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.
Right Effort: When The End Not The Means?
ajani_mgo
Veteran
It seems to me till now that Buddhism, being a very open belief in itself, could possibly pose many fundamental weaknesses.
Of which most significant is the Dharma itself. Now we all know that each and everyone of us has a different road to Nirvana, even if the roads to turn and walk on (an imagery of the Eightfold itself) are still the same.
To sum it all up, as long as we practise harmlessness, it is within the Dharma. Right effort here is also emphasized I would notice, but what I am about to say doubts its credence. As such, could it be possible that the Dharma is too lenient? For instance, one could make no right effort, and seek alternative scientific methods to bring about inner peace, methods such as brainwave entrainment to bring about the brainwave states during meditation by merely listening to baroque music, or even the ancient practise of faith itself, deactivating the cerebullum cortex to create a sense of infinity, felt during deep meditation itself. I once studied neurotheology, so I understand how this works.
What does all this mean for Right Effort? I understand that most would dismiss my question as being unconducive towards Nirvana, and further refute back my argument with yet the openness of Buddhism itself. I wish to state that Buddhism was, is, will still be fruitful and beneficial to me, opening up various perspectives of the world around and stuff, but however, if such seemingly no-"Right Effort" methods can already bring about the peace of Nirvana, why not them? Why do we still have to spend time every day to practise meditation, to contemplate Buddhist teachings?
I have read once in "Buddha" by Karen Armstrong that the Buddha himself saw yogic practices as only a temporary release of suffering, like a glimpse into Nirvana. Final release cannot, judging from the context, be brought about without "Right Effort".
I shall bring in the traditional belief of rebirth to serve to argue my stand more clearly. If a person does not believe in it, I guess you all can understand why "Right Effort" and that "Final Release" isn't that important. But with rebirth, the whole situation is alot more different.
And it is with rebirth that Right Effort should to put in to plant karmic seeds for that Final Release. However I believe that since theoretically speaking enlightenment seems to be a pernament deactivation of the cerebullum cortex, and a linking of certain patterns of neurons, if we can bring about this result, should the means even matter? If one fine day Science has that Eureka moment, where it can bring about enlightenment through the passing of certain electrical currents, will you take that up? Or does anyone of us here can prove that enlightenment goes beyond usual brain function?
Of which most significant is the Dharma itself. Now we all know that each and everyone of us has a different road to Nirvana, even if the roads to turn and walk on (an imagery of the Eightfold itself) are still the same.
To sum it all up, as long as we practise harmlessness, it is within the Dharma. Right effort here is also emphasized I would notice, but what I am about to say doubts its credence. As such, could it be possible that the Dharma is too lenient? For instance, one could make no right effort, and seek alternative scientific methods to bring about inner peace, methods such as brainwave entrainment to bring about the brainwave states during meditation by merely listening to baroque music, or even the ancient practise of faith itself, deactivating the cerebullum cortex to create a sense of infinity, felt during deep meditation itself. I once studied neurotheology, so I understand how this works.
What does all this mean for Right Effort? I understand that most would dismiss my question as being unconducive towards Nirvana, and further refute back my argument with yet the openness of Buddhism itself. I wish to state that Buddhism was, is, will still be fruitful and beneficial to me, opening up various perspectives of the world around and stuff, but however, if such seemingly no-"Right Effort" methods can already bring about the peace of Nirvana, why not them? Why do we still have to spend time every day to practise meditation, to contemplate Buddhist teachings?
I have read once in "Buddha" by Karen Armstrong that the Buddha himself saw yogic practices as only a temporary release of suffering, like a glimpse into Nirvana. Final release cannot, judging from the context, be brought about without "Right Effort".
I shall bring in the traditional belief of rebirth to serve to argue my stand more clearly. If a person does not believe in it, I guess you all can understand why "Right Effort" and that "Final Release" isn't that important. But with rebirth, the whole situation is alot more different.
And it is with rebirth that Right Effort should to put in to plant karmic seeds for that Final Release. However I believe that since theoretically speaking enlightenment seems to be a pernament deactivation of the cerebullum cortex, and a linking of certain patterns of neurons, if we can bring about this result, should the means even matter? If one fine day Science has that Eureka moment, where it can bring about enlightenment through the passing of certain electrical currents, will you take that up? Or does anyone of us here can prove that enlightenment goes beyond usual brain function?
0
Comments
Buddhism has nothing to do with Belief. There is nothing to believe...Everything transmitted is testable...you either know it, or you don't.
How can the Dharma teaching be too severe or too lenient? The Dharma is as it is...It is the person that applies it leniently, or strictly...it is down to choice.
Any condition induced electronically or medically, is ,ot Right Effort,a nd is therefore not adherence to the Dharma...it's an ineffective and temporary short-cut.
use of music may bring about a peaceful atmosphere, but this too, if seen as the only means, will not last - is therefore not Right effort - and not in accordance with the Eightfold path....
Remember that no one element of the Eightfold path can be taken either in priority or in isolation...The Eight work together as a whole...hence the 'Wheel'.....
Why do you think? What are you thinking? How have you come thus far? How do you intend to go further?
And so you conclude..... What?
There is no 'traditional belief' in re-birth.... See my first comment....
I would be interested upon what you base this belief.... because it is as you say it is... a belief...held by you.....
back it up witth facts, and it might be worthy of discussion, but right now, I think what you're asking is:
"If you could be enlightened without putting all the work in, would you do it?"
My answer would be....No...
Because I already can.
The means are already at my disposal.
I think that you are barking up the wrong tree, Ajani. You make too many assumption here:
* You state that the Dharma is a weakness. Would you care to explain?
* Harmlessness may be "in the Dharma" but it is far from the whole, or even the starting point. The Buddha Shakyamuni first turned the Wheel, at Sarnath, with the teaching on the Four Noble (Aryan) Truths and continued to teach them up to his paranirvana.
* You state (without any supporting evidence) that "theoretically speaking enlightenment seems to be a pernament deactivation of the cerebullum cortex". Were this the case, we would observe serious motor co-ordination problemd but these are not among the signs of enlightenment. The Uttara Tantra says:
The body of complete enlightenment is all-pervasive;
Suchness is undivided;
All beings possess the potential;
Therefore, all beings possess the buddha nature.
(quoted in Buddha Nature - Ten Teachings on The Uttara Shastra by Thrangu Rinpoche)
The commentary goes on:
"The fact that bodhisattvas seem to behave like sentient beings is a great marvel." (op. cit. - my emphasis)
It is the apparent 'ordinariness' of the enlightened that gives us hope for our own realisation of in herent buddha nature. This means that the parts of the brain, for example, that are necessary to run the physical body must continue to function. Boddhisatvas don't spend their whole time falling over because their cerebellum has been deactivated and propriosensory function no longer works.
I would add that the great, Tibetan poet Milarepa, who is generally considered and revered as enlightened, was a poet. Some researchers tell us that the cerebellum has an essential function in attention (and without attention what is mindfulness?) and in appreciation of the arts.
* Your syllogism anent "rebirth" contains at least one unproven presupposition and one totally incorrect stement: The whole of Judaism, Christianity and Islam (among other faith systems) is based, today, on Right Effort (obeying commandments) and Final Release in the form of Paradise - and all this without faith in "rebirth".
* Where does it say that enlightenment is a single "Eureka!" moment? As far as I can see, from the example of such enlightened beings of whom we believe we know, it is far more all-encompassing than running down a Sicilian street naked and dripping!
Where I would agree with you is in the necessity to understand the physiology of enlightenment. Indeed, I would suggest that it is a supreme subject for study and would complement, by use of new technology, the millennia of theoretical work undertaken by the sangha.
(Note after re-reading: I take you seriously, Ajani, and, as a result, I care enough to challenge when I think that you are going along paths which will lead to disappointment.)
First off, it seems that you are lumping together Right Effort (samma vayamo) , Right Action (samma kammanto) and Right Concentration (samma samadhi) together under the heading of Right Effort. Honestly, I think your contention falls mostly under Right Concentration rather than Right Effort. Here are a few excerpts of articles from www.accesstoinsight.org which might help clarify the issue (I have these saved on my comp, so I don't have the direct links right now):
On Right Effort:
On Right Action:
An extended excerpt on Right Concentration:
Sorry for the long quotes, but I think they give us the sutta basis that we need to properly discuss this. Right effort means firstly to expend effort in cultivating skillful and wholesome qualities. It also means that we are not too strenous or too lazy. Right action is more where the actual moral actions come into place. Right concentration here directly applies to developing the Jhana states through meditative practices.
Now, you are asserting that experiencing Nibbana "seems to be a pernament deactivation of the cerebullum cortex". Now I ask you, can an individual still function and teach without an activated cerebellum cortex? If not, then we cannot say that what the Buddha experienced is equivalent to what you are theorizing he experienced as he functioned and taught for quite some time after his Awakening. There is a key phrase from the concentration excerpt that makes your speculation questionable, imo.
Here, the implication is that the meditator (or yogin) enters into the jhana states and remains there at will without any aid or external condition. Now, while the artificial stimulation induced states may arguably cause a state similar to the 1st jhana, it is arguable whether or not they are the same thing, and it is arguable whether it goes beyond this. The description of the jhanas is prefaced the statement "quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) qualities". Is the cerebellum cortex responsible for all sensuality and unskillful mental qualities?? Additionally, it is questionable whether this is advisable outside of practicing the 8-fold path. Inducing such a state of consciousness, without the proper discipline and understanding, could create quite a state of craving, similar to that of drug-dependency. Without the ability to enter this state at will the possibility of profound despair is a very real danger.
Now, you seem to go further than the jhana states with your comparison, saying that Nibbana can be equated with a deactivation of the cerebellum cortex. I'd like to see how you come to this conclusion. Honestly, as I have not experienced Nibbana or the induced state you have described, at most I can only discuss through my sutta knowledge and a few of my own realizations, as well as my experience with some other (unmentionable) artificially induced states. I really don't feel that anyone here, unless they have directly experienced both, can adequately conclude that these two states are the same thing.
Furthermore, as there are 8 aspects to the 8-fold path which bring about the cessation of dukkha, I do not think we can emphasize one aspect over the rest with any integrity. While inducing dissociative states and the like may well open one up to new possibilities and to the nature of consciousness, doing so will not bypass the 8-fold path. All conditioned phenomena, including states of consciousness will remain unsatisfactory. And not having gained the ability to enter and remain in the jhanas at will means that the holy life has still not been fulfilled. Also, without proper insight into dependent co-arising one cannot be said to have achieved buddhahood.
Now, while I don't feel there are any magic pills or shortcuts to enlightenment, I think it would be very interesting to discuss the similarities between the experiences described by Ajani and what is described in the suttas.
Okay, I'll quit now.
_/\_
metta
I'm so sorry, brother! I think I owe an apology to all for this! It simply reflects my lack of understanding the Eightfold! What a total disgrace to myself! I'm so sorry all...
I mixed up the cerebellum and the prefrontal, temporals and parietal together! I'm sorry for this too! I realize how flawed my argument was... To think I pride myself on being a good advocate of my own views!!! If this had been a Buddhist apologist post I'd have disgraced the whole Buddhist community, Sangha and lay alike! Gosh...
But for the sake of argument I shall continue, having recorrected everything that has been brought to my attention.
How true! Now I realise what I have been fallacious in my argument...
I do see the need of meditation in Buddhism I would say... And I get your argument, thanks alot.
I welcome any attempts to refute what I am going to say. However is it possible for these religious groups to experience "enlightenment" in the contemporary Buddhist sense? I regret to say that my knowledge here is very, very limited. I also know that my absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence.
I think I get what you mean, Simon. I believe you are referring to those who must practise for years before enligntenment. However I do sincerely seek you to look into my post again, where I was referring to Science, not Enlightenment. It is to be noted however, that this is not relevant to the debate, and I had included that just as a side-quip.
I am sorry fede, but I do not understand why. Why not take the catalyst for enlightenment?
I hope I have addressed every point, be it another rebuttal or a realisation on my part. And I'm terribly sorry if I sound damm solemn, exam stress (but this isn't an excuse!!!).
Why Indeed?
Why would any one of us not take the most obvious route...?
It is like the joke....
If you showed people two doors, one marked 'Enlightenment' and the other one marked 'How to reach enlightenment' - most people would still pick the second door...
the answer is illusion...reluctance to let go of that we cling to....
The answer is simple...But we prefer to stay complicated!
I honestly don't think you've disgraced yourself, and while I don't think you owe us an apology I will gladly accept it if you are giving it to me. Don't trouble yourself so much over this. I've made many ignorant statements over the course of this lifetime. I've had many misconceptions of buddhism myself. I did not become knowledgeable overnight. It's taken years to get where I am, and I've only recently started to study more seriously. And still, I know so little. When I go over to E-Sangha and read some of the Theravada discussions and read the more complex Madhyamika discussions in the Tibetan section, I am in way over my head. And you know what? It's only been recently that I've realized the extent to which I have been getting things confused and wrong. I've probably made far more erroneous statements than you have here.
Anyway, this is all part of the learning process. Take it from the Beastie Boys: "As long as I learn, I will make mistakes". If you are not screwing up, then chances are you aren't learning a whole lot. Making mistakes means that you are applying your knowledge and are attempting to come to understanding. This is a wonderful thing. Do not be so ashamed.
Also, this topic is, in my opinion, a very interesting one. I was simply trying to frame the discussion in a different way that was more in line with the Buddhist teachings. I wasn't trying to discourage your points, but rather, I was attempting to lead it into some potentially very interesting discussion of the nature of enlightenment, and how nueroscience is giving us a biological reference point for a lot of psychological phenomena.
I believe HH Dalai Lama said that if one follows Christs teachings on a deep level, they could reach a sort of Christian Liberation. I would imagine that this is meant in the sense that a Christian could potentially rid themselves of defilements and (possibly) ignorance if they really allow the deepest implications of Christs teachings. This state is known as a pratyeka buddha. A pratyeka buddha is an individual who achieves a state of liberation (by whatever means) but is unable to express their state or lead others to the same state. The analogy given for this is that of a mute person and a person with speech. The pratyeka buddha is like the mute person and a full buddha (such as shakyamuni) is like a person with speech.
One of keys here in discerning the difference is the teaching on paticca samuppada (dependent co-arising), which is perhaps the most complex teaching of the buddha. While one could argue that individuals such as Jesus, Lao Tzu, and various Hindu Sages achieved some state of enlightenment, the omission of this key teaching (along with the three dharma seals) indicates that they are not full buddhas by buddhist standards.
Does this answer your questions? I would still like to continue the discussion of brain function in relation to states of conciousness.
_/\_
metta
Now this is interesting... I can share this around! Thanks!
Do you mean that Nirvana itself is more than physiological? Now this seems to make sense... However it is now seen that baroque music does induce relaxation effects of meditation. Is it then to be said that such scientific methods can only recreate a fraction of these effects, or if they really can produce the full effects of such jhanas, only up to a certain limit? Say, they may not be able to induce the "Nothingness" of something like the third atayana?
I see that the more I try to seek to understand Nirvana, the more useless it is to my practice. I once thought Nirvana as not a state in itself, but rather an absence of states e.g. desires etc. and thus avoided the need for separate states of existence since we only needed to remove not add new states, and I had the desire to know more... Hmmm... Now I understand what the Buddha meant when he gave vague answers about Nirvana.
The Scriptures see such higher meditative states as being "filled with Light" and such imageries. However my question may sound myself as a no-knower to anyone, can I ask if this implies that there is more than core matter in this world? Can one actually meditate to such an extent where it is no longer observable and possible to even hypothesize by Science alone, which deals with observable physics? I have always been a strong advocate as things being just things, consciousness itself being just the only thing "other realm", and even so, this nature of consciousness to me seems like an entity in itself that can be explainable through words. Am I thus wrong?
Is Nirvana, on a basic, observable context by physical methods ONLY e.g. brain scans, electron orbits etc. etc. whatever you can think of that is atomic, seeingly "Uncaused"? For example, when one is "being enlightened", in this context grammatically speaking where one is transiting from non-enlightened to enlightened, there are no observable changes anywhere in the mind, body, or whatever that is conventionally the "Self"? Does it just mean that he suddenly IS enightened, just realises without any clear changes? If it is so, as we know by the Law of Karma, Nirvana cannot possibly be random like nuclear decay, and also must have a cause. I understand that the cause is lifetimes of the Dharma exposure and stuff, but is there a final observable trigger that just WHACKS and hey! ENLIGHTENMENT!
(I feel like I'm really simplifying and degrading enlightenment... I'm sorry to all the Conservative Buddhists out there but if I do not question this I believe my practice would suffer. And I do remember attacking the Dharma will cause one to be reborn in the Hell Realm isn't it? Well I'll take this up for the sake of rather than to live as a human and misunderstand the Dharma lifetime after lifetime.)
I think I get a little of what you mean... But erms... Hehe, would you mind elaborating? Also, I can see now how Nirvana cannot be like "Nirvana in a Pill" but rather requires practice. Thanks, fede!
So to sum it all up from my first post till now, currently I have been advised and clarified by, and has withdrawn the following arguments:
-The Dharma is flawed
-Right Concentration is Unnecessary
-Only Buddhists May Have Enlightenment
-Enlightenment is NOT IN A PILL
And I have came up with new questions:
-What is the trigger of Nirvana? Where does this trigger reside?
-And.... Fede!!! Why not?
Am I going to be in trouble again if I say that I detect more elitism and hierarchy-building in this notion?
"pratyeka buddha is an individual who achieves a state of liberation (by whatever means) but is unable to express their state or lead others to the same state."
Not all are teachers, thier enlightenment does not have to be explained.
In one book I read on the topic a teacher was quoted saying one may not even be aware of reaching enlightenment. Because they continue to draw water and chop wood.
Federica's signature quote:
"Believe those who seek the Truth: Doubt those who find it."
I don't know why, but I'm suspicious of that statement. HHDL hasn't, to my knowledge, discriminated between religions in that way. In his book 'The Art Of Living', he gives an address, in the epilogue, to people of all faiths, asking them to cast aside their cultural differences and instead focus on the common underlying tenets of their faiths; unconditional love, compassion and non-violence. From this statement, I saw the implication that each faith is equally valid in achieving enlightenment for the person who has adopted it. This quotation is contradictory to that implication, in that it places 'grades' on the degree of enlightenment that can be reached by various faiths. In the inter-religious world that we live in, I find this to be counter-productive.
Not in the slightest Simon...And whilst I'm certain nobody wishes to cast aspertions (or 'Nasturtiums' as is commonly said!) on Not1not2's contribution, I am rather inclined to agree with both you and Padawan....
In such cases as these, it's important to try to find or quote the source.... I would actually be very interested to know of its origin.
If you can shed some light on it, N1N2, I'd really be so grateful..... Thank you....
You can say anything you want, but then the buddha himself and his arahat disciples would fall under your definition of an elitist, heirarchy-builder. The analogy of a mute was not my own and a pacceka/pratyeka buddha is also referred to as a silent buddha. This is based in the suttas and is a state of enlightenment that is listed along with arahat and a full buddha. In my understanding, a full buddha is a buddha that is capable of turning the wheel of dharma and expounds on suffering and the end of suffering. Do keep in mind that being a pratyeka buddha is in no way a small accomplishment.
All,
The bolded part of this quote is the only thing I was 'quoting' HH Dalai Lama on. The rest, as indicated by the statement 'I would imagine that' is my own conjecture, based on my understanding of buddhism. No sense of elitism was intended at all. Buddhism is a unique system with a unique goal. While there are some striking similarities between some of the systems, and buddhism doesn't have some sort of a monopoly on truth, saying that all religious paths lead to the same result, or that other religions lead to full buddhahood, is higly questionable (imo).
Now, Christ taught how to find the Kingdom of Heaven and be one with the Father, Lao Tzu and the Taoist sages talked about being with the Tao, and Hindu Sages talked about Union with various aspects of divinity with a multitude of different methods. Now, a liberal enough interpretation of these teachings may lead to some very similar results and states of consciousness. However, generally speaking, each of these paths have a unique character and a unique result. In this light, saying that other religions don't lead to full buddhahood is no insult, just a recognition that different paths with different goals lead to different ends.
HHDL saying that a Christian could perhaps reach some sort of a liberation is actually quite a complement and in no way indicates a heirarchy or elitism. It also indicates that he recognizes that perhaps a lot of Jesus' statements were coming from a place of enlightenment, even though his method expression was much different than the buddha's on many occassions.
Anyway, I will try and do some research and find some good references on the subject. Hopefully this will clear things up.
_/\_
metta
"In with the good air, out with the bad."
"In with the good air, out with the bad."
"In with the good air, out with the bad."
"In with the good air, out with the bad."
I honestly don't believe that anyone out here is intentionally trying to slam someone else.
We need to think of each other and our practice when writing or reading. Like I tell my son, "Instead of worrying about what someone said to you or did to you - maybe think about why they did it. Maybe it was taken the wrong way? Maybe they're under a great deal of duress. Maybe they're just a jerk?"
We're all brothers and sisters here and I would not want to lessen the participation of any.
I think we were just covering this in the Dhammapada:
Peace to all of you...
-bf
This is perfectly fine by me, and it clears things up just fine, as far as Iam concerned...
But I also strongly echo BF's sentiments....
Thanks for that, Buddhafoot....
Well, just wait until someone steps on my toes...
Then you'll see me throw all the Dhammapada stuff out the window!
(Actually, I hope I don't
-bf
www.humiliationstudies.org/documents/DaffernEnlightenment.pdf (seems very gnosis in nature though, and it's easy to mix up gnosis with enlightenment)
http://www.newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?p=29331#post29331
take care
_/\_
metta