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.
I agree @caznamyaw that eventually self-view must be abandoned to progress, but I would argue that it is the mind that releases this view due to experiential insight, rather than a conscious choice.
I agree @caznamyaw that eventually self-view must be abandoned to progress, but I would argue that it is the mind that releases this view due to experiential insight, rather than a conscious choice. We don't choose our beliefs; it's impossible to force a belief or disbelief, they are the result of conditioning (our experiences). Meditation is conditioning that can lead to liberation from self-view. It helps us to understand if we take the perspective of emptiness... of no self acting, only mind and the conditions which give rise to awareness of the nature of phenomena.
Wise. Yes very true for the most part. In order to be truly released right-view is needed with regards to things and this is something to be choosen its always helpful to have meditative insight to back up right view, There are certain views that are incorrect as they cause grasping at phenomena as being self existent and thus are a cause of delusion it is wise to know what is to be abandoned.
Wait, let me get this straight. Belief in a creator god is a fetter, but belief in lesser gods isn't, because the lesser gods can come and go, depending on merit, into other realms? But the Hindu gods weren't "mobile" like that, AFAIK, they didn't change status, from gods to humans, to Buddhas or hungry ghosts, etc. :scratch: Vishnu and Shakti, for example, maintained their status. I understand what you're saying (thanks for the review), but I need further explanation.
That's only because they are ignorant of their impermanence and thus would deny it. They think their power is the soul or part of the "mysterious" soul of the cosmos. It takes a deeper insight which only intuition into the meaning of dependent origination can unlock. The Hindu gods teach independent origination, that all things come from one static and independently true thing, regardless of the poetry involved in calling Brahman beyond being and non-being in the Upanishads, it's still the fetter of Eternalism and doesn't recognize the meaning of dependent origination. Thus, essentially and deep down, the Buddhas teaching is not compatible with other traditions and can only be compatible on the surface, which can be fine for a time being dependent upon where a person is in their internal process towards liberation.
Through some philosophical juggling, Buddhism might be compatible with Taoism, Bon, and possibly Samkhya, which doesn't really exist anymore anyway but basically see's the cosmos as a mixing of spirit and matter, which again... can be broken down either towards monism like it does in Advaita vedanta and Shaivism, or dependent origination/yin yang/emptiness in Buddhism.
I'd like to clarify that one never really knows, unless you have that deep recognition of a Buddha, how someone internalizes a concept. Like... I'll say God and a Christian will say God and we'll mean two entirely different things. I'm just talking about a cosmic process without self, but the Christian is most definitely talking about a self existing entity.
In the end - and perhaps the beginning too, before your mind is spoilt by theory - yes, it is compatable with all other belief systems, because ultimately Buddhism is something that one experiences rather than believes.
But in the middle, there is a lot of stuff which can easily be the cause of argument with other religions.
In the end - and perhaps the beginning too, before your mind is spoilt by theory - yes, it is compatable with all other belief systems, because ultimately Buddhism is something that one experiences rather than believes.
But in the middle, there is a lot of stuff which can easily be the cause of argument with other religions.
The experience of emptiness is not the same as the experience of an all encompassing Self. Plenty who have come to Buddhism from Advaita Vedantin or Monistic traditions can attest to this. The Buddha attests to this as well. The theory that all traditions lead to the same experience is quite adequately debated against by the Buddha in the source scriptures. The theory of dependent origination is reflective of insight into experience, not just about having an experience, but being liberated from it while it occurs. This is quite different from identifying with consciousness and bliss as the supreme Self of all as discussed in mysticisms revolving around a monistic idealism such as Sufism, Gnosticism, Kabbalah, Hinduism... etc.
Comments
Yes, extremely... but only in the beginning
But in the middle, there is a lot of stuff which can easily be the cause of argument with other religions.
The experience of emptiness is not the same as the experience of an all encompassing Self. Plenty who have come to Buddhism from Advaita Vedantin or Monistic traditions can attest to this. The Buddha attests to this as well. The theory that all traditions lead to the same experience is quite adequately debated against by the Buddha in the source scriptures. The theory of dependent origination is reflective of insight into experience, not just about having an experience, but being liberated from it while it occurs. This is quite different from identifying with consciousness and bliss as the supreme Self of all as discussed in mysticisms revolving around a monistic idealism such as Sufism, Gnosticism, Kabbalah, Hinduism... etc.
Yes, extremely... but only in the beginning"
:thumbsup: