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.
Unnecessary Limitation
Seems to me that declaring there is no transcendent God is an unnecessary limitation, since such a statement is as unprovable as claiming there is a God. Given the enormous knowledge of the universe that science has produced over the past 100 years, the mystery in the universe has become deeper, more profound and more awesome than in earlier centuries, because of, and in spite of, the understanding we have gained that is supposed to explain how things work and dissolve mystery. Look at the implications of String Theory and M Theory, that suggest that an unlimited number of universes may be exploding into existence all the time; our Big Bang may be one of an untold number of Big Bangs. The agnostic must pause a little in the face of this prospect, and think again -- just maybe, in some form, there is some sort of God acting here, even though we are very incompetent to even conjecture what the true and full nature of this Being is. Is there room in Buddhism, to allow for the possibility of a transcendent God having Being beyond all that exists? I don't see how holding out this larger possibility, that we humans are incompetent to answer yes or no anyway, detracts from the scope of the meditation we seek. Any comment?
Buddhism seems to offer a process for personal growth that is more structured, with more helpful concepts than most Christian expressions, Catholicism, for example. Concepts such as Right: thought; action; speech; intention are conceptual points. Achieving the personal qualities implied by these concepts can be an end in themselves, and also a means to an end, in that, when we have achieved a measure of Right: thought; action; speech; intention, we become more capable of succeeding in our larger life project. A life project could be as ordinary as performing as a loving father in a family, or working creatively toward a collective meditation that includes respect and care for life systems on this planet.
Both of the thoughts expressed above suggest a benefit may be derived from a melding of religious thought (Buddhist and Christian at a minimum), in the light of science, psychology and other modern fields of knowledge. Thomas Berry suggests that the spectrum of religions need to enter a "macro phase" where all act in communion, and mutually influence one another, in the context of what we now know about the universe cosmology, and the biological evolutionary phase on Earth. Is contemporary Buddhism pushing the envelope in this way? That is, contributing its core disciplines and wisdom, along with adapting to and absorbing insights from wherever they may be found. Anyone care to comment? Perhaps these comments should be made in the more basic forums, but I'm more interested in the above kinds of reflection, as opposed to why the monastic robes are yellow.
Buddhism seems to offer a process for personal growth that is more structured, with more helpful concepts than most Christian expressions, Catholicism, for example. Concepts such as Right: thought; action; speech; intention are conceptual points. Achieving the personal qualities implied by these concepts can be an end in themselves, and also a means to an end, in that, when we have achieved a measure of Right: thought; action; speech; intention, we become more capable of succeeding in our larger life project. A life project could be as ordinary as performing as a loving father in a family, or working creatively toward a collective meditation that includes respect and care for life systems on this planet.
Both of the thoughts expressed above suggest a benefit may be derived from a melding of religious thought (Buddhist and Christian at a minimum), in the light of science, psychology and other modern fields of knowledge. Thomas Berry suggests that the spectrum of religions need to enter a "macro phase" where all act in communion, and mutually influence one another, in the context of what we now know about the universe cosmology, and the biological evolutionary phase on Earth. Is contemporary Buddhism pushing the envelope in this way? That is, contributing its core disciplines and wisdom, along with adapting to and absorbing insights from wherever they may be found. Anyone care to comment? Perhaps these comments should be made in the more basic forums, but I'm more interested in the above kinds of reflection, as opposed to why the monastic robes are yellow.
0
Comments
Firstly, Buddhism is not comparable to any other religion. The purpose is entirely different. Buddhism has been aptly called "super-psychology." The teachings are concerned solely with dukkha and quenching dukkha. Apples. Oranges.
Now, who says being Buddhist means being an atheist, or that the Buddha taught there is no God?
The Buddha only taught that nothing is permanent, and all things are conditioned. There is no beginning, there is no end. Now, this defies some ideas of God and the universe, yes... such as those found in Christianity...
It is illogical to say:
And then say:
Why adopt a belief that cannot be proven?
Personally, I am agnostic, as are many Buddhists. There are many who believe in God, and many who are atheists, too.
In terms of the Buddha's purpose in his teachings, the question is not relevant. The truths of dukkha are what they are, regardless of whether we know if there is some sort of "God" or not.
The Bible has its own words of wisdom on various things, and there are plenty of Christians who are more "Buddhist" than I am and who have plenty to teach me. And those things, I gratefully accept. I take wisdom where I find it. I don't need to take on the baggage of the entire belief system in order to do that.
So basically, whatever gods and divinities exist, have little bearing on Buddhism because they're subject to the same conditions as other phenomena.
Theravada Buddhism holds no such views.
At all.
Just to make that clear.
it's Tradition-specific, not Practice-specific.
Some Buddhist believe in a transcendent Self, which is not the same thing as our ego self. This Self isn’t subject to time or space, because it is outside of the mind. What this Self actually is gets pretty metaphysical, because it is Pure Being and/or Presence. This would be nothing like a personified Big Guy in the Sky type of God, an anthropomorphic God, or like any Parthenon of lesser gods and goddesses.
These people believe not in a separate God, but rather that what people are actually seeking for is their own deeper Self, which is not born and does not die, as it is not subject to impermanence. This Self would be your ‘Original Face’ as Zen often says.
Illusion in this case would be ‘Wrongful Identification’ with mental concepts and descriptions of who you are as a mental/physical being, which in fact are very limiting, to the max.
We see the mental/physical world as a dream from which we must wake up, much as Buddha did.
So as you can see, Buddhism isn’t one story line owned by any one lineage.
G: Incompetent to even conjecture what the true and full nature of this Being is.
S9: Yes indeed, conjecture is certainly the wrong tool to apply in this particular search, as it puts you squarely in your mind (which is dreaming).
Only in looking directly without any preconceptions, whatsoever, do you have any chance of noticing this Presence or Awareness, which is actually your own true nature.
Buddha pointed out in great detail what we are not. For instance we are not impermanent. In doing so he hoped to remove all of the wrong ideas, illusions, that block us from seeing directly. Thinking you know stuff can act almost like hypnosis, or what the Christian’s called the “Veil” in front of our eyes. Buddha pointed to these facts, so that we might have ‘Right View’…see directly. I don’t believe this was meant to be an ethic.
Every Great Religion in this world shares a metaphysic at its pinnacle that is very similar as Perennial Philosophy by Aldous Huxley pointed out quite efficiently some years ago, or a “macro phase” as you say. This is because once you come upon this Ultimate Truth, experience it directly, you can stop guessing. This discovery is not limited to any one religion.
G: Is contemporary Buddhism pushing the envelope in this way…adapting to and absorbing insights from wherever they may be found?
S9: I am not sure that this is a capacity of either institutions or religions. I believe this is done more personally, in solitude, and than shared. When a teaching is once constructed, they have a tendency to grow rigid.
Respectfully,
S9
On the other hand I also imagine hearing that if imagining GOD or gods is helpful to someone on the 'path', OKAY!! cuz it's all just provisional skilful means anyway!
So, let's not get stuck on any one point of view, okay?
You say: This is not how I've come to understand the teachings at all. Aren't you describing the opposite of anatta here?
I also have to disagree with this: Maybe I'm wrong or confused but I don't think the Buddha taught this at all.
And again you say: If that's what the Buddha taught then what did his teachings regarding the khandas mean? And his teaching that all phenomena, including humans, is subject to anicca, dukkha, and anatta?
If what you're saying is true and the Buddha did in fact teach this way, then I've completely misunderstood pretty much everything I've learned. What am I missing here?
First of all, what I think you have to understand about my take on this is. I am not just a Buddhist, but I am a Buddhist Mystic. Which means that I am not totally reliant on the written word, but that I look directly at reality, and into it, for my answers.
Let me start with the anatta, or no self:
I do not disagree with that doctrine at all. However, I do believe that it has been misunderstood by a good number of people.
I see anatta as a very efficient way of describing the physical/mental universe and the ego self. I do however believe that when we 'Wake Up' to the fact that the mind is constantly weaving dreams, and that we have fallen into those dreams, and have accepted them as our only reality, that we have gravely limited ourselves by believing in this illusion and blocking out anything beyond the mind.
I believe that Buddha realized that he couldn’t describe to the mind, what was outside of the mind, and make the mind understand this. So Buddha went meticulously about disproving everything that the mind had been telling us, thus far, opening us up in this way to another possibility. A more Transcendent Being beyond the mind…AKA Liberation. What some call the Buddha Nature.
If Buddha wasn’t referring to the mind as a dream state, why did he say he “Woke Up?” Why didn’t he just say, “I wised up?” ; ^ )
The 5 Khandas are a very efficient way to describe what takes place within the mind. Buddha did not want to eliminate them, necessarily. He simply wanted to open our eyes to them, and teach us through ‘Skillful Mean’ to stop suffering under them.
'Right View' certainly gives us the opportunity not to be kicked around by the mind, anymore, or think that the mind is the only show in town. : ^ )
B: His teaching that all phenomena, including humans, is subject to anicca, dukkha, and anatta?
S9: Yes indeed, this mind does not always present a pleasent dream, especially when you are under the impression that you Are only a dream figure, and completely subject to mind’s every whim.
Meditation is a blessed opportunity to step back from the mind, objectify it, and to see that we are not just our thoughts. In fact we can step right out of thought, look at them like a movie, and find some relief from suffering.
Thoughts are born and die constantly. Ask yourself, what is this more constant Being/Awareness that is not dying with each thought?
Meditation is a perfect introduction to the fact that there is more than just the mind going on. There is Pure Awareness and Presence to our own Being without using thoughts to define us.
B: If what you're saying is true and the Buddha did in fact teach this way, then I've completely misunderstood pretty much everything I've learned.
S9: Every journey starts with one understanding, because that is where we are at the time. But hopefully we continue to seek and to deepen in our understanding. Thinking we already know something, and to stop seeking for deeper meanings, can be a rigid obstruction to this necessary growth, or to developing 'New Eyes' for seeing.
Buddha didn't just accumulate information in this area. He was able to see through conventional understandings, eliminate them, and to see something altogether different. It wasn't improvement. It was revolutionary.
Warm Regards,
S9
i) one common public language ( and wisdom ) that shared among various religous counterpart that based on our common humanity , and
ii) their own internal specific religious language that among their own religious circle.
At such , they could work & shared together among various religious teachers for the common good of mankind and our planet earth, and the same time perserved their specific path & wisdom in their own religious communities
because the doctrine of non-duality between the objective phenomena world and our subjective mind. The phenomena affected us, but if our life state cultivation is strong we actually affect and shape the phenomena world that response to us. ( they are actually not deities helping us, but from our own mind )
If this world were in fact a dream, and this dream was beginning to change in some way, couldn’t this dream explain the change as you purposely doing something, or even making the choice to do so? Hard determinists would certainly say so. Or christians might call it God's Will.
At any rate, what proof do we have that we are in charge, that is outside of wishful thinking?
: ^ (
Respectfully,
S9
certainly in secural world, hard determinists not always get their way manifested , take the example of the modern history of those communists and their utopia dream , never actualised : ) , because they fail to understand the nature of the reality.
Buddha dharma on the other hand , perfectly understand the true aspect of our reality, that why the important principle of vows ( pledge/resolved ) in the dharmic cultivation for enlightened masters and bodhisattva/buddha. as their could create buddha land and various dharma gates for salvation. and they with their disciples could continue their dharma work for many sucessful lifetimes.
that's why buddhist prayer and meditation works, they could heal the body of themselve and for the others, they could summon the universal lifeforce to assists them,
ancient historical imperial records of many east asian nations also shows that realised buddhist masters successfully prayed for the rain
the sutra also records the historical buddha used his moon-light meditation to cure the boils of king Ajatashatru of Magadha
A: Those communists and their utopia dream, never actualized : ) because they fail to understand the nature of the reality.
S9: Yes, they didn’t understand human nature and how it can alter the economy.”
Russian communist Q: We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us?“ How long could that go on? : ^ (
A: Buddha dharma on the other hand, perfectly understand the true aspect of our reality, that why the important principle of vows (pledge/resolved) in the dharmic cultivation for enlightened masters and bodhisattva/buddha. As their could create buddha land and various dharma gates for salvation. and they with their disciples could continue their dharma work for many successful lifetimes.
That’s why buddhist prayer and meditation works, they could heal the body of themselve and for the others, they could summon the universal life-force to assists them,
ancient historical imperial records of many East Asian nations also shows that realised buddhist masters successfully prayed for the rain
The sutra also records the historical Buddha used his moon-light meditation to cure the boils of king Ajatashatru of Magadha
S9: All of your statements above do not prove any individual control, any more than if these same events happened in a dream.
Respectfully,
S9
Who is proclaiming what ?
Theravada texts speak of Devas and Pretas. The Buddha is described as teacher of Gods and Men and the devas took refuge in the Buddha. This stuff is everywhere. I find it hard to believe (actually, to clarify, I do not believe) someone could study Theravada and not be aware of it.
Teacher of the Devas
It isnt "wrong" it is just not Buddhism.
And what gives Federica? In the Theravada the Buddha was implored to teach by a god. There are gods, devas, the Lord of Death, Heavens and Hells, preta's, guardian spirits, etc.
Its like Lord of the Rings! Sure this stuff is not relevant to the core insight, but neither is it in Mahayana.
you say declaring there is no transcendent God is an unnecessary limitation, and I say declaring there is a transcendent God is an unnecessary assumption.
What I don't understand is why you think String/M Theory in any way implies the existence of God.
R: This view is by definition not Buddhist, since the defining insight of Buddhism is precisely the negation of this view.
S9: How can you say that this particular view, my personal experience of the Transcendent Self, AKA Buddha Nature, isn’t a Buddhist view, when I am a Mystical Buddhist and this IS my view?
Who exactly is it that you believe is the keeper of THE VIEW, anyway, especially when you realize that there is so much disagreement and many alternate interpretations between schools and lineages, even in this present day?
I hope you can see my point here. : ^ )
I am not alone in this point of view, incidentally. There are many ancient Buddhists, well known, accepted, and respected, as well as, present-day masters and schools that speak of this as I do.
But, even if I were the only one of earth who said this, in this way, knowing what I know, in all integrity I wouldn’t falter from this truth one inch.
I have explained this many times, even to you if I remember correctly. But we can go over this once again, if this is your wish. No offence intended or taken my friend.
Respectfully,
S9
Oh, good. Something I can disagree with S9 about. Now I feel better.
First of all, Perennialism was motivated by two good ideas. The first was the principle of charity; i.e. when reading a group of texts, one should first try to determine what the texts say that is true. Unlike a lot of previous attempts to theorize about religion, Perennialism viewed variety in different religions as a set of truths to be understood, rather than a set of errors made by less advanced savages. The second idea was that humans have a lot in common, and this commonality should be expressed in our religions.
Unfortunately, the Perennialists imported their own beliefs into their theories. In terms of logic, Perenialism begs the question. It's conclusions are found in its premises. The great truth shared by all religions turns out to be the religious beliefs of the Perennialists.
However, giving credit where credit is due, the principle of charity, i.e. trying to understand how a group of texts would be true, or at least true for the people who created them, is an important principle in current sociology and history of religion. And the search for the basis of religion in shared human traits is the basis for most current scientific attempts to study religion.
In regard to a metaphysic at the pinnacle of religion, those of us who aren't embarrassed at being called mystics would like to think that the insights we've gained through so much study and practice represent a pinnacle, but I'm not sure there's any grounds for that aside from wishful thinking. We all want to think that our insights are special. It may be that what I would like to consider the "pinnacle of religion" is just another side effect of religion, of no real use aside from making me feel better. The "pinnacle of religion" for a Taiwanese housewife may be the trip she makes to the local temple to light a candle and pray to the Buddha for help in meeting her household's daily needs. Who am I to say that she's wrong?
R: Oh, good. Something I can disagree with S9 about. Now I feel better.
S9: I aim to please. ; ^ )
S9: First of all, I base what I said about the mystical interpretation at the pinnacle of at least most of the great religions not on something someone else compiled but on something I personally ran into when studying them myself.
This mystical discovery, my good fellow, is something that is witnessed directly over and over again, down through history, by anyone that pursues this deeply enough, and not in books or in a second hand manner, but through personal experience.
R: In regard to a metaphysic at the pinnacle of religion, those of us who aren't embarrassed at being called mystics would like to think that the insights we've gained through so much study and practice represent a pinnacle, but I'm not sure there's any grounds for that aside from wishful thinking.
S9: At some point it becomes so obvious that it is a “certainty’ that cannot be shaken, not even by your own mind.
R: We all want to think that our insights are special.
S9: Indeed we do. However you can taste the difference when something is not OF the mind. And there are ways to test what you think you know, because unlike the mind this personal experience never wavers, and it isn’t something that you do. It is effortless.
R: It may be that what I would like to consider the "pinnacle of religion" is just another side effect of religion, of no real use aside from making me feel better.
S9: Feeling better wavers, complete satisfaction of this kind does not.
R: The "pinnacle of religion" for a Taiwanese housewife may be the trip she makes to the local temple to light a candle and pray to the Buddha for help in meeting her household's daily needs. Who am I to say that she's wrong?
S9: When you once have come upon the ‘Original Face,’ you no longer identify with the ego self. This is not something you reason out. This is something so obvious that it is no long something you have to hold in your mind.
Respectfully,
S9
This mystical discovery, my good fellow, is something that is witnessed directly over and over again, down through history, by anyone that pursues this deeply enough, and not in books or in a second hand manner, but through personal experience.
RG: No argument there. The issue is not with your experience, or with its quality of being unwavering or effortless, or its certainty. The issue is with the label "pinnacle of religious experience."
Lets start with Buddhism. Formally, Buddhism is about liberation from duhkha. The Buddha said that there would be knowledge that liberation was achieved, but he didn't say that there would be a pinnacle of religious experience. The point is not to have an experience. It's to give up the attachments that cause duhkha. Robert Aitken once wrote about his kensho. He actually had no kensho experience. After years of study, the teacher Aitken was working with realized that Aitken had broken through without anyone, including Aitken, realizing it.
Looking at it a different way, supposing I have a teacher who makes a painful criticism one day. In working with the pain, I become free of some attachment, and an offhand remark by my teacher later leads to a break through, with attendant happy feelings. Which is the pinnacle experience, the pain that actually breaks the attachment, or the kensho? I know which experience I would prefer to have, but does that preference justify valuing one experience over the other?
In Buddhism, you can make the argument that the point at which there is knowledge that the goal is reached is the pinnacle of religious experience because it is the last thing experienced on the path. In that case you're not making a subjective evaluation, but simply stating that it was the last experience. Being last doesn't necessarily make it the most important.
You can't make that argument in Christianity. The goal of Christianity is salvation from sin, achieved by accepting Jesus as savior. By definition, the decision to accept Jesus as savior is the pinnacle of religious experience, regardless of whether it's accompanied by any insight or not. We don't know what Jesus actually taught, but it's doubtful that he envisioned Spanish mystics approaching God through the dark night of the soul. Similarly, Mohammad doesn't seem to have intended to provide employment for Sufis. For these religions, mystical experience is not so much a pinnacle as it is unnecessary.
Of course a religion is not necessarily what its theologians say it is. Individual Christians or Muslims may believe that union with God is the pinnacle of religious experience. But if we're accepting individual valuations, then we also have to accept the valuation of the Taiwanese housewife who just wants the Buddha to give her a little help.
My understanding and experience is different than yours, and you know that. I simply do not find it controversial to state that Buddhism does not affirm the existence of an Eternal Self/Godhead. 'I" is just "i" in spiritual drag.
"Original face","Buddha Nature" are skillful means and not another name for God. The cosmic sheaths or bodies are not Eternal God. They are just as Empty of inherent existence as a chair. That is why they can be realized.
Different strokes for different folks
RG: The point is not to have an experience.
S9: Let me ask you this. Isn’t relief from dukkha (suffering) a kind of experience, even if it isn’t either a physical, or mental experience? If not, what would you prefer to call it? (Using Pali or Sanskrit words would be kind/of cheating.)
RG: It's to give up the attachments that cause dukkha. Robert Aitken once wrote about his kensho. He actually had no kensho experience. After years of study, the teacher Aitken was working with realized that Aitken had broken through without anyone, including Aitken, realizing it.
S9: Yes, but realized what exactly?
Q: “Your not in Kansas anymore Dorothy.”
What exactly IS kensho when stated in English? See? It a real bear to find the exact Right word in English. : ^ ) Perhaps this is why the Hindus always say, “Neti/Neti,” which means “Not this/Not that.” And Zen says, "Don't look at my finger. Look where I am pointing."
Let me just say that I fully realize that relief is the mind's last experience, which can be mixed up with Enlightenment too easily. So that thinking the giving up dukkha is Enlightenment makes it seem like Enlightenment is something that we do. Do you really think that we DO Enlightenment?
RG: Looking at it a different way, supposing I have a teacher who makes a painful criticism one day. In working with the pain, I become free of some attachment, and an offhand remark by my teacher later leads to a break through, with attendant happy feelings.
S9: In a way this makes it sound like Enlightenment is something our teachers DO to us. Do you really believe this?
RG: Which is the pinnacle experience, the pain that actually breaks the attachment, or the kensho? I know which experience I would prefer to have, but does that preference justify valuing one experience over the other?
S9: I think these are just symptoms that Enlightenment is about to take place spontaneously.
RG: In Buddhism, you can make the argument that the point at which there is knowledge that the goal is reached is the pinnacle of religious experience because it is the last thing experienced on the path.
S9: Quite so, but what I believe you were saying earlier, and I happen to agree with is that Enlightenment is reached only when you step off the path, and also out of identification with the guy on the path.
RG: In that case you're not making a subjective evaluation, but simply stating that it was the last experience.
S9: I don’t know, but I’m thinking that all evaluations about level and goals and stuff like that are most likely mental evaluations and also quite subjective.
When Buddha became enlightened he said he had gained absolutely nothing. This is because he couldn't gain what he had always had, all along, and simply hadn’t Realized it.
RG: Being last doesn't necessarily make it the most important.
S9: The words "last," and "important" are both mental judgments based on progress, within time ans space, (finitude) and so in a way are not really applicable to something that always IS, or Realization/Liberation/Enlightenment.
RG: You can't make that argument in Christianity.
S9: Perhaps rather than getting into some long proof about Christianity not being limited to what we learned in Sunday school, a story similar to that of the Easter bunny and Santa, just take it from me that Mystical Christians are not all theists. Or if you wish we can tackle this later. Same thing applies to the Sufis.
There was a time when it was dangerous not to clothe your message in saying, “God this, God that,” and so they used the word differently than was commonly understood.
I think too that you should think of the title ‘Christ’ in much the same way as you might the honorific title ‘Buddha’ to signify he was Enlightened. Christ wasn’t Jesus’ middle name. ; ^ )
Even as a very young child I realized that Jesus’ was a teacher and not just someone to worship. He had simply gone before on a path that I too would need to personally travel.
People so love to worship. They worship the Buddha too. It is hard to keep people from taking things the wrong way, and wasting a great opportunity.
I met a guy once that thought Buddha was nothing more than just a nicknack of some God for burning incense, and with a straight face too. : ^ (
I kid you not.
RG: If we're accepting individual valuations, then we also have to accept the valuation of the Taiwanese housewife who just wants the Buddha to give her a little help.
S9: Every group of experts is made up of individuals. Just because a large group of guys agree, or even perhaps lived a long time ago, and wrote it down, and even used another language, doesn’t make them any more right than me.
I can only accept that truth, which I find at my own deepest level while traveling inward in solitude. If that doesn’t agree with every person who ever lived, so be it. I trust what I am finding. And incidentally, so should you, trust what you are finding. I also truly believe in the end that both of these truths will be the same truth. They will be the One.
Respectfully,
S9
R: I simply do not find it controversial to state that Buddhism does not affirm the existence of an Eternal Self/Godhead. 'I" is just "i" in spiritual drag.
S9: I do not think that something being eternal necessitates a God. You would probably do better to ask me how I see the Self, or eternity, rather than to suppose that you already know this, don’t you think?
R: "Original face","Buddha Nature" are skillful means.
S9: What good is ‘Skillful Means,’ a mental process, if it doesn’t reveal something outside of the mind, or even deliver you from bondage to the mind?
If mind is the great deceiver, than remaining within the mind, even if it is through loyalty to a particular method as fine as ‘Skillful Means,' must certainly be to REMAIN deceived. Would you agree?
R: They are just as Empty of inherent existence as a chair. That is why they can be realized.
S9: There is a big difference between a chair and a man. We can break a chair into many pieces, beyond recognition, without going to jail for murder. Also, no one asks a chair for its opinion, because it isn’t intelligent. You will never see people having a funeral for a chair. Last, but not least, a chair has no Awareness of itself, but a man does, even small children do.
What is this Awareness?
Do you really see this whole universe as a dumb machine, including man?
Respectfully,
S9
S9: Let me ask you this. Isn't relief from dukkha (suffering) a kind of experience, even if it isn't either a physical, or mental experience? If not, what would you prefer to call it? (Using Pali or Sanskrit words would be kind/of cheating.)
RG: When one talks about something being the pinnacle of a particular type of experience (or the peak, or some other pointy geographical feature), one is talking about a specific event that occurred in a specific time period. If that's not what you meant when you talked about the pinnacle of religious experience, feel free to say so. :-)
RGRG: It's to give up the attachments that cause dukkha. Robert Aitken once wrote about his kensho. He actually had no kensho experience. After years of study, the teacher Aitken was working with realized that Aitken had broken through without anyone, including Aitken, realizing it.
S9: Yes, but realized what exactly?
RG: In this and most of what follows in your post, you appear to be trying to change the subject. I realize this is what you want to talk about, but it's not what I responded to in your post, and it doesn't address anything I said. So it appears that we want to talk about different things.
S9: I don't know, but I'm thinking that all evaluations about level and goals and stuff like that are most likely mental evaluations and also quite subjective.
RG: This is the point I've been making all along in response to your statement about a "pinnacle of religious experience". Since we seem to be in agreement on the topic I want to talk about, I leave you in the state of enlightenment in which I found you, being myself in the state in which I originally presented myself. :-)
Eternal unchanging Essence, Mind, God, Yahweh, Mystery, Nothingness, Somethingness, Energy, Groundless Ground, Suchness, Brahman, That About Which Naught May be Said, Sourceless Source, Causeless Cause, Beginninglessness Endlessness, Being, Self, I, Pure Being.......
The Handle has changed, but the projected referent is the same. That which is unchanging and utterly transcendent.
A skillfull means is a means for getting us out of our mental framework and into direct "experience". Experience here is in quotes because even that projects a referent where there is none.
The biggest barrier to realization is having an object of realization. An object like Original face can function to orient, but it must be dropped at the gate.
When I say Empty of inherent existence I mean not standing alone. Dependently arising. Impermanent, and without selfhood. All objects of awareness are empty of inherent existece, no matter how subtle. and cosmic.
From my persective the universe is very intellegent, but it is not an intellence. From the "perspective" of practice it is niether intelligent nor dumb. Such distinctions are afterthoughts.
With respect
The biggest barrier to realization is having an object of realization. An object like "Original face" can function to orient, but it must be dropped at the gate.
"Original face" is a conceptual pointer. It is not pointing at something. It is just pointing, then dropping away. You yourself have referred to not grasping at the finger pointing at the moon. That is all I'm saying, though I am also saying that we must remove the traces of the pointing. No lingering "moon".
RG: When one talks about something being the pinnacle of a particular type of experience (or the peak, or some other pointy geographical feature), one is talking about a specific event that occurred in a specific time period.
S9: Not necessarily. Liberation comes and stays.
RG: If that's not what you meant when you talked about the pinnacle of religious experience, feel free to say so. :-)
S9: I think I meant more that mystical understanding is the pinnacle of religion. Liberation however is beyond both of these mental understandings.
RG: In this and most of what follows in your post, you appear to be trying to change the subject.
S9: Sorry, just lead me gently back. ; ^ )
RG: Since we seem to be in agreement on the topic I want to talk about.
S9: I think very often people agree more than they realize, and may only prefer a different word, or even misunderstood what the other guy was saying originally. No problem-o.
RG: I leave you in the state of enlightenment in which I found you, being myself in the state in which I originally presented myself. :-)
S9: People ideas don’t always change rapidly. But sometimes we can hopefully plant a beneficial seed in the other guy that will grow and prosper later. All is not lost. ; ^ )
Warm Regards,
S9
There is no Buddhist Atman, only Anatman. Anatman is the Buddhist antidote for Non-Buddhist Atman/Brahman. Atman/Brahman are the temporal self and intemporal Self posited by Vedanta. In Vedanta one transcends Atman (temporal self) to realize Brahman (intemporal Self). Some people think Anatman is the same process by another name but it is not. Anatman negates both temporal self and intemporal Self.
Here is an earlier post of an article by Sheng Yen....
http://newbuddhist.com/forum/showpost.php?p=85449&postcount=1
R: The Buddhist teaching of Atman is found in the Tathagata-garbha literature.
S9: That is interesting. I was unfamiliar with this fact, so thank you for sharing this with us.
I wouldn’t mind hearing more about this from you…but rest assured, I will be Goggling it to read for myself, Real soon, and I hope to discuss it with you at some future date.
: ^ )
Friendly Regards,
S9
S9. I am conceding your original point. "Some Buddhist believe in a transcendent Self, which is not the same thing as our ego self" It confounds the basic insight of Buddha Dharma IMO, but some Buddhists do.
with respect.
R: I am conceding your original point.
S9: That is one of the things that I really admire in you, Richard. You are capable of seeing someone else’s side, when you come to see what they are saying, and growing because of that. : ^ )
That shows that you are more interested in Truth, than in the ego satisfaction of always being the 'Right' guy. I bow ‘this’ good character in you.
R: "Some Buddhist believe in a transcendent Self, which is not the same thing as our ego self"
S9: Indeed.
R: It confounds the basic insight of Buddha Dharma IMO, but some Buddhists do.
S9: I think this may possibly be because of the way you feel this Transcendent Self would be defined. Very often when I read Zen, I see that they are spot on, but just not calling what they are witnessing, the Self.
Incidentally, Atman is not synonymous with the soul, in the way that many Christians define it. Atman Is Brahman, same/same, or is in fact Transcendent Self, (Buddha Nature) and in no way separate or independent from the All. All could be described as no mental object, no mental concept, no ego self. Does that explain it a little better? Or did I loose you somewhere?
Again, please understand that Brahman is not a personified God of some kind. In fact, if people start defining Brahman at any length you could easily see that it was very similar to any description of Nirvana. Brahman is ineffable, the Unknowable at least according to the mind. You can only know Nirvana/Being/Transcendent Self by actually being it directly, and in no way in any second hand fashion through mind descriptions.
Warm Regards,
S9
Having come from Theosophy and Vedanta, it was this skillful means in Buddhism that made the difference for me. So my position on this matter is personal, it is based on my practice history and the pit falls I have known. As a child I was taught by a Rabbi that mental idolatry is the biggest barrier. Holding such an image one is not allowed to pass through the inner courtyard, and all image is dropped at the door of the holy of holy's.
Tony Page has a web site devoted to his edition of Yamamoto's translation of the Chinese 36 fascicle Mahaparinirvana Sutra. You can download the entire text in a pdf file. The Nirvana Sutra is a real mess. It was constantly edited and amended over a period of centuries, and scholars believe that the original version isn't very similar to the version we have today. Tony Page's academic training is in German literature, and his editorial comments miss a shift in the meaning of "Self" about one fourth of the way through the sutra. At least that's my opinion, and I have a degree in Economics, so I'm more of an expert than Page. ;-)
At any rate, Page's edition is the best available until Hodge publishes the translation he's currently working on. For tathagata-garbha literature, I believe the Wikipedia Tathagata-garbha article has links to a few texts available online, but it's been a while since I looked at this stuff.
Good luck in your search.
The wiki article on Tathagata-garbha was indeed interesting, thanks, and has led me off to read other sutras suggested in the article. : ^ ) Looks to be an interesting journey.
Respectfully,
S9
R: My concern is this... "Ultimate reality" is itself of course not a concept, yet we use language to communicate and so we conceptualize that which cannot be conceptualized.
S9: Ah yes, but perhaps that is some better than smiling at people, knowingly, and not sticking our necks out to point with words for fear that they might worship our words or even the finger pointing. ; ^ )
R: That is the concern here. The conceptualizing of that which is beyond concepts.
S9: But, everyone starts out crawling b/4 they can walk. I have complete trust that with time they will grow past the concepts. We did. Are we sooo special, or is this pretty much how it seems to go on this journey?
: ^ )
R: I know first hand this Ultimate reality S9 as it is my birthright, and closer to me than my own bones.
S9: As do we all, because there is no escaping it, even if we wanted to. There is no real falling away from Reality. Where would we fall to?
R: It is just that the very use of words makes bound that which is unbound.
S9: Fear not my good e-friend.
Q: “The gate is wide open and there is no thing that CAN block the way.”
It would be similar to me telling you that I am not breathing. It wouldn’t change a thing. Thinking I am not breathing is misguided, no doubt, but I couldn’t even say these words without taking a breath. ; ^ )
The mind can think the craziest concepts, imagen whole worlds, but it isn’t powerful enough to actually make these things a Reality just by saying/thinking them.
R: It creates a referent where doing so by definition divides.
S9: You are quite right, all language is dualistic, but than the mind only understands through comparisons, and comparison is dualistic. So words are the perfect tool for speaking to the mind, where incidentally most people feel they reside constantly.
Since they cannot come to you, in is compassionate on your part to reach out to them, not to where you wish they were, mind you, but where they actually are. In a way, they can understand somewhat in their early stages of this journey. This is an entry level to what will grow deeper.
This does not mean that you must dumb your message down, or say a lesser truths. But it does mean that we must forgive ‘words’ for being limited, because they are also useful for communicating across this barrier.
R: Words are like reaching for something and pushing it away with our reaching fingers.
S9: No doubt, and yet these words do inspire people in such a way that the intension to know more doesn’t die, because we refuse to water it with our words. : ^ (
Can’t you remember back to when words were your first and only lifeline, and without them you might have simply given up and walked away? How soon we forget.
: ^ (
R: I believe the emphasis on not-this not-that and the general refraining in Buddhism from affirming an absolute is for this reason. The extremes of Nihilism and Eternalism are safeguards against egoic projection. So is Noble Silent on the matter.
S9: In the beginning, we seem to misunderstand the deeper meanings just about everything. There are those on this forum who continue to believe denying everything, a method, is the end of the road (AKA the goal). They believe that no-mind (AKA no mental thing) is the exact same thing as absolute annihilation, or super-death to All.
R: Having come from Theosophy and Vedanta, it was this skillful means in Buddhism that made the difference for me.
S9: Buddhism is certainly a great vehicle for not-ing the mind’s illusions. But if you carry it to extremes, and not-Original Self, than “you are throwing out the baby with the bath water.” ; ^ )
R: So my position on this matter is personal, it is based on my practice history and the pit falls I have known.
S9: Everyone positions and opinions are personal, even intimate. Perhaps this why, when we find something comfortable we grasp it so tightly and cling to it for dear life.
I can remember actually crying, when a more advanced friend of mine took away something I actually believed to be a relief to some of my suffering. Of course I came to see that he was absolutely correct, and was grateful to him for taking the trouble to remove it from my clutching/loving hands.
Obviously no one can take away Reality. Only illusions can be yanked away, willingly or unwillingly, out of our hands. : ^ )
R: As a child I was taught by a Rabbi that mental idolatry is the biggest barrier.
S9: Yes, we do idolize ourselves, our ideas, and often even a God made in our own image. ; ^ )
But there is no barrier so wide, or so strong, that suffering won’t make us reconsider them. "All praise be to suffering, our salvation." ; ^ )
R: Holding such an image one is not allowed to pass through the inner courtyard, and all image is dropped at the door of the holy of holy's.
S9: Indeed. But since any image (imagination) grows TOO heavy to hold on to with time, and eventually our grip will lessen, and it will either drift away or fall from our hands. The mind is not powerful enough to hold onto illusion, indefinitely.
Oh it tries, I grant this to be the case. : ^ (
But, even deeply intrenched habits must be constantly fed to continue, and that takes way too much energy to continue, esp. when we begin to look away, or chase another dream. Change is inevitable in the mind.
Respectfully,
S9