought about on various Forums, initiated by my own questions. (I would really love to hear just what Merton would say now about this were he alive today, given his own "unfolding") Pure Land Buddhism speaks of "self power" and "other power" ( Japanese "jiriki" and "tariki" ) and one of its myokonin ( "saint" ) wrote..... O Saichi, will you tell us of Other Power? Yes, but there is neither self power nor Other Power. What is, is the Graceful Acceptance only. I really do not want to dredge over old ground but you can find a few old threads on the "Other Wisdom Traditions" section of this Forum. Thanks. EDIT:- *I meant when I first read the letter, it was actually written in the 1950's.

You seem to be saying that we ARE the story whether we like it or not. (I would put a smiley face here but I' m on my kindle and can't see how) What does "on topic" mean? ( Another smiley ) Though if all things are inter-related..........

Being a Spurs supporter I have had enough of football for today...... As I see it, we can have a conceptual/intellectual understanding yet not LIVE it. The ultimate "story" is Reality itself. I am a non-theist. My understanding of "grace" is derived from Pure Land Buddhism. Sorry, I do seem to strain words to their limits - and perhaps beyond! "Mercy" and "leaving all paths and becoming lost" are one and the same to my mind, as is the recognition that I have often been "saved" in spite of my choices and beliefs rather than because of them. In many respects, I see "free will" as a red herring.

Sorry, for better or worse my mind just interrelates one thing with another and sometimes sees the substance. All talk of "stories" relates for me with the Buddhist call to UNDERSTAND, i.e. to LIVE truth beyond any conceptual or intellectual grasp. I do not relate it to any particular "story". (Even my talk of irony relates to the same point) And yes, for me being able to LIVE truth goes far beyond any "choice" and instead involves the reality of Grace, a mercy that often makes a mockery of our "choices". Again, this all involves having no "answers" ( which often seem to preclude any possibility of LIVING truth ) Anyway, better stop before I muddy the waters any further.

Perhaps like the irony of those who spend so much time railing against a God they do not believe in. But its good to smile. Apparently if we do not laugh when we hear of the Tao we do not understand it. So they say. Anyway, Eckhart's soundbite here should maybe be heard alongside others, where he speaks of needing more than "thinking of God at all times", this because "when our thoughts end, so too will our God". Also his Sermon 22, where he speaks of going well beyond keeping "a place" in our hearts for God. I see this as all having to do with the observation by Thomas that we must BECOME the story and not just read, an observation found in the verses of Pure Land "saints" when speaking of the hard graft of Dharmakaya in training for Bodhisattvahood! ( Getting technical, this could also have to do with Eckhart's distinction between Godhead and God. But as my pal Merton says we must be "circumspect" about such ( being a good Catholic and wishing to pass the censors ) I will leave such alone.

Ah ha! "She who must be obeyed". A retelling of the Christian Story with a feminist twist.

Hi Thomas, Yes, that was my point, in that what IS heard, understood and gives life are those who, physically and mentally challenged themselves, pedal for the sake of others. As I see it, many hear such stories who will never have any further interest in a specifically Christian Story, however repackaged. I was also famliar with John Macquarrie, I think it was his book on Systematic Theology I read about 30 years ago, and one on existentialism. Hick I read avidly (as he was a Universalist) Thanks

Thinking back, one guy who did make the Christian Story relevant for me was the theologian John Dunne. Not sure if he was prone to wearing silly hats, but his book "The Way of All the Earth" hit the mark. He spoke of "passing over" into the stories and thought worlds of others, Islamic, Buddhist, whatever, and then returning to ones own world - perhaps, hopefully, seeing/knowing it with fresh eyes. Such "passing over" though is surely not new in any real sense. At heart it is the essence of simple human empathy, of walking a mile or two in the shoes of another. Simple things that nevertheless helps to preclude judgement, not to mention the beginnings of emptying ourselves - enabling the arising of the "ten thousand things" spoken of by various zen masters.

Hi Thomas, well I did say that the stories related to personal "reformations" were the only ones that have ever been worth knowing. Maybe the point was lost in my slightly facetious verbiage. Like it or not even popular science books now well outsell any by theologians or whoever. The latter are not sought for guidance by the majority. As I see it there is no longer a specifically "Christian Story" that can be made relevant, or needs to be made relevant. Humanity ( as I see it ) has not in any way outgrown the truths such may have contained, but as a "Christian Story" - rather than Buddhist, Hindu or anything else - it is beyond salvage. Just to add, I could maybe clothe my viewpoint with words such as the "incarnational reality of the Living Word can manifest in ways beyond the wisdom of the wise" - or some such, using long words like hermeneutical and soteriological - but what is gained? On a personal note, I have made such attempts on other Forums, and have been called "the son of satan", "the voice of satan", even "the anti-christ" and told of my destination in unambiguous language. In the end, one gets tired. I am a very vulnerable person. I really have had enough of "religion", whether Christian or any other type or seeking to make it "relevant". I find my peace with the grandchildren, who seem more able to share my point of view.

It could be that I just happen to live in the UK - and a part of it - that is very secular. Mentioning religion is "bad form". No one seems to be waiting for any sort of "reformation" initiated by leaders in funny hats or speaking from pulpits, or seeking to make a largely outmoded and irrelevant book into some sort of guide to life ( or afterlife ) Yet I detect a "reformation" happening. Very personal reformations as common or garden human beings seek to live THIS life with concern for others - this without any eye upon "reward". Such, for instance, is the yearly "Rickshaw Challenge" which raises millions for charity, where various riders, themselves physically or mentally challenged, take turns pedalling a rickshaw hundreds of miles accross the UK, through wind and rain, cheered on by thousands of well wishers who come out at early and late hours to throw their coppers ( and pounds ) into the swinging bucket. The stories of the riders and who they are riding for are the new chapters and verses of the only "holy book" that has ever been worth reading or knowing. http://www.kingslynnonline.com/2016/11/the-one-shows-rickshaw-challenge-comes-to-kings-lynn

Speaking of the need of "reformations" and post christian eras, I would just say that initially I was speaking of the effect of questions ("trending" on a Christian Forum) that I found astonishing. i.e. "How is an infant saved?" For me, the whole thought world of a Transcendent Personal Being, creator of All, from Whom we are estranged by sin, of such a Being incarnating within time/space history to offer themselves as a sacrifice for such sin, of the need to believe or "accept" such..............such a world is gone (and I could now go into the world of the Monty Python "Dead Parrot" sketch to emphasise the point..... ) Yet for me the question still has resonance and meaning outside of any specifically Christian context, as in the words of the poem by Louis Macneice.... I am not yet born; O hear me. Let not the bloodsucking bat or the rat or the stoat or the club-footed ghoul come near me. I am not yet born, console me. I fear that the human race may with tall walls wall me, with strong drugs dope me, with wise lies lure me, on black racks rack me, in blood-baths roll me. I am not yet born; provide me With water to dandle me, grass to grow for me, trees to talk to me, sky to sing to me, birds and a white light in the back of my mind to guide me. I am not yet born; forgive me For the sins that in me the world shall commit, my words when they speak me, my thoughts when they think me, my treason engendered by traitors beyond me, my life when they murder by means of my hands, my death when they live me. I am not yet born; rehearse me In the parts I must play and the cues I must take when old men lecture me, bureaucrats hector me, mountains frown at me, lovers laugh at me, the white waves call me to folly and the desert calls me to doom and the beggar refuses my gift and my children curse me. I am not yet born; O hear me, Let not the man who is beast or who thinks he is God come near me. I am not yet born; O fill me With strength against those who would freeze my humanity, would dragoon me into a lethal automaton, would make me a cog in a machine, a thing with one face, a thing, and against all those who would dissipate my entirety, would blow me like thistledown hither and thither or hither and thither like water held in the hands would spill me. Let them not make me a stone and let them not spill me. Otherwise kill me.

I don't see science as a belief system (which would be scientism) Science is a method of seeking to know more about our rather strange reality without recourse to preconceived beliefs. Having said that, there is a book edited by Ken Wilber which is a collection of essays by eminent scientific ground-breakers of the last century which Ken Wilber labels as "mystical". Wilber's point is - which he is at great pains to make in his introduction - is that their "mystical" world views are not based upon their scientific theories, which they see as another thing entirely. Why is there something rather than nothing? What IS Reality, and what shall we make of it in our little time here? I find it significant that a human being, not necessarily bright in the IQ department, can be capable of love, empathy, compassion, self sacrifice, mercy........all such without much "knowledge" of any kind. That there is no "system" to bring such about can leave us frustrated - yet can be the clue to its manifestation. My old pal Merton said something about leaving all paths behind and "in a certain sense, becoming lost".

Hi Romansh, apparently Wittgenstein claimed that all the major philosophical questions, when analysed, were merely linguistic errors. When such errors are exposed, the questions disappeared. Any that remained are "unanswerable" - or perhaps better, unaskable. There seems a strange link between this and the "silence of the Buddha" in the face of all metaphysical questions. Well, not so strange to my own strange mind! It just seems we are left with being able to live life and recognising that trying to tie it down to some preconceived template is pointless. Recently I got an email from "Christian Forums" that told me that a trending topic was "How is an infant saved". I suddenly realised that I was alive within a post christian world as far as my own mind is concerned. Really, I find it difficult to relate to any "belief system" at all. As I see it , religious texts - which I have always loved - serve the purpose, in a sense, of transcending themselves. Maybe the "letter kills but the spirit gives life", which seems to sum it up? Difficult to say.

Once again, in response to the original OP. Keeping within the boundaries of Buddhism and the Dharma, there is no "versus". One (non-self) would imply the other.(loving self) These are the so called "twin pillars" of wisdom and compassion. (Wisdom, defined as per Edward Conze as "the mind/heart thirsting for emancipation seeing direct into the heart of reality") which can only co-exist. As I see it, if one does indeed necessarily bring forth the other, this has much to say about the Ultimate Reality. In as much as, if to SEE it and know it, and live it, IS to be loving and compassionate, then any human beings simple faith and trust in God (or call it Him or what you will) is not misplaced. I suppose we just need to find out for ourselves. We each have our own unique path, and as far as "only ways" are concerned, as Meister Eckhart said:- They do Him wrong who know God in one particular way; they have the way rather than God. Or, perhaps stretching it a bit ( ), as the Buddha said, the dharma is for passing over, not for grasping.

Popped in for a quick look and saw this. I can only give my own take and speak of my own approach. Buddhism speaks of "anatta" or "not self". i.e there is no self. Thus it suggests that there is nothing to get rid of or to diminish. There is no self to lose. Yet here we are. Therefore it is not a case of "attaining" ( who or what would attain? ) but of realising that which is from the beginning and "knowing it for the first time" (Maybe we need duality to come to this realisation - which contains the seeds of a theodicy if you give it thought) To ask who or what "realises" is to engage in the metaphysical speculation that the Buddha frowned upon. It is not speculation that leads to the "unshakeable deliverance of mind" that the Theravada texts speak of as the goal of the Holy Life . I see the above to be fundamental to my own Pure Land path. To say the nembutsu in ALL circumstances, which morphs into a simple "thank you" in ALL circumstances, which becomes in time a choiceless awareness of what is - and this not a passive acceptance but paradoxically the catalyst for genuine transformation. This relates to the zen saying "if we wish to know the truth just cease to cherish opinions". Zen = self power ( yet in relation to anatta ) Shin = Other Power ( yet in the context of non-duality ) No, I am not there yet. Far from it. But the journey itself is home. "Whether I am headed for hell Or headed for the Pure Land All is in Amida's hands Namu Amida Butsu!" What could be more "unshakeable"?

Hi, yes, in effect I am saying much as you. I do not "know it". I'm just passing on what others have said or taught. The Buddha did say once to a guy who spoke of him ( the Buddha ) as "the fully enlightened one".The Buddha told him that he could not know any such thing until such time as he was enlightened himself. So until such time we grub around consoling ourselves that the "journey is home" and suchlike. It is why I am a Pure Land Buddhist. "Not knowing why - not knowing why - that is my support - not knowing why - that is the Namu amida butsu!

Goodness me, what has happened to my little thread since I last took a peep? The quote is from the Kalama Sutta and is often seen as some sort of Free Thinkers Charter, yet includes the clause "and commended by the wise". Which has caused me to ask "Who are the wise?" on various Forums. Being Buddhist Forums, 100 Buddhists, 100 answers ( which can possibly be mocked, yet holds out hope if seen another way ) Yes, "not self" seems the preferred translation of the Pali "anatta". A reputable Buddhist Dictionary ( very Theravada orientated ) tells us that if "not-self"/anatta is not understood then Buddhism will inevitably be misunderstood. This becomes even more significant when it is acknowledged that to "understand" as far as Buddhism is concerned is to LIVE it, BE it, not merely to have/seek an intellectual grasp. Anyway, thanks for your interest.

Hi, good morning I think you are alluding to dialectic.........but none too sure as I am not really the philosophical or logical type. At the very first syllogism I tend to leg it for the Pure Land and curl up into a tight ball. But as I see it the end of the dialectic is that the only thing we can know is that we know nothing. Which in fact is potentially everything, only we don't know it as such. Thomas Merton said that God is pure freedom and that such freedom is the gift (of Himself) that He gives us. He does not give us "the Law", a set of morals/commandments to be followed. (well, according to the Bible He does to start with........which is very much on-topic) As I see it, all this is the answer to various conundrums of "objective" and "subjective" morality and all the stuff about "without God there can be no absolute truths or whatever. The answer (hey, I'm getting the hang of this now) is that truth is both. Relative to each moment we find ourselves in, but absolute for that moment. My favorite Buddhist writer is Stephen Batchelor, and he touches upon this in his book "Buddhism Without Beliefs"....... ........we act in a way that startles us. A friend asks our advice about a tricky moral choice. Yet instead of offering consoling platitudes or the wisdom of someone else, we say something that we did not know we knew. Such gestures and words spring from body and tongue with shocking spontaneity. We cannot call them "mine" but neither have we copied them from others. Compassion has dissolved the stranglehold of self. And we taste, for a few exhilarating seconds, the creative freedom of awakening. First we must work with it yet as we open to grace, and surrender to it, to the creative power of love, we find ourselves "working" by "non-working". The "working" becomes effortless, and is a real sense not of ourselves. (Or, as a Christian would say, "Not I, but Christ lives in me") We finally go beyond the gestures and words of a parent, an authority figure or a religious text, beyond psychological or social habit, beyond our own "self" and its egotism. As St Augustine said......"Love God and do what you will". All comes from the love and grace of God, the Hidden Ground of Love, ineffable in and of itself, yet known by love/compassion within each moment, when not driven by "self". Must be a nice feeling! (This all relates to the central philosophy of Buddhism, the madhyamika, which is all about transcending the dialectic, of how the Middle Way is not a position midway between two extremes, but more a "no-position" that transcends ALL positions. But I'm off to the Pure land to curl up into a ball..........................)

For a long time I have found questions are far better than "answers" in my own stumbling path of unknowing (and of not wanting to know about some doctrines.....) The Pure Land teaching, that "salvation" is found in Grace alone, in the very nature and "will" of Reality-as-is, and not in our own allegiance to doctrines, has been my own guide for many years now. Another observation is that often we seem to be "saved" in spite of our beliefs rather than because of them. We have already arrived in God, yet how far I have to go to find You in Whom I have already arrived. (Thomas Merton) The distance we have to go may well involve doctrines, even hanging on tight, and some may well be better than others, but in the end all is pure gift, which is a realisation, not an attainment of something that beforehand was not ours at all. Such is how I see it. Just another little verse from Saichi............"Not knowing why, not knowing why.........This is my support........Not knowing why.......This is the Namu-amida-butsu"