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.
Buddhism, Monism and Emtiness
WesternBuddhism
England New
https://meaningness.com/metablog/eckhart-tolle-a-new-earth
Hello, this article has confused me as I always believed Buddhism saw “Buddha Nature” as the “deathless” dimension and “escape from Samsara” so I saw this as similar to Eckhart’s “Consciousness/ Awareness” but I’m now confused, is Buddhism’s Emptiness& Nirvana not another way of seeing The deathless dimension?
0
Comments
That’s a very cynical book review. I don’t understand your question though. Would you mind putting it in other words?
Are you asking about the relationship between Buddhism and “monism”?
Yes, as the man who reviewed it also done another piece saying how Eckhart mainly teaches Buddhism, but this is the fundamental error. (He says he is Buddhist) so what I’m asking is Buddhism at all Monistic, as I thought it was I may be mistaken.
I would say that Buddhism is monistic and that its one overriding principle is the true nature of mind.
It seems there are different types/definitions of 'monism'.
I would say Buddhism is covered by 'Substance Monism'...no?
I feel the review gives a useful rebuttal to monism.
theists and even delusional ... who would have thought ... here are some of my ramblings:
Buddhism is a broad church, some Buddhists are Monists, moanists
With meditation we ideally become increasingly aware of the moment between thoughts. The calm is the first 'fruit'.
I luvs my cushion. I am so attached to it. Tsk, tsk ...
That's a deep and complicated question. I think overall I agree with others that say Buddhism doesn't really have one unified view of how it is.
My personal preference of philosophical view is the Madhyamika view of emptiness, which isn't monistic.
I also deeply appreciate schools that take a more experiential view of emptiness, eg. what it is like to experience emptiness and how to accomplish that.
I'm really not sure what Buddhism is from a Western philosophical perspective. But when I used to think about such things a lot more, I started to think that perhaps what we call mind and matter are ultimately groups or structures of events arising from a substance that's neither mental nor material, but in between the two a la neutral monism. As far as this might apply to Buddhism, the idea is that neither mind nor matter has any inherent reality or substance, which in turn means that neither has an intrinsic locality, i.e., they can't be viewed in terms of extended or non-extended, physical or non-physical, finite or infinite, existing non-existing, etc. I see a great deal of similarity between the Buddha and Hume in this regard. Both rejected the idea of mental substance in favour of what Hume called association of ideas and bundle of perceptions, and what the Buddha called heaps (khandha). As Bertrand Russell summerizes Hume's empiricism, "Ideas of unperceived things or occurrences can always be defined in terms of perceived things or occurrences, and therefore, by substituting the definition for the term defined, we can always state that we know empirically without introducing any unperceived things or occurrences." Thus, "all psychological knowledge can be stated without introducing the 'Self'. Further, the 'Self', as defined can be nothing but a bundle of perceptions, not a new simple 'thing'" (History of Western Philosophy, 603). This, I think, is consistent with most Buddhist schools' views of emptiness.
I would say Buddhism is akin to monism but that is to say "oneness" as opposed to "one".
I see it as interconnectivity with no borders. "One" implies a border, a complete and set "thing" where there can be a "not-one".
Some people glimpse the deathless and assume we have always been here. Some assume we were never here. Some assume that when conditions allow, a thing will manifest and if not, it will stay hidden.
Emptiness can be viewed as potential and not everything that exists takes up space.
@Jason I don't know if you were around when @lobster shared this article on the connection between Hume and Buddhism. It's on the longish side but I think most people found it a really engaging, high quality read.
I think in Buddhism the truth is beyond all or any views.
"Thus it is O Son of Noble Family."
Oops, totally forgot to link the article.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/10/how-david-hume-helped-me-solve-my-midlife-crisis/403195/
Thanks, I'll take a look when I have the time.
Monism. A "one"-ism. A oneness.
If you see fit, you may want to consider Venerable Jízàng's words, from his text 二諦義 ("Exegesis of Two Truths"), T1854.81c28:
Function and essence are two terms borrowed from Chinese metaphysics. They are a non-binary pair. Hard is the essence of sharp. Sharp is the essence of hard. Sharpness cannot be separated from the quality of hardness, etc.
Ven Jízàng utilizes this non-binary to explore relations between the two truths. He speaks of two comprehensions that are not two. Two truths that are not two.
Why? Because two is the essence's function. One is the function's essence. Myriad phenomena are the essence's functions. Only emptiness is the function's essence.
That could be construed as a 'sort-of' monism.
Why? Because two is the essence's function. One is the function's essence. Myriad phenomena are the essence's functions. Only emptiness is the function's essence.
If your essence is the same _essence that i'm familiar with, awareness must also be recognized as a nondual (not two) component of emptiness and therefore part of the function's essence.
Perhaps. Seems to make sense to me.
Buddhist teachers seem divided as to if mind is an unconditioned element like nirvāṇa or not. Sometimes you can tell by the words they choose to use.
In my experience, those who seem to be likely to equate release with the presence of mind generally choose to call it exclusively citta (consider the Thai Forest Tradition here). Those who are likely the equate release with the absence of mind seem to choose to generally call it vijñāna over citta.
This isn't a hard and fast rule, its just something I've noticed. It might not be an accurate observation.
I've found that to be the case as well, except with reference to the term vinnanam anidassanam, which both sides tend to reference but the former more so.
Well you're from a different tradition than me and i don't use the words you do but its still Buddhism. So....
The true nature of mind, empty awareness, is without conditions or causes. It's never been born and never dies. Nobody made it and nobody keeps it going. Also nirvana is the experience of that mind and not different from it.
In my tradition there is no such thing as the absence of mind. In fact everything IS mind.
Well Vimalajati, the Dharma is hard enough as it is to experience, so i think it's important to try to clarify what we're talking about. Thanks for the post.
My question would be, why is it necessary for the mind to know this? Does this knowledge help with practice or insight?
I just happened to notice that certain teachers seem to prefer certain words when teaching, and that sometimes that seems to correspond to the ways they teach. I wouldn't call it practical or insightful advice, no, my apologies!
Yes @ Kerome, a question that when followed to its logical conclusion would have us all in solitary retreat to our certain betterment. But who am i to say, sitting here generating more concept?
The true nature of mind arises when all concept stops, including concepts such as self, the world's realness and that there is a difference between the two.
Well there is the Abhaya sutra on Access To Insight...
When it’s quiet on NewBuddhist I tend to think people are practicing right speech, and are not finding anything factual, true and beneficial to add...
There is a horrible typo here, my apologies:
It should say "Hard is the essence of sharp. Sharp is a function of hard."