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.
Some fear the mythic. Some are attracted to it. It is those who have had direct experience that for me have the final word.
1
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
The thing about Buddhism is, it's a long path and some of it needs to be taken on faith prior to embarking. Things like the jhana's are an unknown, and maybe stay that way for quite a while. So I can certainly agree that it is a set of beliefs at the beginning.
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I think it's a bit like differentiating between theory and Theory, faith and Faith and truth and Truth.
You can have a belief, which is objective, but a Belief is subjective.
If that's any kind of help at all.
I dunno. Or, I Dunno.....
I have a few "could be" beliefs but I think having faith in any one would make it harder to let go of them if they're wrong. In a way I feel having faith in metaphysical type beliefs limits my options.
Also, the belief that makes the most sense now may not make as much sense in light of new information.
I find it fun to contemplate these things but having faith seems too much like conjecture.
To each their own of course.
Yes, to each their own. And just in case, to all I apologize if my replies stepped on any toes. I’ve enjoyed this thread. Rationalizing my views against yours provides, as @Lobster pointed out, windows on my own. But I’ll make this my last one here cos I’m thinking too much now. lol
With that, I think it depends on the degree of faith and its object. If it’s a level of faith in the metaphysical reaching cultish, true believer heights, then yeah disillusionment would be a long drop. For me entertaining the possibility of metaphysical things doesn’t reach that height, but those things are just one rung. That height itself, however, might be necessary as a means to an end. Without external pressure, how else could I commit myself to such a pervasive way of being without some high degree of faith?
This is the noble truth of the cause of suffering. It is this thirst that leads to repeated becoming, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight now here, now there. That is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination.
That’s a belief. I’m equivocating but letting go of this belief isn’t a problem, because craving should be abandoned anyway. But if I put faith in the second truth and it’s task, then there is a dilemma. Faith, belief is a form of clinging, which arises interdependently with craving, but craving can’t really be abandoned without a sincere belief that it’s the primary cause of suffering, which induces clinging. It’s a catch-22. And it gets worse.
This is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering. It is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same thirst, the letting go and relinquishment of it, freedom from it, nonattachment.
Realizing the cessation of craving is one facet of nibbana itself, but it creates a paradox. To realize nibbana one must abandon craving; but to abandon craving one must embrace it as a desire to realize nibbana. I make sense of that by saying “if you’re gonna do it (craving), do it well.” But I’ve found that diligence in my own practice, beyond morbid contemplations, must come from sincerity, which for me must come from belief in these Noble Truths not as propositions or possibilities but as actual realities.
Metaphysical or otherwise, those look like true believer heights from where I’m standing.
In other words, I’ve found, for example, the renunciation of right intention is too hard to force. But I’m told it shouldn’t be any more forced than dropping a searing, hot pan. If it burns, you’ll drop it. Likewise, if you really see dukkha, you’ll renounce it. So, renunciation grows naturally from right understanding. But cultivating that, no matter how deceptively simple it at times seems to me in description, is in practice an incredibly steep climb. For me the metaphysical aspects of Buddhism that I initially and for a long time disregarded or regarded only as metaphor have become, through willfully suspending doubt, another rope for that sometimes difficult and sometimes paradoxical climb.
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
Interesting discussion of sincerity of belief, which I'd contrast with depth of seeing. I've found a lot of letting go and ultimately freedom in a deep examination of the reasons I did things, the things that had in the past motivated me to earn money for instance. If you look closely at a lot of those things you may find they are hollow, not much to them other than a fear image.
Yes, we’re on the same page. The translation I used is Gil Fronsdal’s from his book, “The Dhammapada: A new Translation of the Buddhist Classic with Annotations.” His translation of the following verse (92) makes our present way of looking at them clearer to me than Buddharakkhita's.
Like the path of birds in the sky,
It is hard to trace the path
Of those who do not hoard [this],
Who are judicious with their food [or this], And whose field
Is the freedom of emptiness and signlessness.
@Kerome said:> The thing about Buddhism is, it's a long path and some of it needs to be taken on faith prior to embarking.
I think what matters most is confidence in the practices we do, and that comes from experience.
2
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited October 2017
@federica said:
I think it's a bit like differentiating between theory and Theory, faith and Faith and truth and Truth.
You can have a belief, which is objective, but a Belief is subjective.
If that's any kind of help at all.
I dunno. Or, I Dunno.....
One of my beliefs I have no faith in is that whatever we truly believe subjectively is what happens when we pass on. That assumes everything is a mental phenomenon.
I have a few "could be" beliefs but I think having faith in any one would make it harder to let go of them if they're wrong. In a way I feel having faith in metaphysical type beliefs limits my options.
Also, the belief that makes the most sense now may not make as much sense in light of new information.
I find it fun to contemplate these things but having faith seems too much like conjecture.
To each their own of course.
Yes, to each their own. And just in case, to all I apologize if my replies stepped on any toes. I’ve enjoyed this thread. Rationalizing my views against yours provides, as @Lobster pointed out, windows on my own. But I’ll make this my last one here cos I’m thinking too much now. lol
With that, I think it depends on the degree of faith and its object. If it’s a level of faith in the metaphysical reaching cultish, true believer heights, then yeah disillusionment would be a long drop. For me entertaining the possibility of metaphysical things doesn’t reach that height, but those things are just one rung. That height itself, however, might be necessary as a means to an end. Without external pressure, how else could I commit myself to such a pervasive way of being without some high degree of faith?
This is the noble truth of the cause of suffering. It is this thirst that leads to repeated becoming, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight now here, now there. That is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination.
That’s a belief. I’m equivocating but letting go of this belief isn’t a problem, because craving should be abandoned anyway. But if I put faith in the second truth and it’s task, then there is a dilemma. Faith, belief is a form of clinging, which arises interdependently with craving, but craving can’t really be abandoned without a sincere belief that it’s the primary cause of suffering, which induces clinging. It’s a catch-22. And it gets worse.
This is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering. It is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same thirst, the letting go and relinquishment of it, freedom from it, nonattachment.
Realizing the cessation of craving is one facet of nibbana itself, but it creates a paradox. To realize nibbana one must abandon craving; but to abandon craving one must embrace it as a desire to realize nibbana. I make sense of that by saying “if you’re gonna do it (craving), do it well.” But I’ve found that diligence in my own practice, beyond morbid contemplations, must come from sincerity, which for me must come from belief in these Noble Truths not as propositions or possibilities but as actual realities.
Metaphysical or otherwise, those look like true believer heights from where I’m standing.
In other words, I’ve found, for example, the renunciation of right intention is too hard to force. But I’m told it shouldn’t be any more forced than dropping a searing, hot pan. If it burns, you’ll drop it. Likewise, if you really see dukkha, you’ll renounce it. So, renunciation grows naturally from right understanding. But cultivating that, no matter how deceptively simple it at times seems to me in description, is in practice an incredibly steep climb. For me the metaphysical aspects of Buddhism that I initially and for a long time disregarded or regarded only as metaphor have become, through willfully suspending doubt, another rope for that sometimes difficult and sometimes paradoxical climb.
I think we can side step these problems by recognizing possibilities while not clinging to views.
The Buddhist process doesn't seem to depend on the ribbons and bows of belief but the actual work put into it.
@David said:
I think we can side step these problems by recognizing possibilities while not clinging to views.
The Buddhist process doesn't seem to depend on the ribbons and bows of belief but the actual work put into it.
Our actions define us, not our beliefs.
If I’m hearing you, you’re saying “actions speak louder than words.” I agree. I also agree with the notion of “recognizing possibilities while not clinging to views”. But, like me pulling away from this thread, that’s easier said than done. So, it’s the side stepping part that’s tricky for me. Here’s why:
Are (A) ancient, metaphysical beliefs or modern, secular views on the one hand and (B) ethical and contemplative practices on the other really mutually exclusive? If so, from where does that bias favoring practice over the “ribbons and bows of belief” come? Isn’t it a sneaky, little view?
That's a rhetorical question. In me that is the case; I make that dichotomy and hold that bias. So, I don't think it contrary to actual work to call out such sneaky, little views by name: Mara. But, as you said previously, to each their own, as the impact of calling it Mara depends on what’s actually believed. For me it’s becoming less dissonant to hang modern viewpoints on the framework of, let’s say, the ancient dispensation of the Tathagata than to hang that on the framework of modern viewpoints.
Ok, enough procrastination. Groceries.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@David said:
I think we can side step these problems by recognizing possibilities while not clinging to views.
The Buddhist process doesn't seem to depend on the ribbons and bows of belief but the actual work put into it.
Our actions define us, not our beliefs.
If I’m hearing you, you’re saying “actions speak louder than words.” I agree. I also agree with the notion of “recognizing possibilities while not clinging to views”. But, like me pulling away from this thread, that’s easier said than done. So, it’s the side stepping part that’s tricky for me. Here’s why:
Are (A) ancient, metaphysical beliefs or modern, secular views on the one hand and (B) ethical and contemplative practices on the other really mutually exclusive? If so, from where does that bias favoring practice over the “ribbons and bows of belief” come? Isn’t it a sneaky, little view?
I don't think so because Buddhism is a responsible way. That is, we have to do the work to see the progress and belief alone won't get us too far in my opinion.
Of course, I'm not all too concerned about other lives or realms either. I do find it fun to muse at times but whether or not any of these beliefs are true has no bearing on my practice.
I get that you're trying to get out of the conversation but thoughtful posts will garner some replies and rhetorical questions often do get answered, lol.
@Snakeskin said:> Are (A) ancient, metaphysical beliefs or modern, secular views on the one hand and (B) ethical and contemplative practices on the other really mutually exclusive? If so, from where does that bias favoring practice over the “ribbons and bows of belief” come? Isn’t it a sneaky, little view?
I think that the "bias" favouring practice is sensible and pragmatic because it means we are less likely to get bogged down in the "thicket of views", forever speculating and opinionating but not really seeing. This "bias" is also supported by the suttas.
There is a current thread about the sankharas ( fabrications ). It's worth noting that views and beliefs are also fabrications, therefore they are transient, conditional and empty.
1
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
edited October 2017
I remember seeing a video about Ayahuasca experiences, where one participant said after the ceremony that she felt oddly empty and free. All her life she had believed in all kinds of esoteric teachings, like alchemy and new age, and her Ayahuasca experience had been to realise that it was all bullshit, that all her beliefs were just empty vapours. So now she felt clean and empty and free, except that bad people shouldn’t “come near her with their evil-ass energies, or she would knock them the fuck out”.
Deep down I think we know what is empty and what is full. I was in a training course the other day about working with your own experience, and many people there were talking about their suffering and their recovery from suffering. It was a beautiful meeting, and at the end of it I felt somehow nourished and fulfilled. That too was life.
So to come back to the original theme of the thread - the poetic-mythic - is that material empty or full? I think it can inspire, but it is empty, and if you try to take it as a practical guide to life or meditation you may well find it unsuitable.
@Kerome said:> I remember seeing a video about Ayahuasca experiences, where one participant said after the ceremony that she felt oddly empty and free. All her life she had believed in all kinds of esoteric teachings, like alchemy and new age, and her Ayahuasca experience had been to realise that it was all bullshit, that all her beliefs were just empty vapours.
@David said:
… Buddhism is a responsible way. That is, we have to do the work to see the progress and belief alone won't get us too far in my opinion.
@SpinyNorman said:
I think that the "bias" favouring practice is sensible and pragmatic because it means we are less likely to get bogged down in the "thicket of views", forever speculating and opinionating but not really seeing. This "bias" is also supported by the suttas.
I agree with both of those statements. I’m not arguing against practice, for “belief alone” or “forever speculating”. I’m saying the bias indicates views are present, sometimes invisible to me, but they are in there and undermining practice. I try but fail to practice continually. So, the appeal of the poetic-mythic is its ability to get down into those subconscious realms and hopefully counter some of those invisible, undermining views and beliefs. That isn’t the same as not doing the work or “forever speculating.” It is for me another tool.
@David said:
I get that you're trying to get out of the conversation….
Not really. It’s a good but challenging conversation. Just trying not to obsess about it.
Comments
Some fear the mythic. Some are attracted to it. It is those who have had direct experience that for me have the final word.
The thing about Buddhism is, it's a long path and some of it needs to be taken on faith prior to embarking. Things like the jhana's are an unknown, and maybe stay that way for quite a while. So I can certainly agree that it is a set of beliefs at the beginning.
I think it's a bit like differentiating between theory and Theory, faith and Faith and truth and Truth.
You can have a belief, which is objective, but a Belief is subjective.
If that's any kind of help at all.
I dunno. Or, I Dunno.....
Yes, to each their own. And just in case, to all I apologize if my replies stepped on any toes. I’ve enjoyed this thread. Rationalizing my views against yours provides, as @Lobster pointed out, windows on my own. But I’ll make this my last one here cos I’m thinking too much now. lol
With that, I think it depends on the degree of faith and its object. If it’s a level of faith in the metaphysical reaching cultish, true believer heights, then yeah disillusionment would be a long drop. For me entertaining the possibility of metaphysical things doesn’t reach that height, but those things are just one rung. That height itself, however, might be necessary as a means to an end. Without external pressure, how else could I commit myself to such a pervasive way of being without some high degree of faith?
That’s a belief. I’m equivocating but letting go of this belief isn’t a problem, because craving should be abandoned anyway. But if I put faith in the second truth and it’s task, then there is a dilemma. Faith, belief is a form of clinging, which arises interdependently with craving, but craving can’t really be abandoned without a sincere belief that it’s the primary cause of suffering, which induces clinging. It’s a catch-22. And it gets worse.
Realizing the cessation of craving is one facet of nibbana itself, but it creates a paradox. To realize nibbana one must abandon craving; but to abandon craving one must embrace it as a desire to realize nibbana. I make sense of that by saying “if you’re gonna do it (craving), do it well.” But I’ve found that diligence in my own practice, beyond morbid contemplations, must come from sincerity, which for me must come from belief in these Noble Truths not as propositions or possibilities but as actual realities.
Metaphysical or otherwise, those look like true believer heights from where I’m standing.
In other words, I’ve found, for example, the renunciation of right intention is too hard to force. But I’m told it shouldn’t be any more forced than dropping a searing, hot pan. If it burns, you’ll drop it. Likewise, if you really see dukkha, you’ll renounce it. So, renunciation grows naturally from right understanding. But cultivating that, no matter how deceptively simple it at times seems to me in description, is in practice an incredibly steep climb. For me the metaphysical aspects of Buddhism that I initially and for a long time disregarded or regarded only as metaphor have become, through willfully suspending doubt, another rope for that sometimes difficult and sometimes paradoxical climb.
Interesting - could "home" here refer to current views and beliefs, particularly those we are attached to?
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.07.budd.html
Interesting discussion of sincerity of belief, which I'd contrast with depth of seeing. I've found a lot of letting go and ultimately freedom in a deep examination of the reasons I did things, the things that had in the past motivated me to earn money for instance. If you look closely at a lot of those things you may find they are hollow, not much to them other than a fear image.
Yes, we’re on the same page. The translation I used is Gil Fronsdal’s from his book, “The Dhammapada: A new Translation of the Buddhist Classic with Annotations.” His translation of the following verse (92) makes our present way of looking at them clearer to me than Buddharakkhita's.
* Brackets and formating mine.
I think what matters most is confidence in the practices we do, and that comes from experience.
One of my beliefs I have no faith in is that whatever we truly believe subjectively is what happens when we pass on. That assumes everything is a mental phenomenon.
I mean, who knows?
I think we can side step these problems by recognizing possibilities while not clinging to views.
The Buddhist process doesn't seem to depend on the ribbons and bows of belief but the actual work put into it.
Our actions define us, not our beliefs.
If I’m hearing you, you’re saying “actions speak louder than words.” I agree. I also agree with the notion of “recognizing possibilities while not clinging to views”. But, like me pulling away from this thread, that’s easier said than done. So, it’s the side stepping part that’s tricky for me. Here’s why:
Are (A) ancient, metaphysical beliefs or modern, secular views on the one hand and (B) ethical and contemplative practices on the other really mutually exclusive? If so, from where does that bias favoring practice over the “ribbons and bows of belief” come? Isn’t it a sneaky, little view?
That's a rhetorical question. In me that is the case; I make that dichotomy and hold that bias. So, I don't think it contrary to actual work to call out such sneaky, little views by name: Mara. But, as you said previously, to each their own, as the impact of calling it Mara depends on what’s actually believed. For me it’s becoming less dissonant to hang modern viewpoints on the framework of, let’s say, the ancient dispensation of the Tathagata than to hang that on the framework of modern viewpoints.
Ok, enough procrastination. Groceries.
I don't think so because Buddhism is a responsible way. That is, we have to do the work to see the progress and belief alone won't get us too far in my opinion.
Of course, I'm not all too concerned about other lives or realms either. I do find it fun to muse at times but whether or not any of these beliefs are true has no bearing on my practice.
I get that you're trying to get out of the conversation but thoughtful posts will garner some replies and rhetorical questions often do get answered, lol.
I think that the "bias" favouring practice is sensible and pragmatic because it means we are less likely to get bogged down in the "thicket of views", forever speculating and opinionating but not really seeing. This "bias" is also supported by the suttas.
There is a current thread about the sankharas ( fabrications ). It's worth noting that views and beliefs are also fabrications, therefore they are transient, conditional and empty.
I remember seeing a video about Ayahuasca experiences, where one participant said after the ceremony that she felt oddly empty and free. All her life she had believed in all kinds of esoteric teachings, like alchemy and new age, and her Ayahuasca experience had been to realise that it was all bullshit, that all her beliefs were just empty vapours. So now she felt clean and empty and free, except that bad people shouldn’t “come near her with their evil-ass energies, or she would knock them the fuck out”.
Deep down I think we know what is empty and what is full. I was in a training course the other day about working with your own experience, and many people there were talking about their suffering and their recovery from suffering. It was a beautiful meeting, and at the end of it I felt somehow nourished and fulfilled. That too was life.
So to come back to the original theme of the thread - the poetic-mythic - is that material empty or full? I think it can inspire, but it is empty, and if you try to take it as a practical guide to life or meditation you may well find it unsuitable.
It's like that empty cup thing.
http://truecenterpublishing.com/zenstory/emptycup.html
I agree with both of those statements. I’m not arguing against practice, for “belief alone” or “forever speculating”. I’m saying the bias indicates views are present, sometimes invisible to me, but they are in there and undermining practice. I try but fail to practice continually. So, the appeal of the poetic-mythic is its ability to get down into those subconscious realms and hopefully counter some of those invisible, undermining views and beliefs. That isn’t the same as not doing the work or “forever speculating.” It is for me another tool.
Not really. It’s a good but challenging conversation. Just trying not to obsess about it.