Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Supernatural?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
And His Holiness the Dalai Lama has always stated that if Science comes up with anything to disprove or discredit a long-held Buddhsit view, he will of course have to revise his thinking.
To my knowledge, Buddhism has withstood the test of Time and has not as yet been found wanting....
"I do NOT teach that there is one who feels."
Buddha
That is where Buddhism comes in -- there is knowledge with which science is slowly catching up. Are you familiar with the Mind & Life conferences with the Dalai Lama, and Alan Wallace's writings?
The key area of science that is lacking is an understanding of consciousness, the area in which Buddhism excels. Science slams up against the wall repeatedly, like a wind-up toy, making no progress. It has not occurred to the establishment that they have a wrong paradigm, so they will continue for some time hitting the wall.
There is a wonderful book in which western science/philosophy encounters Buddhism. It is called The Monk and the Philosopher by Ricard.
What or who is "one who feels?" Is the Buddha one who feels? Is Buddahood, or the state of enlightenment, achieved by one who feels? How does the remainder of the passage read? In that passage, is it made clear what he is talking about?
This particular citation has been presented to you dozens of times by various people over at the 'Beliefnet Buddhist Debate' board. For someone who claims to have a memory that goes back to beyond the beginning of this particular universe, you don't have a very good short term memory. You, of course, haven't made that or the many other claims on this forum yet, so the people here have some good laughs to look forward to.
"But who, Venerable One, is it that feels?"
"This question is not proper," said the Exalted One.
I do not teach that there is one who feels.
If, however, the question is put thus:
'Conditioned through what does feeling arise?' then the answer will be 'Through sense impressions as a condition feeling [arises]; with feeling as a condition, craving [arises]."
--SN II 13
I don't think you misread; to ponder such may drive you nutz! I was simply pointing out that such can be mistranslated to mean you cannot know such things, when you can.
The warning against pondering was more a comment on technique than a prohibition against knowing. The Buddha was simply saying, "Pondering these subjects will lead to confusion, whereas using the practice will take you to enlightenment, in which these subjects become clear. In other words, "think think" will not take you where "look look" will take you. Different techniques.
There seems to be a creeping invasion of modern skepticism (the philosophy of) into Buddhism which brings about a jumping to the skeptics' conclusion--you cannot know--whenever anything can be mistranslated or misinterpreted in that manner.
That is a trend of which we must all be cautious in our practice and our presentation of Buddhism. (At least that would be my argument.)
I am far from skeptic. I am more open now than I have ever been, and I am so enjoying the 'exposure'.....
I am just having a great deal of difficulty absorbing it all....
Look look, rather than think think....
Would that be akin to
"Walking the Talk"....? Doing it for yourself....Putting it all into practice....?
Memory is fine, thank you. Was wondering why you quoted out of context.
If we read closely, we see that "feels" refers to "sense impressions" which is tied in with form. When we speak of Buddhahood, when we speak of the Buddha who transcends attachment to form (as we did in the post to which you responded), we leave behind "one who feels," as that refers to the aggregates.
Thus, the Buddha does not teach "one who feels," but rather teaches enlightenment; he teaches release from attachment to the aggregates, he teaches of the Buddha who transcends form.
To equate the Buddha with the aggregates, which the Buddha spoke of as not self, to equate the Buddha with "one who feels" meaning one who clings to the sense impressions of the form, would be to error, according to the Buddha.
To claim the Buddha, who is released from attachment to the aggregates, does not exist would be to engage in annhiliationism, which the Buddha rejected.
You worm in and try to endear yourself to others by quoting their mistatements.
Same old Hindu crap, of course!
This thread, apart from the gradual drifting slowly away from the topic, as I pointed out in my previous post, has been both interesting and informative.... Up to now.... Could we therefore continue it in the same vein?
I hope I won't have to begin using my little red * 'Moderating' asterisks * .... :grumble:
Yes Ma'am. You guys have been warned of the phoniness to come..
The supernatural, to be known, is experienced. Thus, there must be "one who experiences."
In fact, that is where the thread started (paraphrasing), "Here are some supernatural experiences I've had, how do they fit into Buddhism?"
"Supernatural" applies to that which is beyond the natural; in other words, it speaks to immaterial properties that lie beyond the material properties. (Naturalism or materialism refers to the belief there are only natural or material conditions.)
Given the only way we know of anything is through experience (which we can divide into consciousness and awareness), there is always an experiencer, in both the case of the natural and the supernatural.
An easy way of looking to the relevance of this division (natural and supernatural) exists in the teachings regarding release from attachment to the aggregates (skandhas, heaps, etc.)
The Buddha told his devoted students the practice would lead to release from attachment to the aggregates. In other words, Buddhist practice leads to release from conditioned experience of attachment to the "natural" realm, or the set of material conditions.
On the path that leads to release, one experiences the supernatural.
If one considered the word supernatural in its purest form, it would be that which is totally beyond the "natural" or material realm. (One might consider this to refer to the state of Buddhahood, beyond all attachment to the natural or material realm.)
Common usage, however, often includes in the supernatural that which is not truly beyond the natural realm, but rather that which is simply beyond the gross natural realm.
Thus, the "supernatural" (in common usage) also encompasses conditioned and aggregate realms, such as hell realms, realm of the hungry ghosts, even pure lands which are not unconditioned.
So, in its common usage, as opposed to its pure meaning, supernatural still possesses an aggregate or conditioned component.
Thus the word is not entirely useful in Buddhism as one looks to achieve release from all aggregate conditions, including those that are, in common usage, called supernatural. (In other words, being attached to a ghost body is still being attached in the same sense as being attached to a gross-form body.)
This begs the question (another poster raised) of who is released, who experiences, who observes? That would be the Buddha, and the devoted Buddhist student who is released from attachment and achieves a state of Buddhahood.
There is some confusion in Buddhist circles regarding this state of Buddhahood. Some apply the teachings of the anatta doctrine, the idea of no self, in a global sense, and end up with nihilism, a denying of the existence of the released, unattached, unconditioned, unborn, uncreated Buddha.
When the anatta doctrine is placed in correct perspective, it is seen to refer to the "not self"of our attachment to form.
In other words, in error, we often consider our body to be self (the body is "me," the body is who I am)---but the body is not self; it is "not self."
In the same way, if we consider a ghost body to be self, we error, as that is also "not self."
In Buddhism, we meditate and observe and drop attachments to that which is "not self." (This includes the "not self" of "one who feels" as a result of attachment to a sensory form, such as a body.)
Buddhism is a stripping away of false identities born out of conditioned attachment, all the result of ignorance. This would include the stripping away of the false identity of being a ghost as well. (That does not mean such "supernatural" phenomenon does not exist, only that it, too, is a level of attachment.)
When one completes the stripping away of all natural, or aggregate conditions, one has the enlightened Buddha, one has attained the state of Buddhahood. Thus the "one who experiences" but is not that which is experienced.
Hope the above added clarification, not confusion.
Though I do not know Kowtaaia as well as I would like, he is a friend whom I respect, who holds views that are the opposite of mine. He is kind in expressing his views in counter point to mine, thus allowing readers to compare A with B so they can arrive at their own conclusions. Do not mind his gruff demeanor, I certainly do not.
We must be cautious of santizing Buddhism. We must be cautious of insisting that all act as though they are peacefully enlightened. We wrestle with the illusions and that is a noisy process. Imagine the sound and fury of the illusions that Mara tossed at the Buddha. It seems we should not deprive ourselves of the opportunity to sit through that very noisy and disturbing display in order to make it to the other side of the stream. Let us enter the stream in all its pounding fury. Yeah?
Whew!
Cool...
Nothing I personally like better than two friend ripping on each other for entertainment
-bf
NO
Oh not again. Please, please, please not again.
This forum in general has had it up to 'here' with displays of pseudo-intellectual, verbal fisticuffs.
By all means indulge in a Dharma discussion - one in which every member might be able to participate, thus, in the footsteps of the Buddha, modifying your phraseology and post structure to reach everyone - but make sure it doesn't even carry one single nuance or hint of hostility or stubborn, intransigent argumentativeness. There is never any need or excuse for discursive crassness and impoliteness.
And kindly remember the other peoples' right to Courtesy and Dignity. *
You've not entered the stream to reach the other side? Standing on the shore, are you, insisting, "Hell no, I won't go." :winkc:
Which is why you are a dear friend.
Where did you see that?
What happened? Do you mean there has been a difference of views expressed? What was that about? Was it really bad?
Are you familiar with the Tibetan tradition of the monk fielding debate-style questions from multiple sources in rapid fire order? Buddhism has a rich tradition of working hard to come to an understanding of the teachings. It is a more difficult subject to master than most realize at first glance.
The Buddha did not modify his phraseology to reach everyone. He spoke to the audience that was in front of him at any one time, and even then, he did not reach everyone.
In the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha speaks to this task of using expedient means, and goes into detail about the different levels of receptivity to his teachings. He does not expect everyone, at the same time, to get a handle on all the teachings.
There are some very interesting passages in the Lotus Sutra in this regard for new Buddhists who wish to scan the "bigger picture." Good passages for understanding why he taught in the manner he did. Valuable for the new student trying to put the seemingly different topics in perspective.
I would agree, wholeheartedly, but seriously doubt that is possible. In the teachings, one finds many occasions when the Buddha is challenged and must address an intransigent student or lay person. The story regarding the anatta doctrine in which the Buddha speaks to the Wanderer has this flavor. And certainly the poisoning of the Buddha was of this nature. So I'm guessing, from the teachings and the history, that some of this quality is inherent in the subject. (One need only look at the diverse schools and their not always friendly co-existence to see there can be some churning of emotions.)
The reason this occurs lies in the nature of the karmic mind. As the student begins the practice, there is much the Buddha teaches that stands in contradiction to the karmic mind (the accumulation of mental karma which enforces attachment and clinging and ignorance-caused conditoning).
When the Buddha teaches, the mental karma gets rousted out of its slumber--the karmic mind is stubborn and intransigent. Thus, when the student begins to sort through the teachings, it gets noisy. My instinct, at first, would be to concur with your point of view, and have everyone suppress their reactions, but, upon reflection, I believe that does not allow growth and enlightenment.
In a way, a false peace may be equivalent to not allowing a student to meet the challenge of Mara, as the Buddha did when he achieved enlightenment. The path he invited us to follow may include such fireworks.
Couldn't agree more. The respect we show others, the courtesy and dignity that come with compassion are so important. If we are to bring peace to this planet, I believe we have to bring such qualities to the fore, to make them all-pervasive.
I've also taken the view, however, that respect can be shown when one allows another to vent, to let it hang out, to express their anger and their upset. Often you can show no more respect than to accept a person as they are at the moment. Haven't you found that to be true?
I know, from handling disputes professionally, that the first impulse is to suppress conflict, to dictate peace, but it doesn't really happen that way. We draw closer together through an exchange of differences. The dialogue is the bridge that leads us to one another, until we co exist in compassionate admiration.
With Buddhist compassion, one has to achieve a state of being that allows for any expression of upset or any expression of anger, while maintaining loving-kindness.
It is real easy, too easy, to be compassionate to those who are sleeping; much more difficult, but much more necessary, to be able to be compassionate amongst those who are waking. Did you ever get out of bed grumpy from too much sleep?
As you may have noticed, this forum doesn't go in for debate too much.
So it goes. "When in Rome..." as they say.
Hey, Termite.
That's certainly cool. Was enjoying sharing a few thoughts. Not so much interested in debate, but never shy away from it. I know Kow would like to debate some of these ideas, but, as you say, when in Rome....
This thread, on people's experience with the supernatural, and how those experiences fit with Buddhism, is very interesting.
Such experiences are common and expand the range of phenomena we have to take into account when understanding this universe and our role in it.
The Buddha addressed such supernatural variables, but did so in a way that clarifies and cuts through much confusion that arises otherwise. A diligent study of Buddhism can clear out a lot of superstition and misunderstanding.
A key Buddhist concept---that one seeks release from the wheel of death and rebirth--- shatters barriers and opens a whole new vista of understanding. Powerful concept to consider.
I greatly admire the Tibetan Buddhists as well in their extensive theoretical and practical work concerning how to assist the deceased as they make their way through the intermediate stage, the bardo of death and rebirth.
Having had experience with this area (helping those in the intermediate stage), I find the Tibetan concepts to be very important to an overall understanding of the teachings.
The posters who inquired as to how their experiences fit in with Buddhism were asking the right questions, imo.
While I appreciate your taking my post to bits and tackling it piece by piece, just so as you understand, it was posted in my guise as Moderator. Hence the red Asterisks.
Therefore, I would ask that you simply take it as a whole and comply by the contents.
In the absence of any Rules, Regulations and Guidelines, I am obliged to use my judgement and discretion for every situation individually. Other members had already expressed concern at the timbre developping in the thread, and the fact that this has been brought to your attention indicates that the style of discussion wasn't proving acceptable or popular.
We have only recently managed to resolve a situation on this forum which caused division and upset. I'm simply pointing out that we don't want to go down that road - or stream - again.
there are many other fora where such engagement is accepted or encouraged. If you feel the need to participate in discussions of that nature, feel free to explore them.
I know, understand, appreciate and accept that the Dharma is there for discussion and revelation. But if you search through the many, many threads on this forum, it will give you a definite flavour of the kind of discussion prevalent. So, many would appreciate it if you were to choose to "Go with the flow" rather than "swim against the Current." I believe I speak for the Majority. And if I am to represent the Forum in such matters, and afford them my function as Moderator, those are the wishes I have to consider.
Should you wish to dispute this, contact Brian or Matt.
Thank you for your co-operation.*
Hi termite.
I just have to throw this out - I don't think that debate is the issue in this forum. Lack of respect is just what most people seem to have a low tolerance for.
We have Buddhists from various sects and different walks of life. These differences are discussed in varying levels. We have people of the Tibetan mindset discussing things with those of a Zen mindset - and they are able to discuss their differences and opposing thoughts with civility.
It's just that when things become petty or emotionally injurious - I think that's when tolerance becomes scarce.
If you want to debate something with me - I'd be more than willing to do it. Just don't expect me to get all worked up for a heated debate. I can be interested in what one says - and then if I don't agree - I simply agree to disagree. I will respect their views and hope that they respect mine - then after that - what else is left to be said on the subject?
If things started lapsing into flaming of ones interpretation of Latin, Sanskrit interpretations, pontificating, telling someone they're stupid because they spelled "their" wrong - I just don't have the interest for it, my friend.
-bf
What was the whole? I missed it. Are you saying I should have simply ignored Kow who posted a criticism? Were posters upset with me? Or with Kow? What is the tone to which they objected? My calling him a friend? This is all very mysterious.
Totally agree with that point. Respect is critical. Hard to have compassion for those whom you do not first respect. Which is why I respect even those who take angry exception to my views. And will listen to them. Much of the turmoil in the world today has arisen from the disrespect shown when one individual or group or nation will not listen to another.
Am not sure why the world has become so fractious and polarized and unwilling to listen to one another.
The subject of the supernatural itself has suffered in this regard; much polarization regarding the subject exists. Buddhism walks on both sides of the line, with attention paid to guidance for living in the mundane world and guidance for making it through the "supernatural" realms. It seems Buddhism could be a unifying force in this regard, so is sad when internal division impedes such reconciliation and unification.
I find that I have a hard enough time with using Buddhist teachings in the "natural".
As far as I can tell, I've never seen or witnessed anything supernatural. It may be that I have, but have just been too dim or clouded to recognize it.
So, I find that I deal with all the issues I currently have without taking anything new onboard.
-bf
Makes sense. I would be the last to recommend someone go chasing after the supernatural, as there is so much confusion associated.
On the other hand, for those who encounter such experiences, like the first few posters on the thread, it is important to know that Buddhism fully encompasses the subject and offers clarity and understanding.
My experience, for example, has encompassed all aspects of the supernatural and I am very comfortable in that topic area and it fits seamlessly with the teachings. (One cannot read the Lotus Sutra, for example, without seeing the fit.)
Eventually, through the practice, one cannot help but encounter the variables we call supernatural, but, in agreement with your sympathies expressed above, everything in its own time. No need to rush.
For me, the most important aspect of the subject pertains to the Tibetan Book of the Dead (hate the title, it is really called The Great Liberation through Hearing), in which we learn that our practice in the mundane has a tremendous impact on our ability to handle the bardo stage (between death and rebirth) and affects the nature of our rebirth. It is then that mindfulness really makes a difference.
I think this thread, while home to some excellent discussion, has been spent.