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.
Buddha teaches skillfully to help those with lesser capacity and motivation, Buddha having surpassed the realms of Samsara having seen Brahma ( God ) knows the method to reach into the higher realms of Samsara, Thus he teaches the Brahman's Good Morale conduct and the practice of Love as a method of meeting Brahma after this life.
The Assumption that people have of their gods is that they create everything, Where in fact this is sheer Ignorance, Buddha taught that the mind is the creator. Thus while he skilfully helps the Brahmans Buddha actually sets them on the path to understanding the real creator of all phenomena that being the mind.
Theism and atheism have many variants. A strain of earlier Christian mysticism exists (cf. The Cloud of Unknowing, Eckhart, John of the Cross, Pseudo-Dionysius, Gregory of Nyssa, et al) which I find some common ground with nirvana in Buddhism. Awakening and theosis (literally, "deification") likewise have some correspondence with one another.
For many personal reasons, I prefer not to use theistic language, but with certain theistic models (where God is understood as the "ground of being" which precedes existence itself) I feel some resonance. Here, creation does not take place at the starting point of a hypothetical timeline, but in a sense it underlies the entire timeline itself, ontologically speaking. Creation takes place in every moment, not just at "Day One."
In the past few months, I've found Thich Nhat Hanh's books, Living Buddha, Living Christ and also Going Home very helpful in recognizing the common ground that can develop between Christianity (and other theistic religions) and Buddhism. Asserting dotted lines concern me less than they once did. What good does that do but to cling to a particular identity?
@caz I would agree in all but two points. 1. Merging with instead of meeting Brahma. That is a pretty important distinction between asian and western theism.
2. IMO it is in most cases not logical on the whole to interpret stuff that is not there into the sutta. I would say he is honestly teaching unity with God and that development of the mind is only the tool to get there and not a concealed goal.
But some do question the validity of the whole diga nikaya.
You are most welcome @Victorious, and it has been a pleasure to discuss these topics with you.
To answer your questions:
1. I would first of all want to replace "false sense of self" with "illusory sense on self". In (my understanding of the) Dhamma the sense of self in neither false nor true. Do you agree and understand the distinction?
Yes
2. Again IMO. Emptiness, the Absolute or any defined thing is not part of nibbana. So extinguishing the false sense of self (i.e attaining nibbana) will not mean that the Absolute sense of self remains. Do you agree?
Yes
Is it God you are referring to as the source of being beyond being?
Yes
Now I have a couple of questions for you and perhaps @Jeffrey can provide some input as well.
In a previous comment @Jeffrey said when discussing the truth body, bliss body, and emanation body that
It's not just a call to devote your practice, rather it is also acknowledging how the actual universe will meet you and aid you. We cannot get off the hook. We need it! The features of this universe are: changing, having a heart to meet our heart, finely structured ie not an amorphous blob of emptiness, and having things non-manifest and manifest
Your response was
What you said makes a lot of sense. I know the Universe has a heart to meet my heart. In fact I think I have relied on it many many times! Thanks for putting that into words!
In Orthodox Christianity one of many descriptions of the soul is that it is the essence of intelligence with certain faculties. The human soul possesses discursive reasoning and intuitive reasoning. Both are higher faculties with intuitive reason being the highest where things of a spiritual nature are directly perceived. Given this definition, when you say "I know the Universe has a heart to meet my heart" would you consider your knowing more discursive or intuitive?
Also, both of you seem to be suggesting, though not directly, that the universe has some form of essential will and volition. Please clarify.
The Assumption that people have of their gods is that they create everything, Where in fact this is sheer Ignorance, Buddha taught that the mind is the creator.
@caz When you say the mind is the creator are you referring to "a" mind or mind?
@Silouan, I don't think there is a distinction between discursive and intuitive. At least it's not part of my lamas system. She uses the word intuition to mean like 'miniature' samadhis where you have a realization. I'm not sure what she would say about 'discursive'. I think discursive would be 'concepts', or no?
An example of intuition would be reading these posts you have little insights. But your awareness isn't precise or sensitive enough to get all of them right. A result might be to exagerate one insight. For example on the forum sometimes people get their backs up and are hostile because an intuition got blown out of proportion. I guess another example would be you are on a boat and you have an intuition that it is not safe because it is rocking. So everything you see seems to confirm that intuition. Those two would be examples of inaccurate intuition.
But intuition itself is actually openness, clarity, and sensitivity. When we get the wrong intuitions it is fine because eventually openness will open us to a new perspective. Then from that openness there will be clarity which is like intuition and finally sensitivity which is our responsability and well being sense.
"I know the Universe has a heart to meet my heart" would you consider your knowing more discursive or intuitive?
As I understand intuition as a part of openness, clarity, and sensitivity, the intuition is more in contact with the closeness with the universe at large. There is an openness and that can expand to sense the whole universe and just be very spacious. Or it can focus in on a small phenomena of the universe (such as this thread) and have a clarity about a tiny facet of the whole universe.
The question in my mind is what relationship does clarity have to discursive thoughts which I said sound to me like 'concepts'. I think concepts are aspects of clarity. They cannot be true clarity because they are kind of frozen. But they definitely point to various clarities. For example if you have a samadhi and have earned some wisdom then you can communicate it to others, though it might be misunderstood which is an example of how it isn't true dynamic clarity/sensitivity.
@Jeffrey Your thoughtful response is much appreciated. I recognize some similarities in view despite the translative difficulties we are experiencing.
Since we are speaking about things of an intelligible nature, rather than sensible, any distinction between discursive and intuitive can't really be compartmentalized like slicing a piece of pie, as they are not concrete and don't involve form, but there is a difference.
What I mean by discursive reasoning is the logical faculty of soul, or mind if you will, where it is not the concept itself but more akin to say that of conceptualizing.
The intuitive reasoning is the intellect or highest faculty of the soul, or again mind, but not what we typically understand mind or intellect to mean from a sensible or mundane point of view, but rather the eye of the heart, the spiritual center of our being. Apprehension of immediate experience or simple cognition and not intuition as a result.
This explanation of yours is very insightful and most beautiful:
As I understand intuition as a part of openness, clarity, and sensitivity, the intuition is more in contact with the closeness with the universe at large. There is an openness and that can expand to sense the whole universe and just be very spacious. Or it can focus in on a small phenomena of the universe (such as this thread) and have a clarity about a tiny facet of the whole universe.
What I find intriguing is that perhaps these faculties, qualities, or aspects we describe actually refer to the mysterious energy or will of mind or soul.
@Silouan In Buddhism in Theravada there are six organs and six objects of reference and six consciousness: senses (5), and mind sense.
I think that would be discursive.
Then there is the openness, clarity, and sensitivity and I think that would be intuition. It does refer to mysterious energy, I think. Will is sometimes the translation of citta the fourth skhanda. And then bodhicitta is awakened citta.
The yogacara has a 7th (manos), and 8th (alaya). Manos is the "I" consciousness and is the whole problem. Alaya is the primordial non-dual ground.
@Jeffrey I had forgotten that, so thank you for reminding me.
Direct perception and apprehension of the sensible is also considered a function or activity of the intellect and therefore part of intuition that I'm referring to, though its highest and most important function is to perceive spiritual realities such as other people as spiritual beings, angels, and ultimately God, so the conceptualizing about what is perceived by the senses would also be the functioning of discursive reason.
From an Orthodox Christian view the clinging to, and perceiving from the basis of, a transitory and fragmented self is the problem, and the abandonment of that self will be accomplished through the restoration of the human person or hypostasis, and subsequently all of creation, in movement toward the beginning and end found in its logoi.
In Orthodox Christianity one of many descriptions of the soul is that it is the essence of intelligence with certain faculties. The human soul possesses discursive reasoning and intuitive reasoning. Both are higher faculties with intuitive reason being the highest where things of a spiritual nature are directly perceived. Given this definition, when you say "I know the Universe has a heart to meet my heart" would you consider your knowing more discursive or intuitive?
I liked the term "directly perceived" because that is how it feels. There is no reasoning because it is an experience. Just like seeing the rainbow or feeling the thunder. Intuitive I guess.
Also, both of you seem to be suggesting, though not directly, that the universe has some form of essential will and volition. Please clarify.
It is my understanding that it is so. I believe everything can be viewed and better understood as having a will and volition. I believe that the Jhanas are a way to tune into that will and volition of reality. Each higher Jhana fokusing on a more subtle and more basic level of the fabric of reality.
I am not using the word God, Brahma nor Creator because I am not sure they apply.
No worries about your reply being delayed @Victorious We all have lives to live outside of this site.
You said:
I am not using the word God, Brahma nor Creator because I am not sure they apply.
When speaking about God my preferences from patristic Christian tradition are; the source of being beyond being, and the One who dwells in divine darkness, because ultimately all concepts including names must be abandoned, and those in particular tend to draw the mind back to a sense of mystery.
Also, If my understanding is correct, the use and purpose of the Jhanas you describe is very similar to that of the Hesychasm tradition of prayer of interior silence and stillness found in Eastern Christianity where the uncreated light is perceived.
@Silouan, are you or have you heard of Christian Negative Mysticism? My lama teaches Shentong Buddhism and one of her friends? wrote a doctoral dissertation about how Christian Negative Mysticism is coherent with Shentong. Shentong is emptiness of OTHER and it is a competitive view to the Rangtong. Rangtong is emptiness of self and we hear a lot more of that on NB, but really Shentong also has a big following like the Longchenpa foundation, my teacher Shenpen Hookham, Trungpa Rinpoche, and Pema Chodron. I've also noticed in streams outside Tibetan Buddhism that certain teachers have a flavor or perfume of other empty (shentong).
So have you heard of Christian Negative Mysticism? I can probably find the link to a pdf on this friend of Lama Shenpen and her doctoral dissertation.
Also, both of you seem to be suggesting, though not directly, that the universe has some form of essential will and volition. Please clarify.
I would say it has a kind of yielding motion. Like your heart when you let go of anger. It also has a brilliancy and splendour. Will sounds to me like it might be so rigid, but the word might do different for you. And although the nature of the universe is love it is not neccessarily a Care Bears kind of love. Love can be an underlying structure for lots of crud and shit.
Hi @Jeffrey I have very much so. Apophatic or Negative Theology is the theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and I would be very much interested in reading the doctoral dissertation.
When not fish surfing - now you are talking - the Sufi Moslems are fans of fana (another sort of emptiness of Cod) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muraqaba
should be the document. I am happy to hear you and and the eastern church are based in similar to my tradition ..
I couldn't make a direct link because the search is a document rather than a link to a website. But cutting and pasting that google search should turn up the document.
When speaking about God my preferences from patristic Christian tradition are; the source of being beyond being, and the One who dwells in divine darkness,
The first name I need to understand but the last one rings a bell.
Also, If my understanding is correct, the use and purpose of the Jhanas you describe is very similar to that of the Hesychasm tradition of prayer of interior silence and stillness found in Eastern Christianity where the uncreated light is perceived.
I am not surprised. The Jhana characteristics keep turning up from place to place. Even the Dhamma does not claim its origin just included it in its practises.
Comments
Or I could be slightly mad...
Moooo.
/Victor
Buddha teaches skillfully to help those with lesser capacity and motivation, Buddha having surpassed the realms of Samsara having seen Brahma ( God ) knows the method to reach into the higher realms of Samsara, Thus he teaches the Brahman's Good Morale conduct and the practice of Love as a method of meeting Brahma after this life.
The Assumption that people have of their gods is that they create everything, Where in fact this is sheer Ignorance, Buddha taught that the mind is the creator. Thus while he skilfully helps the Brahmans Buddha actually sets them on the path to understanding the real creator of all phenomena that being the mind.
Theism and atheism have many variants. A strain of earlier Christian mysticism exists (cf. The Cloud of Unknowing, Eckhart, John of the Cross, Pseudo-Dionysius, Gregory of Nyssa, et al) which I find some common ground with nirvana in Buddhism. Awakening and theosis (literally, "deification") likewise have some correspondence with one another.
For many personal reasons, I prefer not to use theistic language, but with certain theistic models (where God is understood as the "ground of being" which precedes existence itself) I feel some resonance. Here, creation does not take place at the starting point of a hypothetical timeline, but in a sense it underlies the entire timeline itself, ontologically speaking. Creation takes place in every moment, not just at "Day One."
In the past few months, I've found Thich Nhat Hanh's books, Living Buddha, Living Christ and also Going Home very helpful in recognizing the common ground that can develop between Christianity (and other theistic religions) and Buddhism. Asserting dotted lines concern me less than they once did. What good does that do but to cling to a particular identity?
1. Merging with instead of meeting Brahma. That is a pretty important distinction between asian and western theism.
2. IMO it is in most cases not logical on the whole to interpret stuff that is not there into the sutta. I would say he is honestly teaching unity with God and that development of the mind is only the tool to get there and not a concealed goal.
But some do question the validity of the whole diga nikaya.
To answer your questions: Yes Yes Yes
Now I have a couple of questions for you and perhaps @Jeffrey can provide some input as well.
In a previous comment @Jeffrey said when discussing the truth body, bliss body, and emanation body that Your response was In Orthodox Christianity one of many descriptions of the soul is that it is the essence of intelligence with certain faculties. The human soul possesses discursive reasoning and intuitive reasoning. Both are higher faculties with intuitive reason being the highest where things of a spiritual nature are directly perceived. Given this definition, when you say "I know the Universe has a heart to meet my heart" would you consider your knowing more discursive or intuitive?
Also, both of you seem to be suggesting, though not directly, that the universe has some form of essential will and volition. Please clarify.
An example of intuition would be reading these posts you have little insights. But your awareness isn't precise or sensitive enough to get all of them right. A result might be to exagerate one insight. For example on the forum sometimes people get their backs up and are hostile because an intuition got blown out of proportion. I guess another example would be you are on a boat and you have an intuition that it is not safe because it is rocking. So everything you see seems to confirm that intuition. Those two would be examples of inaccurate intuition.
But intuition itself is actually openness, clarity, and sensitivity. When we get the wrong intuitions it is fine because eventually openness will open us to a new perspective. Then from that openness there will be clarity which is like intuition and finally sensitivity which is our responsability and well being sense.
"I know the Universe has a heart to meet my heart" would you consider your knowing more discursive or intuitive?
As I understand intuition as a part of openness, clarity, and sensitivity, the intuition is more in contact with the closeness with the universe at large. There is an openness and that can expand to sense the whole universe and just be very spacious. Or it can focus in on a small phenomena of the universe (such as this thread) and have a clarity about a tiny facet of the whole universe.
The question in my mind is what relationship does clarity have to discursive thoughts which I said sound to me like 'concepts'. I think concepts are aspects of clarity. They cannot be true clarity because they are kind of frozen. But they definitely point to various clarities. For example if you have a samadhi and have earned some wisdom then you can communicate it to others, though it might be misunderstood which is an example of how it isn't true dynamic clarity/sensitivity.
Great question.
Since we are speaking about things of an intelligible nature, rather than sensible, any distinction between discursive and intuitive can't really be compartmentalized like slicing a piece of pie, as they are not concrete and don't involve form, but there is a difference.
What I mean by discursive reasoning is the logical faculty of soul, or mind if you will, where it is not the concept itself but more akin to say that of conceptualizing.
The intuitive reasoning is the intellect or highest faculty of the soul, or again mind, but not what we typically understand mind or intellect to mean from a sensible or mundane point of view, but rather the eye of the heart, the spiritual center of our being. Apprehension of immediate experience or simple cognition and not intuition as a result.
This explanation of yours is very insightful and most beautiful: What I find intriguing is that perhaps these faculties, qualities, or aspects we describe actually refer to the mysterious energy or will of mind or soul.
In Buddhism in Theravada there are six organs and six objects of reference and six consciousness: senses (5), and mind sense.
I think that would be discursive.
Then there is the openness, clarity, and sensitivity and I think that would be intuition. It does refer to mysterious energy, I think. Will is sometimes the translation of citta the fourth skhanda. And then bodhicitta is awakened citta.
The yogacara has a 7th (manos), and 8th (alaya). Manos is the "I" consciousness and is the whole problem. Alaya is the primordial non-dual ground.
Direct perception and apprehension of the sensible is also considered a function or activity of the intellect and therefore part of intuition that I'm referring to, though its highest and most important function is to perceive spiritual realities such as other people as spiritual beings, angels, and ultimately God, so the conceptualizing about what is perceived by the senses would also be the functioning of discursive reason.
From an Orthodox Christian view the clinging to, and perceiving from the basis of, a transitory and fragmented self is the problem, and the abandonment of that self will be accomplished through the restoration of the human person or hypostasis, and subsequently all of creation, in movement toward the beginning and end found in its logoi.
But I'd be interesting to hear how you think about God, and how that relates to Buddhist practice?
I liked the term "directly perceived" because that is how it feels. There is no reasoning because it is an experience. Just like seeing the rainbow or feeling the thunder. Intuitive I guess.
It is my understanding that it is so. I believe everything can be viewed and better understood as having a will and volition. I believe that the Jhanas are a way to tune into that will and volition of reality. Each higher Jhana fokusing on a more subtle and more basic level of the fabric of reality.
I am not using the word God, Brahma nor Creator because I am not sure they apply.
/Victor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi-Buddha
. . . meanwhile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism
You said: When speaking about God my preferences from patristic Christian tradition are; the source of being beyond being, and the One who dwells in divine darkness, because ultimately all concepts including names must be abandoned, and those in particular tend to draw the mind back to a sense of mystery.
Also, If my understanding is correct, the use and purpose of the Jhanas you describe is very similar to that of the Hesychasm tradition of prayer of interior silence and stillness found in Eastern Christianity where the uncreated light is perceived.
So have you heard of Christian Negative Mysticism? I can probably find the link to a pdf on this friend of Lama Shenpen and her doctoral dissertation. I would say it has a kind of yielding motion. Like your heart when you let go of anger. It also has a brilliancy and splendour. Will sounds to me like it might be so rigid, but the word might do different for you. And although the nature of the universe is love it is not neccessarily a Care Bears kind of love. Love can be an underlying structure for lots of crud and shit.
Thanks you
When not fish surfing - now you are talking - the Sufi Moslems are fans of fana (another sort of emptiness of Cod)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muraqaba
should be the document. I am happy to hear you and and the eastern church are based in similar to my tradition
I couldn't make a direct link because the search is a document rather than a link to a website. But cutting and pasting that google search should turn up the document.
I am not surprised. The Jhana characteristics keep turning up from place to place. Even the Dhamma does not claim its origin just included it in its practises.