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.
How Did Buddha Discover the Answers to the Universe Under a Tree?
Forgive me if I'm wrong, or if this has been said already; but isn't the nature of reality and the universe empty (sunyata)?
The Heart Sutra
"OH SARIPUTRA, THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VOIDNESS OF All DHARMAS ARE NON-ARISING, NON-CEASING, NON-DEFILED, NON-PURE, NON-INCREASING, NON-DECREASING."
The above paragraph proclaims Emptiness as the substance of all dharmas: That being the case, there can be neither birth nor death; no defilement; no purity; no increase or decrease. What holds true for the Dharma of Skandha applies equally to the rest of dharmas, and therefore all dharmas are presently void.
An ordinary person views all things of this world as possessing their own shape or form, he/she grasps and clings to them, not understanding that their presence is empty of a permanent, separate self. The Buddha, mindful of some of his adherents who still grasped worldly dharmas as if they were real, addressed once more the problem generated by the perception of dharmas as increasing, decreasing, defiled or pure. Explaining in. more detail, he reiterated that since all dharmas are void, there is no birth and no death, neither an increase, nor a decrease, no defilement and no purity. The pre-eminent theme of this sutra is the essential Emptiness of all dharmas and the distinguishing marks of their emptiness are defined as non-arising, non-ceasing, non-defilement, non-purity, non-increasing, non-decreasing, non-birth and non-death.
The Vaipulya Sutra speaks of "neither existing nor extinct, neither permanent nor annihilated, neither identical nor differentiated, neither coming nor going." The history of Buddhism is replete with illustrious sages who pondered and expounded this doctrine at great length. To the deluded worldlings, it makes no sense to speak of no birth and no death: They hold birth and death as essential; all of us were born and must die, in the same way the grass sprouts and grows in the spring and summer and dies in the fall. That is clear to everyone, so how can anybody teach that there is no birth and no death? Thus worldlings come to perceive objects as permanent (the view called parikalpita in Sanskrit).
Foundationally? Cessation of Dukkha is experientially "connected" to letting go, by whatever skillful means works, and that includes any understanding of `true nature".
Yes, I believe Foundationally. The experience of the moral, psychological, philosophical, scientific and spiritual components of the path is not the whole path that leads to of the apprehension of the true nature of things and the reduction of Dukka.
namaste
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited June 2010
'apprehension'....? Do you mean 'comprehension'....?:hrm::)
'apprehension'....? Do you mean 'comprehension'....?:hrm::)
No I don't actually.
But I do mean "apprehension" in the sense understanding rather than fear,
namaste
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited June 2010
Thanks.
Just checking for clarity.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited June 2010
Off-Topic Moderator's note:
It's astounding how one word can carry different definitions...
apprehend [ˌæprɪˈhɛnd] vb
1. (Law) (tr) to arrest and escort into custody; seize
2. to perceive or grasp mentally; understand
3. (tr) to await with fear or anxiety; dread
It's worth keeping this in mind, possibly, when disputes arise with regard to intentions, or definitions and translations of texts, teachings and suttas.
Ultimately, whomsoever translated the original words from the Pali, was doing their best to convey the accurate intention of the language.
Inevitably, there will be a small element of misinterpretation, or divergence due to a non-existence of an accurate and specific translation.
The word 'dukkha' is a case in point.
Perhaps it would be appropriate to keep this factor in mind when discussing the finer and more meticulous points with regard to the interpretation of teachings...
It's worth keeping this in mind, possibly, when disputes arise with regard to intentions, or definitions and translations of texts, teachings and suttas
Ultimately, whomsoever translated the original words from the Pali, was doing their best to convey the accurate intention of the language.
Yes, agree.
And we should always keep in mind that the Buddha had zero connection with the Pali language/script, so we really and unequivocally can't say of any word in any sutta, "this is what the Buddha meant..."
namaste
Inevitably, there will be a small element of misinterpretation, or divergence due to a non-existence of an accurate and specific translation.
The word 'dukkha' is a case in point.
Perhaps it would be appropriate to keep this factor in mind when discussing the finer and more meticulous points with regard to the interpretation of teachings...
Yes, I believe Foundationally. The experience of the moral, psychological, philosophical, scientific and spiritual components of the path is not the whole path that leads to of the apprehension of the true nature of things and the reduction of Dukka.
namaste
Things have all kinds of "true" qualities. The qualities of Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta are selected for reflection because they serve the end, not because they are truer than any number of other facets.
If you are talking about the "utimate true nature of the universe" then we can continue that discussion in the sci fi forum down the road.
Things have all kinds of "true" qualities. The qualities of Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta are selected for reflection because they serve the end, not because they are truer than any number of other facets.
They are not selected, they are foundational. If they are selected then you should be able to suggest other princinples that are equally true of all possible realities.
What would they be?
If you are talking about the "utimate true nature of the universe" then we can continue that discussion in the sci fi forum down the road.
They are not selected, they are foundational. If they are selected then you should be able to suggest other princinples that are equally true of all possible realities.
What would they be?...
I don't see Anicca, for example, as a "principle" but as a trait. a trait that is focused on to serve the end of letting go. It is Foundational to Buddha Dharma. not the cosmos. Ultimate foundations are for speculation.
I don't see Anicca, for example, as a "principle" but as a trait. a trait that is focused on to serve the end of letting go. It is Foundational to Buddha Dharma. not the cosmos. Ultimate foundations are for speculation.
This seems to me to be one of the biggest chasms between Buddhist practitioners and Buddhist philosophers. Practitioners tend to see the descriptions as tricks we use to dislodge ourselves from patterns of repetitive thinking. Philosophers tend to use descriptions as a new label to depict phenomena, as though the concepts are ultimate.
This seems to me to be one of the biggest chasms between Buddhist practitioners and Buddhist philosophers. Practitioners tend to see the descriptions as tricks we use to dislodge ourselves from patterns of repetitive thinking. Philosophers tend to use descriptions as a new label to depict phenomena, as though the concepts are ultimate.
I can see how you can be a Buddhist philosopher without being a practitioner, but it seems contradictory to be a practitioner without being a philosopher.
What is right view if not the philosophical part of the path?
What is right view if not the philosophical part of the path?
Because you can see and understand things as they really are directly.
Like painting a table, you see the effect of the paint on the table directly, as opposed to imagining and interpreting what it would be like to paint a table if you only had abstract concepts of what paint is, and what a table is.
When you only imagine and interpret instead of simply seeing directly, you can often get it wrong and build on those wrong conclusions, which will lead to more and more delusions.
Because you can see and understand things as they really are directly.
Like painting a table, you see the effect of the paint on the table directly, as opposed to imagining and interpreting what it would be like to paint a table if you only had abstract concepts of what paint is, and what a table is.
When you only imagine and interpret instead of simply seeing directly, you can often get it wrong and build on those wrong conclusions, which will lead to more and more delusions.
You miss my point Pat. I am very aware of the experiential nature of these realisations, my point is it is, I believe, wholly mistaken to think that there are not other components to this. And in the case sited, Right view as being the philosophical component of dharmic philosophy:)
actually a more precise to translate the term 'supernatural' from the original indic text is higher knowledge
one attain higher knowledge when one still the mind and see the reality as it ready is ( true reality of all phenomenas )
I don't consider right view to equate to dharmic philosophy. This is directly kin to my point, which is that right view is a direct view of reality, absent of philosophy, absent of the conceptions we imagine around phenomena. Not that we can't observe the philosophy, but that it is ultimately just another phenomena that arises in the view.
Comments
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/heartv06.htm
Yes, I believe Foundationally. The experience of the moral, psychological, philosophical, scientific and spiritual components of the path is not the whole path that leads to of the apprehension of the true nature of things and the reduction of Dukka.
namaste
No I don't actually.
But I do mean "apprehension" in the sense understanding rather than fear,
namaste
Just checking for clarity.
It's astounding how one word can carry different definitions...
It's worth keeping this in mind, possibly, when disputes arise with regard to intentions, or definitions and translations of texts, teachings and suttas.
Ultimately, whomsoever translated the original words from the Pali, was doing their best to convey the accurate intention of the language.
Inevitably, there will be a small element of misinterpretation, or divergence due to a non-existence of an accurate and specific translation.
The word 'dukkha' is a case in point.
Perhaps it would be appropriate to keep this factor in mind when discussing the finer and more meticulous points with regard to the interpretation of teachings...
Thanks.
Back to topic:
Yes, agree.
And we should always keep in mind that the Buddha had zero connection with the Pali language/script, so we really and unequivocally can't say of any word in any sutta, "this is what the Buddha meant..."
namaste
Inevitably, there will be a small element of misinterpretation, or divergence due to a non-existence of an accurate and specific translation.
The word 'dukkha' is a case in point.
Perhaps it would be appropriate to keep this factor in mind when discussing the finer and more meticulous points with regard to the interpretation of teachings...
Thanks.
Back to topic:[/QUOTE]
If you are talking about the "utimate true nature of the universe" then we can continue that discussion in the sci fi forum down the road.
They are not selected, they are foundational. If they are selected then you should be able to suggest other princinples that are equally true of all possible realities.
What would they be?
Sarcasm is the lowest form of Zen...
It isn't in the "weeeell look at Mr. enlightened" school:D
But seriously Thick. It is clear as a bell on this one that we will have to agree to disagree. Respectfully.
This seems to me to be one of the biggest chasms between Buddhist practitioners and Buddhist philosophers. Practitioners tend to see the descriptions as tricks we use to dislodge ourselves from patterns of repetitive thinking. Philosophers tend to use descriptions as a new label to depict phenomena, as though the concepts are ultimate.
I can see how you can be a Buddhist philosopher without being a practitioner, but it seems contradictory to be a practitioner without being a philosopher.
What is right view if not the philosophical part of the path?
Like painting a table, you see the effect of the paint on the table directly, as opposed to imagining and interpreting what it would be like to paint a table if you only had abstract concepts of what paint is, and what a table is.
When you only imagine and interpret instead of simply seeing directly, you can often get it wrong and build on those wrong conclusions, which will lead to more and more delusions.
You miss my point Pat. I am very aware of the experiential nature of these realisations, my point is it is, I believe, wholly mistaken to think that there are not other components to this. And in the case sited, Right view as being the philosophical component of dharmic philosophy:)
namaste
one attain higher knowledge when one still the mind and see the reality as it ready is ( true reality of all phenomenas )