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.
Thinking you can sum up metaphysical thought in one sentence is as silly as my summing up what Zen is in one sentence. It can’t be done.
I have been studying metaphysics and all of its ramifications for over 50 years. I believe I would have understood one sentence much quicker.
Maybe not. ; ^ )
That would certainly depend on what sentence that the Buddha had said to me, I guess.
But, I think you take my meaning.
Respectfully,
S9
Yes. S9 it is very clear that you have been studying metaphysics for fifty years. You are an expert in metaphysics. It very clear you are an expert in metaphysics.. .
This is all the comic relief I need. What more is there to say?.:rolleyes:
Then say nothing, be zen.
But...
Don't stirr the chat of those who want to get metaphysical.
You come over much cooler when you are in your depth. http://goo.gl/Q0Zg
Yes. S9 it is very clear that you have been studying metaphysics for fifty years. You are an expert in metaphysics. It very clear you are an expert in metaphysics.. .
Why are you being such a thug Richard? Grow up.
People dont tell you you are wrong when you go on about your amazing transcentdal zen experiences.
Then say nothing, be zen.
But...
Don't stirr the chat of those who want to get metaphysical.
You come over much cooler when you are in your depth. http://goo.gl/Q0Zg
Don’t be intimidated when the guys start posturing and saying mine’s bigger than yours. They are probably just talking about their ego. ; ^ )
Sky: I keep feeling like you're asking me what my Buddhist qualifications are?
S9: Not at all. : ^ )
My way of understanding is to ask questions, and to pick what we think we know apart…in the way to see what is left standing.
Sky: What do you consider real insights into reincarnation?
S9: I have had many flash backs on previous lives, both mine and other people. However, on studying them very closely, I had to admit that I didn’t know what part of that was my imagination, or perhaps the collective unconscious.
Sky: Where is kingdom come?
S9: Just a quote I picked up in my Christian childhood.
Sort of like, ”Bam, Zoom, to the moon Alice,” from the Honeymooners an old TV sitcom.
Sky: Do you feel there is anything beyond this life?
S9: No, but that is only because I believe Life is eternal. Not physical life, mind you.
Sky: Is your position when you die you die?
S9: We neither are born, nor do we die. Only this dreaming mind sees it that way.
Sky: What do you think of the tulku phenomena?
S9: Since this is not within my personal experience, I don’t feel justified in saying “Yes, No, and all of the above to it. I would simply be guessing.
Sky: What do you think enlightenment is?
S9: I believe that when we finally sweep away all of mind’s debris that we see directly what is the Real. This is Enlightenment. What I call Pure Being.
People dont tell you you are wrong when you go on about your amazing transcentdal zen experiences.
A thug? has a nerve been touched? If someone blatently misrepresents a practice as being a metaphysical exercise, it is ok to say thats not true. because it is not true. This thread is all about rebirth, "mysticism", and what consitutes the real and the unreal by your definition. I have participated in this thread and been fairly reasoned and constant, in debating these ideas. Now you are calling me a thug, because of some chiding that compared to some of the comments on this thread are mild. A thug. And by the way, feel free to pull apart anything I say.
...... and by the way Ive never had a transcendental experience.
yes. Your being pig headed in the face of two people who clearly are more in connection with metaphsycis than you.
And by the way, feel free to pull apart anything I say.
I have tried, many times, in many threads. i simply dont think you have the analytic mind. We all have differnt minds with differnt abilities:) The art on your site, is way beyiond anything i could concieve comming up with.
so i will invite you to try to pull your own ideas apart.
A thug? has a nerve been touched? If someone blatently misrepresents a practice as being a metaphysical exercise, it is ok to say thats not true. because it is not true.
Dude, that sounds SO much like something DD would say that it's almost scary. :eek:
yes. Your being pig headed in the face of two people who clearly are more in connection with metaphsycis than you.mat
you are talking about you and S9? Yes you are both very metaphysical in your own different ways. As you may have guessed I reject metaphysics as eternalistic projections. If by not accepting metaphysics as an objective truth claim, I am not playing along. Then fine I will not debate, since an apriori acceptiance is required.
I have tried, many times, in many threads. i simply dont think you have the analytic mind. We all have differnt minds with differnt abilities:) The art on your site, is way beyond anything I could concieve comming up with.
so i will invite you to try to pull your own ideas apart.
And tell me where your idea of metahspcys fits in with that
By the way, you rarely answer others questions, i hope you do here:)
mat
The upshot of that is.... "Metaphysics does not have a clear uncontoversial definition", but it does say this......."These days, metaphysics is normally taken to cover very general questions about what there is and how the world works: questions about substance, identity, universals, time and causation, for instance ."
This is not different that the general working defintion I have used. ...and yes I consider much of these notions of "universals", "causation". and especially "substance" as being projected conceptual constructs and not pre-existing objective realities waiting to be discovered.
Well, perhaps in the practice aspect. Zen sitting and even Koans are direct in nature and are more designed to cut through thought systems than they are in cultivating supramundane experiences.
However, as a school of Mahayana, there has been plenty of Zen/Chan literature dealing with metaphysical aspects of Buddhism. Zen Buddhism is also inclusive of all the Buddhist sutras from the Agamas, to the Mahayana Sutras to Zen-Specific Sutras such as the Platform Sutra. Now, western Zen has certainly become more disjointed from the earlier writings, but that does not mean that Zen somehow negates Buddhist metaphysics or that it is impossible for Zen Buddhists to consider or accept metaphysical teachings.
Well, perhaps in the practice aspect. Zen sitting and even Koans are direct in nature and are more designed to cut through thought systems than they are in cultivating supramundane experiences.
However, as a school of Mahayana, there has been plenty of Zen/Chan literature dealing with metaphysical aspects of Buddhism. Zen Buddhism is also inclusive of all the Buddhist sutras from the Agamas, to the Mahayana Sutras to Zen-Specific Sutras such as the Platform Sutra. Now, western Zen has certainly become more disjointed from the earlier writings, but that does not mean that Zen somehow negates Buddhist metaphysics or that it is impossible for Zen Buddhists to consider or accept metaphysical teachings.
Would you agree that theory in Zen is skillful means? For instance "supermundane experience" is a concept relative to the concept of "mundane experience", and it objectifies where objectification is by definition absurd . Attachement to even the most rarified theory is dropped in practice, must be, then perhaps it can be employed as skillful means. Thoughts come and go, no matter what their symbolic content.
I have been instructed and am now instructed to keep "dont know" mind.
Theory gives way to practice. Zen is practice. As far as Mahayana theories, and counter theories are concerned, I have met no Zen teacher who dwells on them. Only practice under guidance. Doing. This does not mean that theory is bad, or metaphysics is bad, but they can easily and commonly be an end, a replacement for practice. The point is realizing. Realizing can sound grandiose but it isnt. It is just realizing basic practice.
And just one more note ...... This approach to Buddhism may not suit others, but the idea that it is somehow unreasonble, is unbelievable in a Buddhist forum. Make whatever you want of the poster, but the basic description of practice is sound.
Would you agree that theory in Zen is skillful means? For instance "supermundane experience" is a concept relative to the concept of "mundane experience", and it objectifies where objectification is by definition absurd . Attachement to even the most rarified theory is dropped in practice, must be, then perhaps it can be employed as skillful means. Thoughts come and go, no matter what their symbolic content.
I have been instructed and am now instructed to keep "dont know" mind.
Theory gives way to practice. Zen is practice. As far as Mahayana theories, and counter theories are concerned, I have met no Zen teacher who dwells on them. Only practice under guidance. Doing. This does not mean that theory is bad, or metaphysics is bad, but they can easily and commonly be an end, a replacement for practice. The point is realizing. Realizing can sound grandiose but it isnt. It is just realizing basic practice.
I don't think anything you wrote in this post conflicts with my post. I think your previous statement was just a little more absolutist than it could/should have been.
Wow! Okay, newbie weighing in here... "You" don't exist. "I" don't exist either. Consciousness/awareness exists. All the other stuff is corporeal or idea based. It's the awareness that is reborn into another form after this form is gone. Once I got the concept that there is no "me", but rather just a bundle of thoughts that I perceive as "me", it made the whole rebirth thing much easier to understand and accept. "I" have never been here before, but the awareness that is aware of "me" has always been here.
I don't think anything you wrote in this post conflicts with my post. I think your previous statement was just a little more absolutist than it could/should have been.
No worries, I just wanted to maybe cut off some of the contention being brewed around the statements, even though I don't really take that much of an issue with them.
I had to think lots about that one and think its a false analogy.
As I pointed out in the followup, it's not an analogy. I was pointing out that not answering doesn't mean that there is no answer.
Possible reasons that a monk would answer your question with "Higher Dharma":
1) They correctly view you as not being capable of understanding the answer.
2) They incorrectly view you as not being capable of understanding the answer.
3) Whenever they answered this question before, it turned into an interminable debate, and they don't want to get into that again.
4) You have a reputation for creating interminable debates.
5) "Not tonight dear. I have a headache."
Rebirth doesn't belong in my view of this world. I have tried to make to make it fit, but it just doenst, to me.
As long as you say that rebirth doesn't fit into _your_ view, I have no problem. The problem occurs when you say that rebirth doesn't fit into the Buddha's teaching, after you've reinterpreted that teaching to deal with a self that the original explicitly doesn't deal with.
But if there is no soul and no self... how then can there be rebirth?
The Buddha stated explicitly that both "I have a self" and "I don't have a self" are wrong view.
One question I would be keen to hear answers from those who belive in litteral Rebirth is: What is it about me now that gets reborn?
For example, I am here writing this post 100% sure that I am my expeince and my expeince is me. That is all there is, in the five aggrigates or other classifications.
So what is it about me, or you, that is alive which passes on after death?
To use the candle-flame analogy, what is the flame in me, or you, now?
If there is something about me or you that is alive and passes on after death, then you and I have a self. Anything that has attributes or components is a self. If you're not going to follow the Buddha's teaching that both "I have a self" and "I don't have a self" are wrong view, then you're going to have to decide whether there is a self or not.
Possible reasons that a monk would answer your question with "Higher Dharma":
1) They correctly view you as not being capable of understanding the answer.
2) They incorrectly view you as not being capable of understanding the answer.
3) Whenever they answered this question before, it turned into an interminable debate, and they don't want to get into that again.
4) You have a reputation for creating interminable debates.
5) "Not tonight dear. I have a headache."
Well some things to say to that:)
1) You wern't there, the man was literally confused and uncomfortable. It was like he was having crisis of faith before my eyes.
2) He is just one of the many buddhists I have asked this.
3) Why are we even having this discussion? Why is it that this question cannot be simply answered in the same was as any other core dharmic question like:
How does ignorance relate to suffering?
How does right view link to the first thre e noble truths?
Etc:)
The buddha had nothing up his sleeve, yet it seems to me on this issue Buddhists must have something up their sleeve:)
The problem occurs when you say that rebirth doesn't fit into the Buddha's teaching...
I would like to know how it fits in with anyone's understanding of dharma
I would like to discuss the possibility that in fact the buddha taught nonrebirth.
The Buddha stated explicitly that both "I have a self" and "I don't have a self" are wrong view.
Hey, there are many things in the suttas we can read in different ways on this issues. Regarding what you just said, even we we assume the Buddha really did say exactly that that's not connected to the possibility of rebirth, is it?
If there is something about me or you that is alive and passes on after death, then you and I have a self. Anything that has attributes or components is a self. If you're not going to follow the Buddha's teaching that both "I have a self" and "I don't have a self" are wrong view, then you're going to have to decide whether there is a self or not,
No Ren,
I am 100% happy with the idea that I am just the aggregates. This is one of the profound realisations of the dharmic path, I feel.
Anything that has attributes or components is a self.
That doesnt make sense to me:)
My question is, if I am just this flowing of experience then then what is it about this flow that is in any sense reborn.
Are yo not agreeing with me that if there is no self how can there be anything reborn?
re you not trying to use the idea of "forbidden questions" to avoid the problem of rebirth?
3) Why are we even having this discussion? Why is it that this question cannot be simply answered in the same was as any other core dharmic question like:
How does ignorance relate to suffering?
How does right view link to the first thre e noble truths?
Etc:)
N: However, as a school of Mahayana, there has been plenty of Zen/Chan literature dealing with metaphysical aspects of Buddhism. Zen Buddhism is also inclusive of all the Buddhist sutras from the Agamas, to the Mahayana Sutras to Zen-Specific Sutras such as the Platform Sutra.
S9: Thank you for clarifying this in some detail. : ^ )
N: Cultivating supramundane experiences.
S9: The only place I differ in what you have said is that I don’t believe the supramundane experience is, in fact, cultivated. I Believe that it is a constant that is discovered. Note too, that the supramundane is One experience, and not many experiences, IMO. Two small points granted, but they both give birth to multiple ramifications, and confusion down through history.
N: Now, western Zen has certainly become more disjointed from the earlier writings, but that does not mean that Zen somehow negates Buddhist metaphysics or that it is impossible for Zen Buddhists to consider or accept metaphysical teachings.
S9: This is a sad thing…as condensing Zen down to JUST practice,by a newer breed of Zen practitioners, made it loose some of its greatness, IMO.
I can just see Richard grinding his teeth, and choosing a weapon, because of this statement. ; ^ )
But, I never feel that a study guide could contain the whole of any original text, or pack the punch.
In this same way, cutting to the chase (practice only) may find itself with a whole new way of being trapped in misunderstandings of another sort. How many persons become 'practice bound, or even 'attached; to the pleasant feelings of certain states?
S9: This is a sad thing…as condensing Zen down to JUST practice,by a newer breed of Zen practitioners, made it loose some of its greatness, IMO.
I can just see Richard grinding his teeth, and choosing a weapon, because of this statement. ; ^ )
S9
ok I cant resist the sheer giddiness of this.
....unlike what S9 ?, the grand old Zen practitioner like you? There is nothing remotely Zen-like in your posts. They sound more like Madame Blavatsky than anything.
1) You wern't there, the man was literally confused and uncomfortable. It was like he was having crisis of faith before my eyes.
How do you know he was confused? Body language can communicate discomfort, but it can't communicate the cause of the discomfort. You are making unsupported assumptions about people's mental states.
The buddha had nothing up his sleeve, yet it seems to me on this issue Buddhists must have something up their sleeve:)
I don't see any reason why Buddhists must have something up their sleeve. The fact that you don't understand the teaching of non-self is not grounds for suspicion.
Regarding what you just said, even we we assume the Buddha really did say exactly that that's not connected to the possibility of rebirth, is it?
That's a strange sentence. I think you are asking whether or not the teaching of non-self is connected to the teaching of rebirth. It's connected because your questions about rebirth all assume a self.
How do you know he was confused? Body language can communicate discomfort, but it can't communicate the cause of the discomfort. You are making unsupported assumptions about people's mental states.
Oh please. This is really petty. OK, lets assume he knew and hjust wasnt telling me. waseva! lol... it was an asside in an answering to a question. If you are ever in Colombo I hope you go ask him yourself:)
Are you sure it's not your behavior that is making people uncomfortable?
In the real world I am not an asshat!:)
I don't see any reason why Buddhists must have something up their sleeve.
Ummm... because its mystcial stuff that doesnt gel with Dharma?
The fact that you don't understand the teaching of non-self is not grounds for suspicion.
I do, you are wrong.
Given the overwhelming evidence that he did in fact teach rebirth, it's not likely that any one is going to take this possibility seriously.
The evidence comes from texts written after hundreds of years of massaging but culture and politics. Nobody knows what he said. We have just echos of hearsay.
All religions dogmatise and mystify their doctrines, see how this has happened with Christainity. Why should Buddhism be different?
I am not saying I am right, but it is simply blinkered of you to not even entertain the possibility.
You cannot, by any means tell me with certainty I am wrong about this.
N: However, as a school of Mahayana, there has been plenty of Zen/Chan literature dealing with metaphysical aspects of Buddhism. Zen Buddhism is also inclusive of all the Buddhist sutras from the Agamas, to the Mahayana Sutras to Zen-Specific Sutras such as the Platform Sutra.
S9: Thank you for clarifying this in some detail. : ^ )
N: Cultivating supramundane experiences.
S9: The only place I differ in what you have said is that I don’t believe the supramundane experience is, in fact, cultivated. I Believe that it is a constant that is discovered. Note too, that the supramundane is One experience, and not many experiences, IMO. Two small points granted, but they both give birth to multiple ramifications, and confusion down through history.
N: Now, western Zen has certainly become more disjointed from the earlier writings, but that does not mean that Zen somehow negates Buddhist metaphysics or that it is impossible for Zen Buddhists to consider or accept metaphysical teachings.
S9: This is a sad thing…as condensing Zen down to JUST practice,by a newer breed of Zen practitioners, made it loose some of its greatness, IMO.
I can just see Richard grinding his teeth, and choosing a weapon, because of this statement. ; ^ )
But, I never feel that a study guide could contain the whole of any original text, or pack the punch.
In this same way, cutting to the chase (practice only) may find itself with a whole new way of being trapped in misunderstandings of another sort. How many persons become 'practice bound, or even 'attached; to the pleasant feelings of certain states?
Warm Regards,
S9
Well, the practice of cutting through is THE most important aspect of Buddhism, imo, so I'm not really criticizing Zen's focus. I do think there is a bit of an unnecessary disregard for non-zen specific Buddhist doctrine among western Buddhists, but I don't really begrudge them for it until they start telling others that they're wrong. And even then, I recognize the spirit in which they're saying it, and I don't have a problem with their intentions usually. I just think all practitioners of all schools can be a bit myopic about Buddhism. I'm sure I can include myself in that statement as well, as much as I try not to be.
And yet your statements and questions assume the existence of a self.
No, they do not. Dear me.
In other words, which of your components is reborn. And thus you reintroduce the self that you claim you are happy without.
NO! lol... not in other words. Please think a bit more:)
Once again, the Buddha explicitly stated that both "I have a self" and "I have no self" are wrong view.
Once again. That is NOT relevant to the issue of rebirth or my questions about rebirth. I understand anataman from simple systems to the "no soul" abstractions, I am not sure you do with your inability to see into the issue.
Well, the practice of cutting through is THE most important aspect of Buddhism, imo, so I'm not really criticizing Zen's focus. I do think there is a bit of an unnecessary disregard for non-zen specific Buddhist doctrine among western Buddhists, but I don't really begrudge them for it until they start telling others that they're wrong. And even then, I recognize the spirit in which they're saying it, and I don't have a problem with their intentions usually. I just think all practitioners of all schools can be a bit myopic about Buddhism. I'm sure I can include myself in that statement as well, as much as I try not to be.
_/\_
I have to confess myopia. The moment I open my mouth, the moment I express a point-of-view. When I look over my posts. They clearly represent a perspective, not some mythical persective from nowhere. So I am myopic. And although I enjoy skewing S9 (who I do respect). I am forced by honesty to aknowledge that My view on the matter is just a view among views, and is not priviledged.
Perhaps your expression has not quite matched up with what you intended to communicate, as you've come across in a bit disjointed manner. I have personally had a bit of a difficult time trying to follow your arguments. Miscommunication is often a 2 way street.
I have to confess myopia. The moment I open my mouth, the moment I express a point-of-view. When I look over my posts. They clearly represent a perspective, not some mythical persective from nowhere. So I am myopic. And although I enjoy skewing S9 (who I do respect). I am forced by honesty to aknowledge that My view on the matter is just a view among views, and is not priviledged.
No worries, Richard. Like I said, we all have our myopic points of view. And sometimes our expressions exaggerate that myopia.
R: Supramundane experience" is a concept relative to the concept of "mundane experience", and it objectifies where objectification is by definition absurd.
S9: All language is dualistic, and defies anyone to speak of what is beyond dualistic language (AKA dualistic thought). This is why it is admitted that the supramundane is ineffable, and can't be spoken.
Would you have us stop speaking? : ^ (
If we stop speaking altogether, we would certainly lose Zen’s own “Finger pointing,” would we not?
Many person’s, who use metaphysics as a spiritual tool or as a Platform to jump off from, at the very same time fully realize that the tool itself is not the end goal.
Ummm... because its mystcial stuff that doesnt gel with Dharma?
You've seen in this Thread alone that there are many views on what rebirth means... what is reborn... what the purpose of the teaching was... there are certainly some views that do not coincide with his teachings of not-self and impermanence, but the same can be said to views of no-rebirth as well.
You mentioned in another Thread that Zen makes no sense to you and doesn't fit with the Buddha's teachings whatsover. You do not understand the term "skillful means" either. Anything that opens a person up to the firsthand understanding of the Three Marks is Buddhadhamma.
Your initial question assumes the existence of a self and so the question is flawed to begin with. You're giving more weight to mind/perception/experience as "self" than, say, the body. Why? How is this dhamma? Will your body disappear into thin air when what you describe as "self" is no longer? Will our actions cease affecting the world the moment we die?
R: ...unlike what S9 ?, the grand old Zen practitioner like you?
S9: I never claimed to be exclusively a Zen practitioner, nor do I adhere to Richard’s Zen, amen. : ^ )
However I do say that Zen is one of the best Buddhism’s by my lights. Some of the ancient writings are so very clear and on it.
R: There is nothing remotely Zen-like in your posts.
S9: Most I mimic Richard’s take in order to be taken seriously by you? By your own admission you are not ‘Realized.’ So it would probably be best, not to think of yourself as the last word in this area. : ^ (
R: They sound more like Madame Blavatsky than anything.
S9: It is a real shame that you cannot see the distance between me, and MB. However I don’t feel you are a good judge in this area, having spent little or no time looking into this area.
It would be a little like someone judging great wines when he had never tasted one. ; ^ )
If we reach beyond our own personal experience, we are bound to be incorrect.
Your initial question assumes the existence of a self and so the question is flawed to begin with.[/quotye]
No, it does not:)
My initial question was :"What is it about me now that gets reborn?"
I do not mean the illusion of me. I do not mean the skandas. I mean this experience of now. That is what my question is about, what is it about this experience of this moment that will be found in future instances of whatever rebirth in any sense refers to.
What is reborn and where can I find it in this moment?
Please stop carrying your personal issues with me into a simple, friendly debate.
I do not mean the illusion of me. I do not mean the skandas. I mean this experience of now. That is what my question is about, what is it about this experience of this moment that will be found in future instances of whatever rebirth in any sense refers to.
How can the experience of the moment be reborn, now or after death? The experience of the moment is the experience of the moment. Why is "experience" more self than anything else?
If your question assumes that experience is self, and that something about our experience must be reborn, then that's all you're doing: assuming. You can't denounce rebirth as Buddhadhamma entirely if you've redefined the term on behalf of every Buddhist before the discussion even begins. You have to look at each individuals personal understanding of the teaching and what it's lead them to.
To me it's like saying anatta and emptiness means we do not exist and is therefore not Buddhadhamma. Given how many people understand it in this way, perhaps we should wipe these teachings entirely from Buddhism as well.
This is what skillful means is about. Finger, moon.
Well S9. I doubt that I have marinated in vintage victorian orientalism as long as you, but this doesn't mean I cant appreciate pickled Madam Blavatsky when I read it. Your a treat.:D
If you ever do find the answer to the question I asked i would love to know.
Shalom
You're attached to "experience" as self.
See my previous post for my answer. If that is how you define rebirth, then ok... but not everyone is using the term in that way.
You already know I personally believe that "rebirth" is an off term as it suggests some underlying essence that is reborn. There's no constant, underlying continuum in my opinion. Just birth and death and constantly redefining our "self." Rebirth is still a conventient term at times. Before getting attached to the word and automatically rejecting any concept of rebirth, try to listen to how people explain it. Some will give you answers to the effect of some sort of "self" literally rebirthing in another body and that's it, with references to "great meditators who have seen past lives" as proof. Others will give you answers that directly relate to their understanding of the core teachings and their own practice. Try to listen to people more closely.
I doubt I will
Occassional self-reflection isn't exactly a bad thing, but ok.
N: Well, the practice of cutting through is THE most important aspect of Buddhism, imo, so I'm not really criticizing Zen's focus.
S9: No, neither am I. : ^ )
What I am saying is that sitting on the cushion isn’t the only way to break through, or see beyond conceptual mind. Like you have mentioned, Zen literature is a great gift to this world.
Zen literature was the first Buddhism to come into my life, at age 19, and like any first love I still remain quite fond of it. : ^ )
In fact, Zen still remains a person favorite of mine. It is so clear spoken. Not counting the koans, which are purposely obtuse, as a method/tool for teaching us about going beyond our little gray cells. ; ^ )
N: I do think there is a bit of an unnecessary disregard for non-zen specific Buddhist doctrine among western Buddhists, but I don't really begrudge them for it until they start telling others that they're wrong. And even then, I recognize the spirit in which they're saying it, and I don't have a problem with their intentions usually.
S9: I agree that most people have the best intensions when they speak of Buddhism to others. But, our nasty little ego has a secret desire to be RIGHT, perhaps because we have a tendency to closely identify with our own thoughts…even more if these thoughts are especially important to us.
Coincidently I just read an article on how there seemingly are Dharma Wars on the computer forums and blogs. Surprisingly,for such a gentle group on people in most part, this isn't as infrequent as one might wish. Certainly it gives a poor impression to anyone new to Buddhism.
The author thought that perhaps in speaking to our keyboards, intimately, almost like thinking out loud, we have a tendency to forget that we are not alone in the room, and that there is another REAL person receiving what we are saying. Okay, not completely forgetting, mind you. But close enough to create a clever rudeness.
I think too that we see these others as e-people…not so very real.
: ^ (
N: I just think all practitioners of all schools can be a bit myopic about Buddhism.
S9: Perhaps schools like governments begin to act more like a crowd, letting the power of numbers go to their heads. I read a great little book about crowd mentality years back. (called The Crowd) It said that we do things in number that we would never do individually.
If an individual starts to view himself as a school with others backing him up, just maybe we see a little bit of that activity on his part. Unfortunately, in our wish to belong, we might easily fall into "us against them," becoming defensive or even worst, aggressive.
: ^ (
N: I'm sure I can include myself in that statement as well, as much as I try not to be.
S9: I take your point…
We must all be a bit more vigilant in guarding our own behavior in this most volatile of areas…forums and blogs. A whole new medium of technological madness.
Comments
Then say nothing, be zen.
But...
Don't stirr the chat of those who want to get metaphysical.
You come over much cooler when you are in your depth.
http://goo.gl/Q0Zg
Peace.
Why are you being such a thug Richard? Grow up.
People dont tell you you are wrong when you go on about your amazing transcentdal zen experiences.
Don’t be intimidated when the guys start posturing and saying mine’s bigger than yours. They are probably just talking about their ego. ; ^ )
Sky: I keep feeling like you're asking me what my Buddhist qualifications are?
S9: Not at all. : ^ )
My way of understanding is to ask questions, and to pick what we think we know apart…in the way to see what is left standing.
Sky: What do you consider real insights into reincarnation?
S9: I have had many flash backs on previous lives, both mine and other people. However, on studying them very closely, I had to admit that I didn’t know what part of that was my imagination, or perhaps the collective unconscious.
Sky: Where is kingdom come?
S9: Just a quote I picked up in my Christian childhood.
Sort of like, ”Bam, Zoom, to the moon Alice,” from the Honeymooners an old TV sitcom.
Sky: Do you feel there is anything beyond this life?
S9: No, but that is only because I believe Life is eternal. Not physical life, mind you.
Sky: Is your position when you die you die?
S9: We neither are born, nor do we die. Only this dreaming mind sees it that way.
Sky: What do you think of the tulku phenomena?
S9: Since this is not within my personal experience, I don’t feel justified in saying “Yes, No, and all of the above to it. I would simply be guessing.
Sky: What do you think enlightenment is?
S9: I believe that when we finally sweep away all of mind’s debris that we see directly what is the Real. This is Enlightenment. What I call Pure Being.
Warm Regards,
S9
I get the impression the Dalai Lama doesn't really think he is a Tulku...
...... and by the way Ive never had a transcendental experience.
yes. Your being pig headed in the face of two people who clearly are more in connection with metaphsycis than you.
I have tried, many times, in many threads. i simply dont think you have the analytic mind. We all have differnt minds with differnt abilities:) The art on your site, is way beyiond anything i could concieve comming up with.
so i will invite you to try to pull your own ideas apart.
Can you go here:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/philosophy/LPSG/L&M.htm
And tell me where your idea of metahspcys fits in with that
By the way, you rarely answer others questions, i hope you do here:)
mat
That is actually worth a new thread. What is a tulku, what is their purpose, are there tulkus in another buddhist systems? and so on
So on that note, no more debate.
The upshot of that is.... "Metaphysics does not have a clear uncontoversial definition", but it does say this......."These days, metaphysics is normally taken to cover very general questions about what there is and how the world works: questions about substance, identity, universals, time and causation, for instance ."
This is not different that the general working defintion I have used. ...and yes I consider much of these notions of "universals", "causation". and especially "substance" as being projected conceptual constructs and not pre-existing objective realities waiting to be discovered.
You see it otherwise. We have finshed debating.
Discussing Rebirth is like Buddhism's liquor, isnt it!
It turns normally mild mannered Buddhist into...
No wonder a millenium after the Buddha's death there started to be the prohibitions against its discussion;)
penny drops....
Glass raised.
Salome!
mat
................................ Call me when its dinner.
Well, perhaps in the practice aspect. Zen sitting and even Koans are direct in nature and are more designed to cut through thought systems than they are in cultivating supramundane experiences.
However, as a school of Mahayana, there has been plenty of Zen/Chan literature dealing with metaphysical aspects of Buddhism. Zen Buddhism is also inclusive of all the Buddhist sutras from the Agamas, to the Mahayana Sutras to Zen-Specific Sutras such as the Platform Sutra. Now, western Zen has certainly become more disjointed from the earlier writings, but that does not mean that Zen somehow negates Buddhist metaphysics or that it is impossible for Zen Buddhists to consider or accept metaphysical teachings.
what is the driving force that made you to write the above line?
what is the driving force that makes me to read this post?
find it
not easy but it is not impossible
I have been instructed and am now instructed to keep "dont know" mind.
Theory gives way to practice. Zen is practice. As far as Mahayana theories, and counter theories are concerned, I have met no Zen teacher who dwells on them. Only practice under guidance. Doing. This does not mean that theory is bad, or metaphysics is bad, but they can easily and commonly be an end, a replacement for practice. The point is realizing. Realizing can sound grandiose but it isnt. It is just realizing basic practice.
I don't think anything you wrote in this post conflicts with my post. I think your previous statement was just a little more absolutist than it could/should have been.
'Zat clear enough?
Mtns
_/\_
Possible reasons that a monk would answer your question with "Higher Dharma":
1) They correctly view you as not being capable of understanding the answer.
2) They incorrectly view you as not being capable of understanding the answer.
3) Whenever they answered this question before, it turned into an interminable debate, and they don't want to get into that again.
4) You have a reputation for creating interminable debates.
5) "Not tonight dear. I have a headache."
The list is not exhaustive.
As long as you say that rebirth doesn't fit into _your_ view, I have no problem. The problem occurs when you say that rebirth doesn't fit into the Buddha's teaching, after you've reinterpreted that teaching to deal with a self that the original explicitly doesn't deal with.
The Buddha stated explicitly that both "I have a self" and "I don't have a self" are wrong view.
But in the first post in this thread you wrote:
If there is something about me or you that is alive and passes on after death, then you and I have a self. Anything that has attributes or components is a self. If you're not going to follow the Buddha's teaching that both "I have a self" and "I don't have a self" are wrong view, then you're going to have to decide whether there is a self or not.
Earlier you wrote: No, it's really about the make up of this world as long as you assume that we have a self.
Well some things to say to that:)
1) You wern't there, the man was literally confused and uncomfortable. It was like he was having crisis of faith before my eyes.
2) He is just one of the many buddhists I have asked this.
3) Why are we even having this discussion? Why is it that this question cannot be simply answered in the same was as any other core dharmic question like:
How does ignorance relate to suffering?
How does right view link to the first thre e noble truths?
Etc:)
The buddha had nothing up his sleeve, yet it seems to me on this issue Buddhists must have something up their sleeve:)
I would like to know how it fits in with anyone's understanding of dharma
I would like to discuss the possibility that in fact the buddha taught nonrebirth.
Hey, there are many things in the suttas we can read in different ways on this issues. Regarding what you just said, even we we assume the Buddha really did say exactly that that's not connected to the possibility of rebirth, is it?
Thanks
Mat
No Ren,
I am 100% happy with the idea that I am just the aggregates. This is one of the profound realisations of the dharmic path, I feel.
That doesnt make sense to me:)
My question is, if I am just this flowing of experience then then what is it about this flow that is in any sense reborn.
Are yo not agreeing with me that if there is no self how can there be anything reborn?
re you not trying to use the idea of "forbidden questions" to avoid the problem of rebirth?
I remain unsure of where we are with this:)
Mat
What are your answers?
N: However, as a school of Mahayana, there has been plenty of Zen/Chan literature dealing with metaphysical aspects of Buddhism. Zen Buddhism is also inclusive of all the Buddhist sutras from the Agamas, to the Mahayana Sutras to Zen-Specific Sutras such as the Platform Sutra.
S9: Thank you for clarifying this in some detail. : ^ )
N: Cultivating supramundane experiences.
S9: The only place I differ in what you have said is that I don’t believe the supramundane experience is, in fact, cultivated. I Believe that it is a constant that is discovered. Note too, that the supramundane is One experience, and not many experiences, IMO. Two small points granted, but they both give birth to multiple ramifications, and confusion down through history.
N: Now, western Zen has certainly become more disjointed from the earlier writings, but that does not mean that Zen somehow negates Buddhist metaphysics or that it is impossible for Zen Buddhists to consider or accept metaphysical teachings.
S9: This is a sad thing…as condensing Zen down to JUST practice,by a newer breed of Zen practitioners, made it loose some of its greatness, IMO.
I can just see Richard grinding his teeth, and choosing a weapon, because of this statement. ; ^ )
But, I never feel that a study guide could contain the whole of any original text, or pack the punch.
In this same way, cutting to the chase (practice only) may find itself with a whole new way of being trapped in misunderstandings of another sort. How many persons become 'practice bound, or even 'attached; to the pleasant feelings of certain states?
Warm Regards,
S9
....unlike what S9 ?, the grand old Zen practitioner like you? There is nothing remotely Zen-like in your posts. They sound more like Madame Blavatsky than anything.
Are you sure it's not your behavior that is making people uncomfortable?
You asked an ambiguous question and chose to argue with the answers.
I don't see any reason why Buddhists must have something up their sleeve. The fact that you don't understand the teaching of non-self is not grounds for suspicion.
Given the overwhelming evidence that he did in fact teach rebirth, it's not likely that any one is going to take this possibility seriously.
That's a strange sentence. I think you are asking whether or not the teaching of non-self is connected to the teaching of rebirth. It's connected because your questions about rebirth all assume a self.
Oh please. This is really petty. OK, lets assume he knew and hjust wasnt telling me. waseva! lol... it was an asside in an answering to a question. If you are ever in Colombo I hope you go ask him yourself:)
In the real world I am not an asshat!:)
Ummm... because its mystcial stuff that doesnt gel with Dharma?
I do, you are wrong.
The evidence comes from texts written after hundreds of years of massaging but culture and politics. Nobody knows what he said. We have just echos of hearsay.
All religions dogmatise and mystify their doctrines, see how this has happened with Christainity. Why should Buddhism be different?
I am not saying I am right, but it is simply blinkered of you to not even entertain the possibility.
You cannot, by any means tell me with certainty I am wrong about this.
Respect opinion, not dogma.
It's the standard Buddhist critique of self.
In other words, which of your components is reborn. And thus you reintroduce the self that you claim you are happy without.
Once again, the Buddha explicitly stated that both "I have a self" and "I have no self" are wrong view.
Well, the practice of cutting through is THE most important aspect of Buddhism, imo, so I'm not really criticizing Zen's focus. I do think there is a bit of an unnecessary disregard for non-zen specific Buddhist doctrine among western Buddhists, but I don't really begrudge them for it until they start telling others that they're wrong. And even then, I recognize the spirit in which they're saying it, and I don't have a problem with their intentions usually. I just think all practitioners of all schools can be a bit myopic about Buddhism. I'm sure I can include myself in that statement as well, as much as I try not to be.
_/\_
No, they do not. Dear me.
NO! lol... not in other words. Please think a bit more:)
Once again. That is NOT relevant to the issue of rebirth or my questions about rebirth. I understand anataman from simple systems to the "no soul" abstractions, I am not sure you do with your inability to see into the issue.
I have to confess myopia. The moment I open my mouth, the moment I express a point-of-view. When I look over my posts. They clearly represent a perspective, not some mythical persective from nowhere. So I am myopic. And although I enjoy skewing S9 (who I do respect). I am forced by honesty to aknowledge that My view on the matter is just a view among views, and is not priviledged.
Perhaps your expression has not quite matched up with what you intended to communicate, as you've come across in a bit disjointed manner. I have personally had a bit of a difficult time trying to follow your arguments. Miscommunication is often a 2 way street.
No worries, Richard. Like I said, we all have our myopic points of view. And sometimes our expressions exaggerate that myopia.
R: Supramundane experience" is a concept relative to the concept of "mundane experience", and it objectifies where objectification is by definition absurd.
S9: All language is dualistic, and defies anyone to speak of what is beyond dualistic language (AKA dualistic thought). This is why it is admitted that the supramundane is ineffable, and can't be spoken.
Would you have us stop speaking? : ^ (
If we stop speaking altogether, we would certainly lose Zen’s own “Finger pointing,” would we not?
Many person’s, who use metaphysics as a spiritual tool or as a Platform to jump off from, at the very same time fully realize that the tool itself is not the end goal.
Warm Regards,
S9
You've seen in this Thread alone that there are many views on what rebirth means... what is reborn... what the purpose of the teaching was... there are certainly some views that do not coincide with his teachings of not-self and impermanence, but the same can be said to views of no-rebirth as well.
You mentioned in another Thread that Zen makes no sense to you and doesn't fit with the Buddha's teachings whatsover. You do not understand the term "skillful means" either. Anything that opens a person up to the firsthand understanding of the Three Marks is Buddhadhamma.
Your initial question assumes the existence of a self and so the question is flawed to begin with. You're giving more weight to mind/perception/experience as "self" than, say, the body. Why? How is this dhamma? Will your body disappear into thin air when what you describe as "self" is no longer? Will our actions cease affecting the world the moment we die?
R: ...unlike what S9 ?, the grand old Zen practitioner like you?
S9: I never claimed to be exclusively a Zen practitioner, nor do I adhere to Richard’s Zen, amen. : ^ )
However I do say that Zen is one of the best Buddhism’s by my lights. Some of the ancient writings are so very clear and on it.
R: There is nothing remotely Zen-like in your posts.
S9: Most I mimic Richard’s take in order to be taken seriously by you? By your own admission you are not ‘Realized.’ So it would probably be best, not to think of yourself as the last word in this area. : ^ (
R: They sound more like Madame Blavatsky than anything.
S9: It is a real shame that you cannot see the distance between me, and MB. However I don’t feel you are a good judge in this area, having spent little or no time looking into this area.
It would be a little like someone judging great wines when he had never tasted one. ; ^ )
If we reach beyond our own personal experience, we are bound to be incorrect.
Warm Regards,
S9
:dunce: Children...
Please stop carrying your personal issues with me into a simple, friendly debate.
How can the experience of the moment be reborn, now or after death? The experience of the moment is the experience of the moment.
If your question assumes that experience is self, and that something about our experience must be reborn, then that's all you're doing: assuming. You can't denounce rebirth as Buddhadhamma entirely if you've redefined the term on behalf of every Buddhist before the discussion even begins. You have to look at each individuals personal understanding of the teaching and what it's lead them to.
To me it's like saying anatta and emptiness means we do not exist and is therefore not Buddhadhamma. Given how many people understand it in this way, perhaps we should wipe these teachings entirely from Buddhism as well.
This is what skillful means is about. Finger, moon.
Its not friendly when you talk, hence my comment. Be nice. Get overyourself. Chillax.
My point exactly! So what gets reborn?
I really hope you reread your posts in this Thread someday.
Take care.
I doubt I will, its an internet forum not a personal journal.
If you ever do find the answer to the question I asked i would love to know.
Shalom
See my previous post for my answer. If that is how you define rebirth, then ok... but not everyone is using the term in that way.
You already know I personally believe that "rebirth" is an off term as it suggests some underlying essence that is reborn. There's no constant, underlying continuum in my opinion. Just birth and death and constantly redefining our "self." Rebirth is still a conventient term at times. Before getting attached to the word and automatically rejecting any concept of rebirth, try to listen to how people explain it. Some will give you answers to the effect of some sort of "self" literally rebirthing in another body and that's it, with references to "great meditators who have seen past lives" as proof. Others will give you answers that directly relate to their understanding of the core teachings and their own practice. Try to listen to people more closely.
Occassional self-reflection isn't exactly a bad thing, but ok.
I am off of here now. :cool:
N: Well, the practice of cutting through is THE most important aspect of Buddhism, imo, so I'm not really criticizing Zen's focus.
S9: No, neither am I. : ^ )
What I am saying is that sitting on the cushion isn’t the only way to break through, or see beyond conceptual mind. Like you have mentioned, Zen literature is a great gift to this world.
Zen literature was the first Buddhism to come into my life, at age 19, and like any first love I still remain quite fond of it. : ^ )
In fact, Zen still remains a person favorite of mine. It is so clear spoken. Not counting the koans, which are purposely obtuse, as a method/tool for teaching us about going beyond our little gray cells. ; ^ )
N: I do think there is a bit of an unnecessary disregard for non-zen specific Buddhist doctrine among western Buddhists, but I don't really begrudge them for it until they start telling others that they're wrong. And even then, I recognize the spirit in which they're saying it, and I don't have a problem with their intentions usually.
S9: I agree that most people have the best intensions when they speak of Buddhism to others. But, our nasty little ego has a secret desire to be RIGHT, perhaps because we have a tendency to closely identify with our own thoughts…even more if these thoughts are especially important to us.
Coincidently I just read an article on how there seemingly are Dharma Wars on the computer forums and blogs. Surprisingly,for such a gentle group on people in most part, this isn't as infrequent as one might wish. Certainly it gives a poor impression to anyone new to Buddhism.
The author thought that perhaps in speaking to our keyboards, intimately, almost like thinking out loud, we have a tendency to forget that we are not alone in the room, and that there is another REAL person receiving what we are saying. Okay, not completely forgetting, mind you. But close enough to create a clever rudeness.
I think too that we see these others as e-people…not so very real.
: ^ (
N: I just think all practitioners of all schools can be a bit myopic about Buddhism.
S9: Perhaps schools like governments begin to act more like a crowd, letting the power of numbers go to their heads. I read a great little book about crowd mentality years back. (called The Crowd) It said that we do things in number that we would never do individually.
If an individual starts to view himself as a school with others backing him up, just maybe we see a little bit of that activity on his part. Unfortunately, in our wish to belong, we might easily fall into "us against them," becoming defensive or even worst, aggressive.
: ^ (
N: I'm sure I can include myself in that statement as well, as much as I try not to be.
S9: I take your point…
We must all be a bit more vigilant in guarding our own behavior in this most volatile of areas…forums and blogs. A whole new medium of technological madness.
Warm Regards,
S9
R: …vintage victorian orientalism.
S9: HE/HE/HE that’s rich, Richard. I like that. : ^ )
R: …pickled Madam Blavatsky
S9: I had no idea that she drank. ; ^ )
Warm Regards,
S9