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.
I agree, I think there is no clear logic. I think the 12 Niddanyas have been mistakenly construed as being what DO is, which to my mind is not the case.
Dependent Origination, to me, is simply the many-to-many and isotropic causal relation of reality:
All causes have many effects.
All effects have many causes.
All causes are Effects.
All effects are causes.
I think the Twelve Niddanyas are either a later fabrication or not correctly passed on from the buddhas time. They just don't seem to fit with the four noble truths, whereas DO as I categorise it not only fits with them, but is essential to them.
I am very much in a minority with my views on this:)
I have no reason to believe that is the case:)
namaste
This discussion is not about what you or I believe, it is about what the Buddha taught. If you don't believe in rebirth, then it is not my problem, I don't debate on that topic. But to say the Buddha didn't teach that is completely wrong and misleading, and by reflecting the way you are doing is just taking out of context something.
First of all, remember the 12 links, the first is not birth. The last one is death. So, between a new birth and death there are some links; the 12 links are not a linear teaching, they are circular.
"And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] media of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth."
So, when death comes you are not stopping, nor reverting, the chain of events, death is one more. Samsara is the compulsive rebirth; if with death everything is over, then that view is the extreme of nihilism and is not considered a Right View. Saying the Buddha didn't teach rebirth is holding a totally incorrect view, there is no way to back up that.
It is better to be honest and just say "I don't believe in rebirth, but I think that the Buddha's ethics are awesome and I like them. I feel affinity for the way of living of buddhist, but I don't hold the view of rebirth." than reducing the Buddha's teaching to what one believes.
The English word mind does not have the same meaning as do the Sanskrit and Tibetan terms that it is supposed to translate. In the original languages, "mind" refers to mental activity or mental events, rather than to something that is doing that activity. The activity or event is the cognitive arising of certain things - thoughts, sights, sounds, emotions, feelings and so on - and a cognitive involvement with them - seeing them, hearing them, understanding them, and even not understanding them. These two characteristic features of mind are usually translated as "clarity" and "awareness," but those English words are also misleading.
Where does this mental activity of the arising and involvement with cognitive objects in an individual being come from? Here, we are not talking about where the body comes from, for that is obviously from the parents. We are not talking about intelligence and so on, because we can also give the argument that there is a genetic base for that. However, to say that someone's preference for chocolate ice cream comes from the person's genes is stretching it too far.
This discussion is not about what you or I believe, it is about what the Buddha taught.
Sure, and we just don't know what he taught. All we have is Dharma as a guide-stick to compare against.
But to say the Buddha didn't teach that is completely wrong
I diagree.
If with death everything is over, then that view is the extreme of nihilism and is not considered a Right View.
I currently disagree.
I think that is what the buddha discovered; that there can be good value in this life without the "need" for any afterlife. To me this is what the middle path is, the path between nihlism and mysticism.
Saying the Buddha didn't teach rebirth is holding a totally incorrect view, there is no way to back up that.
I disagree.
It is better to be honest and just say "I don't believe in rebirth, but I think that the Buddha's ethics are awesome and I like them. I feel affinity for the way of living of buddhist, but I don't hold the view of rebirth."
But that is not what I believe, after much contemplation and meditation on this.
I am not a Buddhist because its "good morals" or "nice self-help" etc. I am a Buddhist because I cannot doubt the four noble truths and all they entail (The Eightfold Path) or are entailed by (The Three Marks).
This last is one of my favorites books ever, it is really clear for understanding buddhism in a contemporary way.
And mine! In fact its what got me into Dharma. However it doesn't come close to explaining to me how rebirth fits in with dharma...
namaste
PS Let's be mindful not to get into a destructive rebirth debate. You cannot tell me with certainty The Buddha said X and nor can I tell you he said "not x". Its so important to remeber this, especially in online forums.
In the Sunna sutta, the Buddha taught that the self is empty. All Buddhists apparently accept this as authentic. If the self is empty of existence and form is empty of existence, then what is there to be reborn? How can a non existent self die? How can non existence become non existence? I think that is what is meant by unborn. Something that does not exist is not born so it cannot die. In fact there is no 'something' that either is born or dies. Have I got this right?-P
Thickpaper- thats fine. Then why would you take a position on rebirth, given the content of it? In the light of the emptiness of self and form where does rebirth or not fit in?
Thickpaper- thats fine. Then why would you take a position on rebirth, given the content of it?
My view is that attachment to the idea of rebirth should be extinguished.
In the light of the emptiness of self and form where does rebirth or not fit in?
In that, when I die, I believe that that is it in all senses; "There is no more rebirth for me in hell, nor as an animal or ghost, nor in any realm of woe..."
Thickpaper, thank you-So you accept that 'you' truly exist. If that is so how did you come to be. How can nothing become something. What of the cause that became the effect that you consider to be you. If you accept that the self is empty, how can it die if it never was in the first place?-P
Thickpaper, thank you-So you accept that 'you' truly exist.
Gosh, no not at all:) I am very much empty. As you know, when we use language we use shorthand, when I say "I" I don't mean a discrete existing thing.
By "I", I mean the constant stream of aggregate processes that produces the illusionary experience of "me" within a "now". There is nothing to "me" but this process. When the process stops, I stop.
If that is so how did you come to be. How can nothing become something.
Nothing becomes nothing. I am connected to the processes that lead to my birth. But there is nothing there.
What of the cause that became the effect that you consider to be you. If you accept that the self is empty, how can it die if it never was in the first place?
Death is the cessation of the process that produces the illusionary ego etc
What is crucial to me is that when my process stops, that is it. There is nothing continued in any non trivial sense that is now "me".
Sure, and we just don't know what he taught. All we have is Dharma as a guide-stick to compare against.
I diagree.
I currently disagree.
I think that is what the buddha discovered; that there can be good value in this life without the "need" for any afterlife. To me this is what the middle path is, the path between nihlism and mysticism.
I disagree.
But that is not what I believe, after much contemplation and meditation on this.
I am not a Buddhist because its "good morals" or "nice self-help" etc. I am a Buddhist because I cannot doubt the four noble truths and all they entail (The Eightfold Path) or are entailed by (The Three Marks).
And mine! In fact its what got me into Dharma. However it doesn't come close to explaining to me how rebirth fits in with dharma...
namaste
PS Let's be mindful not to get into a destructive rebirth debate. You cannot tell me with certainty The Buddha said X and nor can I tell you he said "not x". Its so important to remeber this, especially in online forums.
I ask you to please back up your arguments about rebirth not "fitting" into "dharma".
4 noble truth are for stopping the compulsory rebirth, compulsory rebirth occurs in samsara. Buddha spoke thousands of times of pasts lives, for example, the Jatakas. There are thousands of teachings on that.
Then again, if you don't believe in rebirth, it is ok, but don't say please that hte Buddha did not teach that, you are without arguments for that, and as I said, that is incorrect and misleading... specially on a forum.
I ask you to please back up your arguments about rebirth not "fitting" into "dharma". 4 noble truth are for stopping the compulsory rebirth, compulsory rebirth occurs in samsara. Buddha spoke thousands of times of pasts lives, for example, the Jatakas. There are thousands of teachings on that.
Then again, if you don't believe in rebirth, it is ok, but don't say please that hte Buddha did not teach that, you are without arguments for that, and as I said, that is incorrect and misleading... specially on a forum.
Sorry, but I don't like that- I don't see why it should end in trouble, you have already stated your position here,therefore I would like to continue it on public.
Sorry, but I don't like that- I don't see why it should end in trouble, you have already stated your position here,therefore I would like to continue it on public.
OK.
I believe that the very fundamental bedrock of dharma is the Three Marks of Existence, that being:all things are impermanent empty/interconnected and inevitable negative/conflicted/diminishing.
I believe that the very fundamental bedrock of dharma is the Three Marks of Existence, that being:all things are impermanent empty/interconnected and inevitable negative/conflicted/diminishing.
Do we agree on that as a starting point?
namaste
No, I don't accept that.
Instead, I believe the fundamental bedrock for the metaphysics of dharma, transversal to any tradition as its cosmology, its the Three marks of existence. And the fundamental bedrock of all dharma teachings is compassion.
Instead, I believe the fundamental bedrock for the metaphysics of dharma, transversal to any tradition as its cosmology, its the Three marks of existence. And the fundamental bedrock of all dharma teachings is compassion.
No comprende. What do you think the three marks are?
No comprende. What do you think the three marks are?
Fundamental bedrock for the metaphysics of dharma, transversal to any tradition as its cosmology/cosmovision.
It is not the foundation for Buddhadharma. Remember that also that the first teachings were about the 4 noble truths and the 12 links of dependent origination; the foundation of dharma is to be found also in the teachings on the comprehension of karma, and that is not only the 3 marks of existence.
That's why he didn't answer Vacchagotta's question, because if he answered as how the teachings are, i.e.: there is no atman to be talked about that is different from the body or the same as the body; he would have gotten to a nihilistic view: there is no atman, so there is no rebirth, etc. So he just kept in silence, out of compassion.
Fundamental bedrock for the metaphysics of dharma, transversal to any tradition as its cosmology/cosmovision.
It is not the foundation for Buddhadharma. Remember that also that the first teachings were about the 4 noble truths and the 12 links of dependent origination; the foundation of dharma is to be found also in the teachings on the comprehension of karma, and that is not only the 3 marks of existence.
That's why he didn't answer Vacchagotta's question, because if he answered as how the teachings are, i.e.: there is no atman to be talked about that is different from the body or the same as the body; he would have gotten to a nihilistic view: there is no atman, so there is no rebirth, etc. So he just kept in silence, out of compassion.
We will not get far (not that there is anywhere to go) if you are talking about what is in the suttras rather than what Dharma is and is not.
We will also not get far if you are just telling me what is and is not. I know what the suttras say on these issues, I know what the traditional doctrine is. So you just telling me that again isn't helpful to me, in the same way as me just saying "Buddha said xxx"
So...
Why are the four noble truths true? The answer, as I understand it, comes from how the three marks condition, via dependent origination, human experience.
If we can't agree on even this Foundation, I guess we are not talking about the same dharma.
We will not get far (not that there is anywhere to go) if you are talking about what is in the suttras rather than what Dharma is and is not.
We will also not get far if you are just telling me what is and is not. I know what the suttras say on these issues, I know what the traditional doctrine is. So you just telling me that again isn't helpful to me, in the same way as me just saying "Buddha said xxx"
So...
Why are the four noble truths true? The answer, as I understand it, comes from how the three marks condition, via dependent origination, human experience.
If we can't agree on even this Foundation, I guess we are not talking about the same dharma.
Do you believe that all things are impermanent?
namaste
The discussion is about the doctrine that the Buddha taught, not about what or you believe. I'm saying that if you wan't to believe that the Buddha did not teach rebirth, then that's ok. But don't say that rebirth does not go in hand with the Buddha's teaching. That's my point only.
As I said, the fundamental bedrock is not 3 marks of existence, and as I said, they are the foundation for metaphysics in all of the possible traditions; but they are not the foundations bedrock of Buddhadharma's: it is possible to teach the dharma without teaching philosophy. It is not possible to teach the dharma without compassion.
Do I believe that all things are impermanent? Well, not all dharmas for sure, if we pick up the abhidharma taxonomy we are going to find that there are some unconditioned dharmas, those that are not compounded, for example: space could be included as an unconditioned dharma by not being compounded.
3 marks are: sabbe sankhara, sabbe sankhara, and finally sabbe dharma.
Sankhara as compunded things, and you are asking for only "things", and in the general sense that goes with dharma.
And I repeat, my point is only that you are wrong when you just say that the Buddha did not teach rebirth. That's all. If you want to hold some kind of skeptical position regarding rebirth, there is no problem for me, but then again: don't say that the Buddha taught that.
The discussion is about the doctrine that the Buddha taught, not about what or you believe.
We do not know what the Buddha taught, this is my point.
Do you believe Dharma was true 3000 years ago?
But don't say that rebirth does not go in hand with the Buddha's teaching. That's my point only.
But I believe currently (And for a number of years) that it does not.
As I said, the fundamental bedrock is not 3 marks of existence.
Then we disagree right at the start.
It is possible to teach the dharma without teaching philosophy
We disagree on this also. For me Right View is all about the nature of things as they are, and this is a very philosophical subject.
It is not possible to teach the dharma without compassion.
Phew!:) We agree on this.
Do I believe that all things are impermanent? Well, not all dharmas for sure, if we pick up the abhidharma taxonomy we are going to find that there are some unconditioned dharmas, those that are not compounded, for example: space could be included as an unconditioned dharma by not being compounded.
But that wasn't written by the Buddha, you must know this? It's much later philosophical extensions of Dharma.
3 marks are: sabbe sankhara, sabbe sankhara, and finally sabbe dharma.
Sankhara as compunded things, and you are asking for only "things", and in the general sense that goes with dharma.
All things are compounded.. and contingent, and conditioned....
And I repeat, my point is only that you are wrong when you just say that the Buddha did not teach rebirth. That's all.
Then tell me where I am wrong please. Without pasting links and suttras and pali words, just purely in terms of Dharma, explain to me why I should believe in rebirth.
I understand the four noble truths without rebirth, are you saying my understanding is mistaken? If so, again, please show me where.
If you want to hold some kind of skeptical position regarding rebirth, there is no problem for me, but then again: don't say that the Buddha taught that.
There is a fallacy in what you say. There are only 2 sources of the Buddhadharma for us right now: scriptures and oral transmission.
Oral transmission can not be transmitted merely by a forum, but it is coherent with the fundamental teachings.
Now, if you don't accept the Abhidharma, then I think you are just inventing your tradition, therefore should not say that the Buddha didn't teach rebirth as inseparate of other of his teachings (and that is not in the Abhidharma tho, it is clearly in the sutras... but you don't want me to link sutras)
Maybe you should read why the Abhidharma is recognized in every tradition... Arhats could write too...
I think this has come to a really dead point, because you are not accepting basic points for debating in the buddhist tradition. It is ok, but be honest with what you think and not with what is in the sutras.
Also, no. Sankhara is different from Dharma. Dharma is one concept, sankhara is another.
There is a fallacy in what you say. There are only 2 sources of the Buddhadharma for us right now: scriptures and oral transmission.
No, there is Dharma itself. I assume that everything we have in scriptures may be wrong. This is my starting point.
The only things I accept as what the Buddha taught are the things that no matter how hard I try I cannot doubt.
I cannot doubt the three marks, dependent origination, the four noble truths...
Now, if you don't accept the Abhidharma, then I think you are just inventing your tradition...
I have no tradition. I believe in the truth, experience and practice of The Four Noble Truths...
What tradition was the Buddha?
Therevadan? Zen? Shinyoen?
Maybe you should read why the Abhidharma is recognized in every tradition...
I have tried. It just isn't for me.
I think this has come to a really dead point, because you are not accepting basic points for debating in the buddhist tradition.
I try not to go "by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference..."
It is ok, but be honest with what you think and not with what is in the sutras.
As said, I doubt the scriptures until I cannot doubt them. By far most I have read I end up agreeing with, they are profound and wonderfull and so much more, but they are not the unquestionable words of Buddha, to me anyways.
First, the Buddha was from the tradition of the "rishis of the past", also, the lineage of buddhas of past lives that he met. There are no fully enlightened beings without a master.
Now, again. The teachings of the Buddha, even the sutras that are under the thickpaper Canon, speak about rebirth. And I insist, from where you got your knowledge of buddhism if it is not from the sutras? And how do you accept the sutras?
Also, Kalama Sutras were written for non-buddhists. It is a method for the authentication of teachings that is totally awesome, but that does not mean that one disregards central teachings of a tradition. Kalama Sutras are more for accepting a tradition or not, more than inside-criticism.
So I would say, from that Sutra point of view, that you just have not accepted the tradition of the Buddha, but still practice some essential ethical points. And I think that is not bad, that is awesome; but, don't say it goes with the tradition and teachings of the buddha.
First, the Buddha was from the tradition of the "rishis of the past", also, the lineage of buddhas of past lives that he met. There are no fully enlightened beings without a master.
You speak as if know something about the authenticity of the scriptures that I do not.
And I insist, from where you got your knowledge of buddhism if it is not from the sutras? And how do you accept the sutras?
I have answered this above but I will spell it more clearly:
I assume the sutras are not 100% accurate accounts of what the Buddha taught.
Any claim in them that I cannot doubt I assume is an accurate account.
Any claim that I can continue to doubt I assume probably is a later addition.
You seem to assume they are 100% accurate accounts, which might satisfy you, but it doesn't me.
Also, Kalama Sutras were written for non-buddhists. It is a method for the authentication of teachings that is totally awesome, but that does not mean that one disregards central teachings of a tradition.
I disagree. I think the KS mandate is one of the most amazing instructions, not just to buddhists but to all people in all subjects.
So I would say, from that Sutra point of view, that you just have not accepted the tradition of the Buddha.
As said, I do not accept tradition, I only accept Dharma, and only after I am compelled to accept it by its truth.
Dharma is true with or without Buddhism or the Buddha.
You speak as if know something about the authenticity of the scriptures that I do not.
I have answered this above but I will spell it more clearly:
I assume the sutras are not 100% accurate accounts of what the Buddha taught.
Any claim in them that I cannot doubt I assume is an accurate account.
Any claim that I can continue to doubt I assume probably is a later addition.
You seem to assume they are 100% accurate accounts, which might satisfy you, but it doesn't me.
I disagree. I think the KS mandate is one of the most amazing instructions, not just to buddhists but to all people in all subjects.
As said, I do not accept tradition, I only accept Dharma, and only after I am compelled to accept it by its truth.
Dharma is true with or without Buddhism or the Buddha.
namaste
You have pretty much confused things up.
First of all, I'm not saying that their authenticity is 100%, but you seem to accept some really biased canon of teachings I don't know under which kind of parameters.
Second, when one is reading some teachings of the Buddha there is something that is really important to have in mind: the audience to which is being told the teaching. And the Kalamas were not buddhists. That's the point of the teachings to them: How to see which teaching we should accept? And the Buddha said: "Not by bla, bla bla, bla bla bla, etc." If you have not accepted rebirth, then you have not accepted the Buddha's teaching; from the Kalama Sutras: we could say that you have checked under that advice of the Buddha and have come to the conclusion that his teachings are not totally valid from your point of view. Not that his teaching is ok with what you believe.
Third, you should respect tradition (not as in "traditional" or "custom"), that is very important, and it is explicit in the Kalama Sutra:
When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them.
Who are the wise?
Also, in this teachings the problem of rebirth is clear: Why do you think that the Buddha is putting as an example the case of rebirth and not rebirth? Because this teaching is for non-buddhist and even for people who don't accept necessarily rebirth.
You accept the 4 noble truths, but you don't accept that Buddha taught rebirth. That's weird, in that sutra he does speak about rebirth. You are not being consequent with what it is explicit in sutras that you should be accepting... or you accept the 4 noble truths teachings... but not the sutras from where we know them?
That's illogical.
Third, you say that "Dharma is truth with or without Buddhism and/or the Buddha". Thats nonsensical, how it is possible for a Buddhadharma (teaching of the Buddha) to exist without a Buddha? Maybe you could say: the truths of the dharma are truths independently if a Buddha appeared or not, because they are about the condition of phenomena. To that I answer: Yes, it is truth, but the Buddhadharma, again, is not purely philosophical: There is a way on how buddhists see the problem, there are specific practices, an specific tradition, etc.
Finally, again I think you are just confused on what are the teachings of the Buddha, or you want simply to impose your view to something you wish to accept but only under your conditions. I don't think that's correct.
First of all, I'm not saying that their authenticity is 100%, but you seem to accept some really biased canon of teachings I don't know under which kind of parameters.
I have told you the parameters, more than once now:)
If it is in the suttras and can be doubted then I don't believe the Buddha taught it.
I cannot Doubt, but have tried to doubt, the four noble truths, the aggregate mind, karmic causation....
Third, you should respect tradition...
I disagree. There are countless traditions from all over the world and history that I do not respect or believe are in any sense justified.
You accept the 4 noble truths, but you don't accept that Buddha taught rebirth.
That is because the four noble truths are true, I can see that, I can understand that, I can experience that.
Why should I believe rebirth is true? I cannot see why. I cannot understand it. And I cannot experience it, at least not yet.
You are not being consequent with what it is explicit in sutras that you should be accepting... or you accept the 4 noble truths teachings... but not the sutras from where we know them?
That's illogical.
Not to me, for the reasons said now many times.... I will doubt all that I can doubt and that which I cannot doubt I will hold true.
Third, you say that "Dharma is truth with or without Buddhism and/or the Buddha". Thats nonsensical, how it is possible for a Buddhadharma (teaching of the Buddha) to exist without a Buddha?
Dharma is true in all universes. Anything that can experience will experience suffering. Anything that can be will not be. Anything that will not be might not have been....
Dharma is universal and eternal.
It didn't need the buddha to be true. If the Buddha never was it would still be true.
There is a way on how buddhists see the problem, there are specific practices, an specific tradition, etc.
Sure, and they clearly work very well. I practice some Buddhist practices that were not around until about 1000 years ago, they form a key part of my practice and I'm sure the Buddha didn't teach them.
But they are methods not truths.
Finally, again I think you are just confused on what are the teachings of the Buddha...
Maybe, yes. I know I have been very confused on them in the past, and feel a little less confused now, but there are still things that perplex me. There are many things that I could go either way on, pattica sampuda/12 niddanyas, being the most prominent.
or you want simply to impose your view to something you wish to accept but only under your conditions. I don't think that's correct.
Well, if my view is the view that Dharma is strong enough and true enough to withstand the most rigorous skeptical assault I can muster, then yes guilty.
But be aware that in this chat the only view I have proposed as certain is the truth of the noble truths and what they condition or are entailed by.
You are not answering to my main points and you have misquoted my posts. Just as you read the Buddhadharma it seems you are reading my posts.
Your criteria for reading sutras is completely flawed as I have pointed, it is totally biased and partial; why to accept only the half of the sutra that speaks of the 4 Noble Truths? The Buddha did teach about rebirth, deal with that.
The mind-body (namarupa) problem is another thing, and they are not to be considered as two separate and independent entities...
You misquoted also about the tradition thing and I cleared said not in the sense of "custom".
I think you should study more about buddhism, read more, talk to lamas and teachers, and not jump to your totally biased conclusions without correct argumentation. For example, you were not clear about the "all things are impermanent", you need to know how to make the distinction between dharma and sankhara, how many definitions have each one. Dharma has at least 4, and sankhara at least 2.
It is ok to hold your view? Yes, but not by imposing it to the buddhist teachings.
Oh, also you misinterpretated about the thing of Dharma without Buddha. Dharma, in one of its definitions, is the shortened word for Buddhadharma. So, buddhadharma without buddha is just mere dharma. Mere dharma is just any kind of doctrine that serves as a basis for some ethical teachings, etc.
To say "dharma is universal and eternal" or you are speaking Dharma in the sense of "law" as in the 4 pillars of hinduism, or as an specific dharma as in "Buddhadharma". The other option is totally nonsensical: "the doctrine is universal"; yeah but which tradition?
I suggest you to have more rigorousness when having a debate, you are not quoting well and not backing up properly your point of view, as I think I have done. I deserve a cookie.
Your criteria for reading sutras is completely flawed as I have pointed, it is totally biased and partial; why to accept only the half of the sutra that speaks of the 4 Noble Truths?
I cannot doubt The Four Noble Truths.
I can doubt Rebirth.
The Buddha did teach about rebirth, deal with that.
I have been trying to deal with that for nearly a decade. I still cannot.
So, buddhadharma without buddha is just mere dharma.
To me Dharma is the truth the Buddha discovered, the truth of suffering and the truth of the cause of suffering.
To say "dharma is universal and eternal" or you are speaking Dharma in the sense of "law" as in the 4 pillars of hinduism, or as an specific dharma as in "Buddhadharma". The other option is totally nonsensical: "the doctrine is universal"; yeah but which tradition?
No tradition. These are truths that dont need people to be true.
I think this is the point we break at, in the beginning.
I suggest you to have more rigorousness when having a debate, you are not quoting well and not backing up properly your point of view
Quoting well? Quoting what? The texts I have been saying I don't accept unless I cannot doubt them.
I think we are done now, two different places and not much common ground.
My view is that attachment to the idea of rebirth should be extinguished.
Yes, this is true, in context of fruition language, but in this case aversion to rebirth needs to be extinguished as well. In terms of path language a view of rebirth is useful.
So I agree that in terms of fruition language then the "view" of rebirth should be extinguished, however, in this case the "view" includes both attachment and aversion, or in other words the view of no-view. No view does not mean that "rebirth does not exist", as that is clearly a view, I think this may be where you err.
One more comment that B A Wallace brings up in Choosing Reality that I found very thought stifling (as opposed to provoking). We rely heavily on logic, under what premise can we assume that reality will conform to logic? Logic is a human invention, isn't it presumptuous of us to assume this? If logic fails to fit the bill then what's next? Many schools already accept this, but I'm not sure some Westerners appreciate this. Where does the transition occur from logical investigation to something beyond?
One more comment that B A Wallace brings up in Choosing Reality that I found very thought stifling (as opposed to provoking). We rely heavily on logic, under what premise can we assume that reality will conform to logic? Logic is a human invention, isn't it presumptuous of us to assume this? If logic fails to fit the bill then what's next? Many schools already accept this, but I'm not sure some Westerners appreciate this. Where does the transition occur from logical investigation to something beyond?
Cheers, WK
Agreed, WK. After all, which 'logic' are we to use? Since Aristotle, there have been quite significant additions and alterations to it. It is, as Aristotle himself nated, simply a tool. As a number of my teachers said, if the only tool we have is a hammer, we shall use it even when it is inappropriate.
What is more, much of the appeal to logic is based more on 'common sense' than a rigourous application of the rules and is self-justifying.
Many of our actions and beliefs are not based on logic in any sense. Love is rarely logical, nor is prejudice. And mysticism takes us into realms of experience which do not yield to philosophical logic, even though some of us believe (illogically perhaps) that mysticism can be understood and even analysed. It requires a different 'conversation' though - and the root word of 'logic' is the Greek logos which originally meant 'conversation'.
Thus en arche ain logos (St. John,1:1) could be taken to read: In the beginning was the conversation.
To my understanding what I have heard His Holiness, the HHDL, say about " current logical proof " and in particular the concept of rebirth and different realms of existance, sums it up well ... from my transcript taken from how I heard the recording of him speaking at public teachings on tape from over 10 years ago....
" I think, from the Buddhist view point if scientific experiment and investigation were to show with 100 per cent certainty that there is not continuation of mind, then of course, we accept it. Until then, if we rely on logic, there always remains an element of mystery. "
Thanks Simon for your reply, and thank you Andy. In relation to HHDL, as great as the great man is, and believe me I have great respect in him, he cannot talk on behalf of everyone! Buddhism does not have a leader in this respect, after all we all have to test our own gold, do we not? I have seen this argument used before from a good friend, yet it really doesn't hold much water. How, do you propose, that science could test such a thing. From the POV of science this is a philosophical or rather metaphysical assertion, it is not subject to scientific and objective testing, or more correctly you can disprove an invididual case but cannot disprove it completely. Anyway, I'm not talking about rebirth here, I'm talking about the ultimate weakness in logic, this goes both for mathematical and scientific logic. Here is something I found in my Physics book just last week (fyi I'm an Electronic Engineer and we're doing a job that involves 3D spherical coordinates that's why I was looking this up):
Generally, a theory attempts to explain why Nature behaves as it does. Paradoxically, to construct a theory, we introduce certain unexplained fundamental abstractions or concepts. Thus, we consider the concepts of energy, time, space, and electric charge as "given", without offering an explanation for their existence.
Bold words were highlighted in the text.
That part of the Physics course was omitted when I was taught, I suspect with 99.9% of the courses, we just jumped straight into the theory. So if we are starting with arbitrary abstractions as foundation for our entire field of science then what does that tell us about the ontological status of science?
Hi Whoknows ... there are many opportunities for scientific research into aspects of the mind and conciousness and I believe more information and new understandings will be found in the future due to scientific research.
My quoting HHDL was not in a anyway suggesting he is or sees it desirable as being a voice, whenever I have read or heard him speak of his interest in the area of scientific research he claims no authority.
Agree with you about the the limits of logic and the assumptions we accept as reality in science.
Hi Andy,
That's generally the problem with our dualistic thinking- if someone had said something about the limits of scientific knowledge, I would have automatically assumed that they are claiming that scientific knowledge is not valuable or faulty. I don't really have this problem so much these days (at least in this respect). So to make it quite clear, scientific knowledge is invaluable to the functioning of our society that we live in. Yet, I would like to see some effort spent on ontology and getting the true ontological status of science out into general society.
I sometimes have an aspiration that the Doctor of Philosophy degree was removed from all other degrees and handed back to those who truly do philosophise, as I do not consider that someone being brilliant at what they do is sufficient to be given a title Doctor of Philosophy. But I'm starting to digress now so I'll shut up.
With you there as well, Whoknows ... and there are many people who would be surprised to hear of my expressing any interest in the advancement of scientific knowledge, in fact I was nearly precluded from continuing my studies earlier this year due to lack of progress - since then my motivation has returned, mainly due to having the opportunity to do some tutoring and my ( post graduate) students are the driving force behind my research now.
The problem is which definition of mysticism you are referring to. For example, the dictionary defines mysticism as either
1. obscure or irrational thought
2. a religion based on mystical communion with an ultimate reality
Taken definition 1, no rational person would want to be compared to something irrational. But take definition 2, now while Buddhism is often called a Philosophy more so than a religion, the goal of Buddhism is to understand ultimate reality, and to experience nirvana, which is a mystical communion with the end of suffering.
Taken in this way, the Buddha did practice a mysticism because he gained his enlightenment through meditation. Anything done through meditation is achieving a meta-physical sense of the world.
I would like to give you an exact definition, but, by definition , such a thing doesn't exist. Any rational definition but have a basis, and any basis must have a corresponding basis, and this leads to one of three outcomes: 1) Infinite recursion, or 2) circular reference, or 3) an arbitrary fundamental. This is a fundamental consideration when we think about what constitutes our selves and the phenomenal world. In fact this is a major influence in why I tend to identify somewhat as a mystic.
Even from the POV of physical phenomena. I had a very strong scientific realist belief that I thought was unshakeable, yet I had never challenged this belief, it just was conditioned through schooling and self-education. Yet, who among us has seriously considered whether a fundamental particle could exist? How can anything be fundamental? To me this is an unreasonable, in factirrational assertion. Something must be made of something else. Before coming to this conclusion, I previously thought that quantum physics had the answers on this front. I thought that Schrodingers wave equation accurately defined the existence of particles and their associated wave-like behaviour. But on further investigation, I found that this wave equation, while defining where the particle in question is likely to be, in no way defines what the particle consists of. Again the particle is still a fundamental entity that just behaves in different ways due to the method of observation. So before the modern age we had fundamental atoms, then it became electrons, neutrons and protons, then it became leptons, quarks and bosons. Now physicists are looking into multi-dimensional string theories. The thing is, it doesn't matter what theory we come up with or experiments we use to prove our theories, we are still left with the fundamental/infinite recursion dilemma. So in my estimation, the physical world in not made of anything! Can you build a nine storey building on a foundation of feathers, or worse air, or worse nothing. Or in mathematical terms 0+0+0+0+0+0+0.......+0 = 0. I would be happy to renounce my present belief of consisting of nothing if someone could kindly show me where I'm going wrong? It would be nice to be made of something again, then I can go back to comfortable realism.
If not, then if we are made of nothing, what does that really mean?
Every night, we rest our head on a pillow, close our eyes, and we enter into a world (dream) that is for all due purposes “made out of nothing” but imagination. Every action and even the doer of every action is some form of co-dependent imagination. This is simply how the mind weaves her little stories about identity.
I see dreams and death as the crack in the mirror of mind’s little game. They are a bit like an alarm clock right within our dreaming mind.
Is it true that "mystics are discouraged from speaking their minds"? I haven't found that to be true. Discouraged in what context, or what culture? Gopi Krishna was a mystic, and he was sponsored by the UN to travel and speak about his views.
I thought mysticism was an inherent part of Buddhism via meditation. Isn't one goal of meditation the realization of the oneness of all creation? That can only be realized through mystical communion. Another goal of meditation and some of the tantric practices is to raise the Kundalini (or so I believed), which is the ultimate mystical experience, the bliss state.
In Western culture, mystics are generally discouraged from expressing their ideas, because they're considered "irrational" in a culture devoted to science and reason. The UN is an exception, they somtimes sponsor unusual people; good for them. There are lots of cultures around the world (probably the majority) who respect the visionary wisdom of mystics, including parts of Eastern Europe to some extent. Thank heaven there are alternatives to Western culture!
The problem I have with mysticism is that it's a highly subjective experience. Try explaining to a schizophrenic that the things he sees are not reality.
I prefer to side with objectivity. It has proved more helpful if I'm allowed the pun.
The problem I have with mysticism is that it's a highly subjective experience. Try explaining to a schizophrenic that the things he sees are not reality.
I prefer to side with objectivity. It has proved more helpful if I'm allowed the pun.
Hi Epicurus,
Your idea is valid. Objectivity is great. It has its place in our present scientific methodology. Unfortunately the ontological status of science is on thin ice, yet no-one seems to know about it other than philosophers.
One thing pointed out by B A Wallace in Embracing Mind is the following interesting hierarchy: Physicists have asserted that matter is mostly made up of probability clouds. Chemists use quantum effects in electron positions in atoms, but otherwise there is little quantum in the chemical world. Biologists prefer to resort back to the good old days where everything is solid. And Neuroscientists dispute that mind even exists and that mind is only properties of the brain. The source, Physics have shown that matter is intangible and the further away from the source you move, the more this fact is forgotten. The funny thing is Neuroscientists often rely on machines that rely on quantum physics for their measurement process.
But just objectivity is considered the sole method of investigating science, does that mean that it is the only valid method of investigating reality? If we are constrained to only use objectivity, then on what premise is this based? The stance of objectivity is merely a metaphysical belief, there is nothing that can prove that objectivity is correct. It just seems right! Is that enough to base our entire body of knowledge on? Its enough to fully investigate, no argument here, yet it is not enough to lock out other avenues of knowledge.
A Buddhist student has the onus to assess belief systems that are holding them back. That's one of the two veils of distortion, the other being emotional. Theory that refers to ideas in a post objective view will generally be considered "mystical". Yet they are just natural extensions to reasonable logic and merely another way of looking at things. Yet with a change of view comes a change of perception. Its just a different way of seeing.
Every night, we rest our head on a pillow, close our eyes, and we enter into a world (dream) that is for all due purposes “made out of nothing” but imagination. Every action and even the doer of every action is some form of co-dependent imagination. This is simply how the mind weaves her little stories about identity.
I see dreams and death as the crack in the mirror of mind’s little game. They are a bit like an alarm clock right within our dreaming mind.
Peace and love,
S9/Leslie
Thanks Leslie, I prefer the first alarm clock rather than the second, though it could be a great adventure, given the choice (which I don't) I'll not rush at the moment.
A Buddhist student has the onus to assess belief systems that are holding them back. That's one of the two veils of distortion, the other being emotional. Theory that refers to ideas in a post objective view will generally be considered "mystical". Yet they are just natural extensions to reasonable logic and merely another way of looking at things. Yet with a change of view comes a change of perception. Its just a different way of seeing.
My problem with it, is that it would make me feel arrogant. Arrogant in the sense - who am I to know anything by myself and how can I trust it? Where's the third person perspective? Also I was never given a reason to believe in anything mystical. Ever. It also doesn't help that what is mystical today, is scientifically explained in 100 years.
As impartial as buddhism might be, it still sides mostly with logic. Apart from rebirth and karma which make no sense to me.
Basically, mysticism sides with faith and first-hand experience. It is it's own reality. Buddhism tries to explain what we all have in common, an objective reality. It goes on and on about "the truth" after all.
I think the schizophrenic example is a good one. How can he teach you anything, if you don't experience it yourself? How can you prove him wrong if his experience is so different from your own?
Well, maybe you do a scientific brain analysis of his brain I have yet to be presented with any sort of experience that I would deem metaphysical. And even when I think of some of the most extremely subjective experiences people can have - like an ayahuasca trip or something....I can still, as a third party, try and explain why the person's view changed. Ayahuasca changes all kind of stuff in the brain.
At the end of the day, I'm open to ANYTHING, I just like it when people don't ask me to trust them, and just are able to tell me "no worries, no need to believe me, you can experience it for yourself". I don't like the idea of faith. It is far away from the here and now and what is. It's about imagination.
Let me ask, somewhat jokingly, if you think that 2 or 3 schizophrenics agreeing on some piece of discovery or knowledge is far better than just one schizophrenic's idea of moonlight?
My point being that shared knowledge doesn’t necessarily lend it any degree of legitimacy. After all there was a period when very many people believed, (no, were sure), that the earth was flat.
If however you do think that shared knowledge actually lends it any kind of legitimacy, than obviously the introspection of Buddhist knowledge has been widely share and attested to for centuries, adding the extra strength of longevity of personal discovery and usefulness in this area and to many lives.
Perhaps it always comes back to, “Does this work for you?” Truth in this way becomes very individual and internal. What good would it do you if EVERYONE became enlightened and you were the only person who never could?
Is introspection actually synonymous with mysticism? Well, there is another bucket of worms. Grin!
Let me ask, somewhat jokingly, if you think that 2 or 3 schizophrenics agreeing on some piece of discovery or knowledge is far better than just one schizophrenic's idea of moonlight?
My point being that shared knowledge doesn’t necessarily lend it any degree of legitimacy. After all there was a period when very many people believed, (no, were sure), that the earth was flat.
If however you do think that shared knowledge actually lends it any kind of legitimacy, than obviously the introspection of Buddhist knowledge has been widely share and attested to for centuries, adding the extra strength of longevity of personal discovery and usefulness in this area and to many lives.
Ah, but the difference is that with the 3 schizophrenics (provided they didn't talk with each other; we want to make sure they didn't influence each other's perspective) you are hearing them talk from personal experience. It's the difference between jumping into NewBuddhist on a friday night...and actually being able to talk with the Buddha. Second hand vs 100000th hand
Buddhist knowledge, is something a bunch of guys before me talked about. I don't lend it any credence because it was a bunch of guys before me saying it. Otherwise I could that with a lot of other things. Christianity for example.
It's because I read Buddhist knowledge and it partly stands the test of logic, that I get something from it.
Perhaps it always comes back to, “Does this work for you?” Truth in this way becomes very individual and internal. What good would it do you if EVERYONE became enlightened and you were the only person who never could?
If I couldn't, there would have to be a reason for it. Exploring that, would lead me to the truth.
Real truth is not subjective. That is why it's the truth. There is no individual and internal "truth". There is individual and internal faith.
Is introspection actually synonymous with mysticism? Well, there is another bucket of worms. Grin!
I'm one of the most introspective people I know, and one of the least mystical lol. So I don't think so.
When we finally come to see that what we call our ‘waking life’ is simply a dream that takes place in our mind, one thought at a time, we will also come to see that each individual thought comes up (is born) and each individual thought goes down (dies) continuously, (much like our breath).
Just the clear sight of this dreaming mind, and how very temporary and imaginary it is, is a sure symptom that we are “Waking Up.”
Such clarity of vision is always a crack in our mirror mind, and in what we previously had taken for granted as being real...and aids us in the final dis-identification.
When we finally come to see that what we call our ‘waking life’ is simply a dream that takes place in our mind, one thought at a time, we will also come to see that each individual thought comes up (is born) and each individual thought goes down (dies) continuously, (much like our breath).
Just the clear sight of this dreaming mind, and how very temporary and imaginary it is, is a sure symptom that we are “Waking Up.”
Such clarity of vision is always a crack in our mirror mind, and in what we previously had taken for granted as being real...and aids us in the final dis-identification.
I think it comes down to this, 1) those who allow that it is valid for others to have their beliefs irrespective of whether it conflicts with their own, or. 2) those who insist that their belief structure is the correct one and must be followed.
Point 2) in the Christian world is left over from the days when Christianity was the only allowable religion. Christianity was replaced by Science in the modern world. Now the dogma is scientific.
I have no problem with rationality, in fact I use it regularly. However there is nothing "inherently" good in rationality, in fact most of the time we perform negative acts we rationalise it in some way. So the rational mind is not specifically positive. Of course that does not assert that the irrational mind is good. Rationality itself is neutral, the intention and subsequent action determined whether the rational decision is positive, neutral or negative.
I believe that Buddhist realisation goes beyond the intellect. I don't expect that anyone else should believe this because I do, this is just my belief. Putting it another way, we all have to test our own gold. I tested the gold of rationality and found it wanting.
As to verification, Buddhist meditation manuals list the type of experiences that are indicative of valid practises. So a meditator, even a mystic one, has guidelines that can be used to assess meditation. So if you like, you can say that this is a rational process that helps steer the meditator in the right direction. These practise instructions have been generated over the years by highly experienced meditators.
But I don't want you to think that I'm trying to "sell" mysticism. It's not my intention. What I am trying to "sell", if you like, is tolerance.
Ah, but the difference is that with the 3 schizophrenics (provided they didn't talk with each other; we want to make sure they didn't influence each other's perspective) you are hearing them talk from personal experience. It's the difference between jumping into NewBuddhist on a friday night...and actually being able to talk with the Buddha. Second hand vs 100000th hand
.
Comments
First of all, remember the 12 links, the first is not birth. The last one is death. So, between a new birth and death there are some links; the 12 links are not a linear teaching, they are circular.
Buddha Shakyamuni
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html
So, when death comes you are not stopping, nor reverting, the chain of events, death is one more. Samsara is the compulsive rebirth; if with death everything is over, then that view is the extreme of nihilism and is not considered a Right View. Saying the Buddha didn't teach rebirth is holding a totally incorrect view, there is no way to back up that.
It is better to be honest and just say "I don't believe in rebirth, but I think that the Buddha's ethics are awesome and I like them. I feel affinity for the way of living of buddhist, but I don't hold the view of rebirth." than reducing the Buddha's teaching to what one believes.
Basic Questions on Karma and Rebirth by Alexander Berzin
http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/approaching_buddhism/introduction/basic_question_karma_rebirth.html?query=rebirth
Dhamma Without Rebirth?
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_06.html
Does Rebirth Make Sense?
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_46.html
What The Buddha Taught? By Sri Walpola Rahula
http://www.wisdom-books.com/ProductDetail.asp?PID=747
This last is one of my favorites books ever, it is really clear for understanding buddhism in a contemporary way.
Sure, and we just don't know what he taught. All we have is Dharma as a guide-stick to compare against.
I diagree.
I currently disagree.
I think that is what the buddha discovered; that there can be good value in this life without the "need" for any afterlife. To me this is what the middle path is, the path between nihlism and mysticism.
I disagree.
But that is not what I believe, after much contemplation and meditation on this.
I am not a Buddhist because its "good morals" or "nice self-help" etc. I am a Buddhist because I cannot doubt the four noble truths and all they entail (The Eightfold Path) or are entailed by (The Three Marks).
And mine!
namaste
PS Let's be mindful not to get into a destructive rebirth debate. You cannot tell me with certainty The Buddha said X and nor can I tell you he said "not x". Its so important to remeber this, especially in online forums.
I accept it as authentic because its indubitable, not because it is written:)
My view is that attachment to the idea of rebirth should be extinguished.
In that, when I die, I believe that that is it in all senses; "There is no more rebirth for me in hell, nor as an animal or ghost, nor in any realm of woe..."
namaste
Gosh, no not at all:) I am very much empty. As you know, when we use language we use shorthand, when I say "I" I don't mean a discrete existing thing.
By "I", I mean the constant stream of aggregate processes that produces the illusionary experience of "me" within a "now". There is nothing to "me" but this process. When the process stops, I stop.
Nothing becomes nothing. I am connected to the processes that lead to my birth. But there is nothing there.
Death is the cessation of the process that produces the illusionary ego etc
What is crucial to me is that when my process stops, that is it. There is nothing continued in any non trivial sense that is now "me".
That is my belief.
namaste
4 noble truth are for stopping the compulsory rebirth, compulsory rebirth occurs in samsara. Buddha spoke thousands of times of pasts lives, for example, the Jatakas. There are thousands of teachings on that.
Then again, if you don't believe in rebirth, it is ok, but don't say please that hte Buddha did not teach that, you are without arguments for that, and as I said, that is incorrect and misleading... specially on a forum.
I will PM you:)
OK.
I believe that the very fundamental bedrock of dharma is the Three Marks of Existence, that being:all things are impermanent empty/interconnected and inevitable negative/conflicted/diminishing.
Do we agree on that as a starting point?
namaste
Instead, I believe the fundamental bedrock for the metaphysics of dharma, transversal to any tradition as its cosmology, its the Three marks of existence. And the fundamental bedrock of all dharma teachings is compassion.
No comprende. What do you think the three marks are?
This is known as Rebirthwin's Law
It is not the foundation for Buddhadharma. Remember that also that the first teachings were about the 4 noble truths and the 12 links of dependent origination; the foundation of dharma is to be found also in the teachings on the comprehension of karma, and that is not only the 3 marks of existence.
That's why he didn't answer Vacchagotta's question, because if he answered as how the teachings are, i.e.: there is no atman to be talked about that is different from the body or the same as the body; he would have gotten to a nihilistic view: there is no atman, so there is no rebirth, etc. So he just kept in silence, out of compassion.
We will not get far (not that there is anywhere to go) if you are talking about what is in the suttras rather than what Dharma is and is not.
We will also not get far if you are just telling me what is and is not. I know what the suttras say on these issues, I know what the traditional doctrine is. So you just telling me that again isn't helpful to me, in the same way as me just saying "Buddha said xxx"
So...
Why are the four noble truths true? The answer, as I understand it, comes from how the three marks condition, via dependent origination, human experience.
If we can't agree on even this Foundation, I guess we are not talking about the same dharma.
Do you believe that all things are impermanent?
namaste
As I said, the fundamental bedrock is not 3 marks of existence, and as I said, they are the foundation for metaphysics in all of the possible traditions; but they are not the foundations bedrock of Buddhadharma's: it is possible to teach the dharma without teaching philosophy. It is not possible to teach the dharma without compassion.
Do I believe that all things are impermanent? Well, not all dharmas for sure, if we pick up the abhidharma taxonomy we are going to find that there are some unconditioned dharmas, those that are not compounded, for example: space could be included as an unconditioned dharma by not being compounded.
3 marks are: sabbe sankhara, sabbe sankhara, and finally sabbe dharma.
Sankhara as compunded things, and you are asking for only "things", and in the general sense that goes with dharma.
And I repeat, my point is only that you are wrong when you just say that the Buddha did not teach rebirth. That's all. If you want to hold some kind of skeptical position regarding rebirth, there is no problem for me, but then again: don't say that the Buddha taught that.
We do not know what the Buddha taught, this is my point.
Do you believe Dharma was true 3000 years ago?
But I believe currently (And for a number of years) that it does not.
Then we disagree right at the start.
We disagree on this also. For me Right View is all about the nature of things as they are, and this is a very philosophical subject.
Phew!:) We agree on this.
But that wasn't written by the Buddha, you must know this? It's much later philosophical extensions of Dharma.
All things are compounded.. and contingent, and conditioned....
Then tell me where I am wrong please. Without pasting links and suttras and pali words, just purely in terms of Dharma, explain to me why I should believe in rebirth.
I understand the four noble truths without rebirth, are you saying my understanding is mistaken? If so, again, please show me where.
But it is what I currently believe...
Oral transmission can not be transmitted merely by a forum, but it is coherent with the fundamental teachings.
Now, if you don't accept the Abhidharma, then I think you are just inventing your tradition, therefore should not say that the Buddha didn't teach rebirth as inseparate of other of his teachings (and that is not in the Abhidharma tho, it is clearly in the sutras... but you don't want me to link sutras)
Maybe you should read why the Abhidharma is recognized in every tradition... Arhats could write too...
I think this has come to a really dead point, because you are not accepting basic points for debating in the buddhist tradition. It is ok, but be honest with what you think and not with what is in the sutras.
Also, no. Sankhara is different from Dharma. Dharma is one concept, sankhara is another.
No, there is Dharma itself. I assume that everything we have in scriptures may be wrong. This is my starting point.
The only things I accept as what the Buddha taught are the things that no matter how hard I try I cannot doubt.
I cannot doubt the three marks, dependent origination, the four noble truths...
I have no tradition. I believe in the truth, experience and practice of The Four Noble Truths...
What tradition was the Buddha?
Therevadan? Zen? Shinyoen?
I have tried. It just isn't for me.
I try not to go "by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference..."
As said, I doubt the scriptures until I cannot doubt them. By far most I have read I end up agreeing with, they are profound and wonderfull and so much more, but they are not the unquestionable words of Buddha, to me anyways.
namaste
Now, again. The teachings of the Buddha, even the sutras that are under the thickpaper Canon, speak about rebirth. And I insist, from where you got your knowledge of buddhism if it is not from the sutras? And how do you accept the sutras?
Also, Kalama Sutras were written for non-buddhists. It is a method for the authentication of teachings that is totally awesome, but that does not mean that one disregards central teachings of a tradition. Kalama Sutras are more for accepting a tradition or not, more than inside-criticism.
So I would say, from that Sutra point of view, that you just have not accepted the tradition of the Buddha, but still practice some essential ethical points. And I think that is not bad, that is awesome; but, don't say it goes with the tradition and teachings of the buddha.
You speak as if know something about the authenticity of the scriptures that I do not.
I have answered this above but I will spell it more clearly:
You seem to assume they are 100% accurate accounts, which might satisfy you, but it doesn't me.
I disagree. I think the KS mandate is one of the most amazing instructions, not just to buddhists but to all people in all subjects.
As said, I do not accept tradition, I only accept Dharma, and only after I am compelled to accept it by its truth.
Dharma is true with or without Buddhism or the Buddha.
namaste
First of all, I'm not saying that their authenticity is 100%, but you seem to accept some really biased canon of teachings I don't know under which kind of parameters.
Second, when one is reading some teachings of the Buddha there is something that is really important to have in mind: the audience to which is being told the teaching. And the Kalamas were not buddhists. That's the point of the teachings to them: How to see which teaching we should accept? And the Buddha said: "Not by bla, bla bla, bla bla bla, etc." If you have not accepted rebirth, then you have not accepted the Buddha's teaching; from the Kalama Sutras: we could say that you have checked under that advice of the Buddha and have come to the conclusion that his teachings are not totally valid from your point of view. Not that his teaching is ok with what you believe.
Third, you should respect tradition (not as in "traditional" or "custom"), that is very important, and it is explicit in the Kalama Sutra:
Who are the wise?
Also, in this teachings the problem of rebirth is clear: Why do you think that the Buddha is putting as an example the case of rebirth and not rebirth? Because this teaching is for non-buddhist and even for people who don't accept necessarily rebirth.
You accept the 4 noble truths, but you don't accept that Buddha taught rebirth. That's weird, in that sutra he does speak about rebirth. You are not being consequent with what it is explicit in sutras that you should be accepting... or you accept the 4 noble truths teachings... but not the sutras from where we know them?
That's illogical.
Third, you say that "Dharma is truth with or without Buddhism and/or the Buddha". Thats nonsensical, how it is possible for a Buddhadharma (teaching of the Buddha) to exist without a Buddha? Maybe you could say: the truths of the dharma are truths independently if a Buddha appeared or not, because they are about the condition of phenomena. To that I answer: Yes, it is truth, but the Buddhadharma, again, is not purely philosophical: There is a way on how buddhists see the problem, there are specific practices, an specific tradition, etc.
Finally, again I think you are just confused on what are the teachings of the Buddha, or you want simply to impose your view to something you wish to accept but only under your conditions. I don't think that's correct.
A Look at the Kalama Sutta:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_09.html
I have told you the parameters, more than once now:)
If it is in the suttras and can be doubted then I don't believe the Buddha taught it.
I cannot Doubt, but have tried to doubt, the four noble truths, the aggregate mind, karmic causation....
I disagree. There are countless traditions from all over the world and history that I do not respect or believe are in any sense justified.
That is because the four noble truths are true, I can see that, I can understand that, I can experience that.
Why should I believe rebirth is true? I cannot see why. I cannot understand it. And I cannot experience it, at least not yet.
Not to me, for the reasons said now many times.... I will doubt all that I can doubt and that which I cannot doubt I will hold true.
Dharma is true in all universes. Anything that can experience will experience suffering. Anything that can be will not be. Anything that will not be might not have been....
Dharma is universal and eternal.
It didn't need the buddha to be true. If the Buddha never was it would still be true.
Sure, and they clearly work very well. I practice some Buddhist practices that were not around until about 1000 years ago, they form a key part of my practice and I'm sure the Buddha didn't teach them.
But they are methods not truths.
Maybe, yes. I know I have been very confused on them in the past, and feel a little less confused now, but there are still things that perplex me. There are many things that I could go either way on, pattica sampuda/12 niddanyas, being the most prominent.
Well, if my view is the view that Dharma is strong enough and true enough to withstand the most rigorous skeptical assault I can muster, then yes guilty.
But be aware that in this chat the only view I have proposed as certain is the truth of the noble truths and what they condition or are entailed by.
namaste
Your criteria for reading sutras is completely flawed as I have pointed, it is totally biased and partial; why to accept only the half of the sutra that speaks of the 4 Noble Truths? The Buddha did teach about rebirth, deal with that.
The mind-body (namarupa) problem is another thing, and they are not to be considered as two separate and independent entities...
You misquoted also about the tradition thing and I cleared said not in the sense of "custom".
I think you should study more about buddhism, read more, talk to lamas and teachers, and not jump to your totally biased conclusions without correct argumentation. For example, you were not clear about the "all things are impermanent", you need to know how to make the distinction between dharma and sankhara, how many definitions have each one. Dharma has at least 4, and sankhara at least 2.
It is ok to hold your view? Yes, but not by imposing it to the buddhist teachings.
Oh, also you misinterpretated about the thing of Dharma without Buddha. Dharma, in one of its definitions, is the shortened word for Buddhadharma. So, buddhadharma without buddha is just mere dharma. Mere dharma is just any kind of doctrine that serves as a basis for some ethical teachings, etc.
To say "dharma is universal and eternal" or you are speaking Dharma in the sense of "law" as in the 4 pillars of hinduism, or as an specific dharma as in "Buddhadharma". The other option is totally nonsensical: "the doctrine is universal"; yeah but which tradition?
I suggest you to have more rigorousness when having a debate, you are not quoting well and not backing up properly your point of view, as I think I have done. I deserve a cookie.
I cannot doubt The Four Noble Truths.
I can doubt Rebirth.
I have been trying to deal with that for nearly a decade. I still cannot.
To me Dharma is the truth the Buddha discovered, the truth of suffering and the truth of the cause of suffering.
No tradition. These are truths that dont need people to be true.
I think this is the point we break at, in the beginning.
Quoting well? Quoting what? The texts I have been saying I don't accept unless I cannot doubt them.
I think we are done now, two different places and not much common ground.
namaste
Yes, this is true, in context of fruition language, but in this case aversion to rebirth needs to be extinguished as well. In terms of path language a view of rebirth is useful.
So I agree that in terms of fruition language then the "view" of rebirth should be extinguished, however, in this case the "view" includes both attachment and aversion, or in other words the view of no-view. No view does not mean that "rebirth does not exist", as that is clearly a view, I think this may be where you err.
Cheers, WK
Cheers, WK
Agreed, WK. After all, which 'logic' are we to use? Since Aristotle, there have been quite significant additions and alterations to it. It is, as Aristotle himself nated, simply a tool. As a number of my teachers said, if the only tool we have is a hammer, we shall use it even when it is inappropriate.
What is more, much of the appeal to logic is based more on 'common sense' than a rigourous application of the rules and is self-justifying.
Many of our actions and beliefs are not based on logic in any sense. Love is rarely logical, nor is prejudice. And mysticism takes us into realms of experience which do not yield to philosophical logic, even though some of us believe (illogically perhaps) that mysticism can be understood and even analysed. It requires a different 'conversation' though - and the root word of 'logic' is the Greek logos which originally meant 'conversation'.
Thus en arche ain logos (St. John,1:1) could be taken to read: In the beginning was the conversation.
" I think, from the Buddhist view point if scientific experiment and investigation were to show with 100 per cent certainty that there is not continuation of mind, then of course, we accept it. Until then, if we rely on logic, there always remains an element of mystery. "
That part of the Physics course was omitted when I was taught, I suspect with 99.9% of the courses, we just jumped straight into the theory. So if we are starting with arbitrary abstractions as foundation for our entire field of science then what does that tell us about the ontological status of science?
My quoting HHDL was not in a anyway suggesting he is or sees it desirable as being a voice, whenever I have read or heard him speak of his interest in the area of scientific research he claims no authority.
Agree with you about the the limits of logic and the assumptions we accept as reality in science.
That's generally the problem with our dualistic thinking- if someone had said something about the limits of scientific knowledge, I would have automatically assumed that they are claiming that scientific knowledge is not valuable or faulty. I don't really have this problem so much these days (at least in this respect). So to make it quite clear, scientific knowledge is invaluable to the functioning of our society that we live in. Yet, I would like to see some effort spent on ontology and getting the true ontological status of science out into general society.
I sometimes have an aspiration that the Doctor of Philosophy degree was removed from all other degrees and handed back to those who truly do philosophise, as I do not consider that someone being brilliant at what they do is sufficient to be given a title Doctor of Philosophy. But I'm starting to digress now so I'll shut up.
Cheers, WK
1. obscure or irrational thought
2. a religion based on mystical communion with an ultimate reality
Taken definition 1, no rational person would want to be compared to something irrational. But take definition 2, now while Buddhism is often called a Philosophy more so than a religion, the goal of Buddhism is to understand ultimate reality, and to experience nirvana, which is a mystical communion with the end of suffering.
Taken in this way, the Buddha did practice a mysticism because he gained his enlightenment through meditation. Anything done through meditation is achieving a meta-physical sense of the world.
Even from the POV of physical phenomena. I had a very strong scientific realist belief that I thought was unshakeable, yet I had never challenged this belief, it just was conditioned through schooling and self-education. Yet, who among us has seriously considered whether a fundamental particle could exist? How can anything be fundamental? To me this is an unreasonable, in factirrational assertion. Something must be made of something else. Before coming to this conclusion, I previously thought that quantum physics had the answers on this front. I thought that Schrodingers wave equation accurately defined the existence of particles and their associated wave-like behaviour. But on further investigation, I found that this wave equation, while defining where the particle in question is likely to be, in no way defines what the particle consists of. Again the particle is still a fundamental entity that just behaves in different ways due to the method of observation. So before the modern age we had fundamental atoms, then it became electrons, neutrons and protons, then it became leptons, quarks and bosons. Now physicists are looking into multi-dimensional string theories. The thing is, it doesn't matter what theory we come up with or experiments we use to prove our theories, we are still left with the fundamental/infinite recursion dilemma. So in my estimation, the physical world in not made of anything! Can you build a nine storey building on a foundation of feathers, or worse air, or worse nothing. Or in mathematical terms 0+0+0+0+0+0+0.......+0 = 0. I would be happy to renounce my present belief of consisting of nothing if someone could kindly show me where I'm going wrong? It would be nice to be made of something again, then I can go back to comfortable realism.
If not, then if we are made of nothing, what does that really mean?
Cheers,
wk
Every night, we rest our head on a pillow, close our eyes, and we enter into a world (dream) that is for all due purposes “made out of nothing” but imagination. Every action and even the doer of every action is some form of co-dependent imagination. This is simply how the mind weaves her little stories about identity.
I see dreams and death as the crack in the mirror of mind’s little game. They are a bit like an alarm clock right within our dreaming mind.
Peace and love,
S9/Leslie
I thought mysticism was an inherent part of Buddhism via meditation. Isn't one goal of meditation the realization of the oneness of all creation? That can only be realized through mystical communion. Another goal of meditation and some of the tantric practices is to raise the Kundalini (or so I believed), which is the ultimate mystical experience, the bliss state.
I prefer to side with objectivity. It has proved more helpful if I'm allowed the pun.
Hi Epicurus,
Your idea is valid. Objectivity is great. It has its place in our present scientific methodology. Unfortunately the ontological status of science is on thin ice, yet no-one seems to know about it other than philosophers.
One thing pointed out by B A Wallace in Embracing Mind is the following interesting hierarchy: Physicists have asserted that matter is mostly made up of probability clouds. Chemists use quantum effects in electron positions in atoms, but otherwise there is little quantum in the chemical world. Biologists prefer to resort back to the good old days where everything is solid. And Neuroscientists dispute that mind even exists and that mind is only properties of the brain. The source, Physics have shown that matter is intangible and the further away from the source you move, the more this fact is forgotten. The funny thing is Neuroscientists often rely on machines that rely on quantum physics for their measurement process.
But just objectivity is considered the sole method of investigating science, does that mean that it is the only valid method of investigating reality? If we are constrained to only use objectivity, then on what premise is this based? The stance of objectivity is merely a metaphysical belief, there is nothing that can prove that objectivity is correct. It just seems right! Is that enough to base our entire body of knowledge on? Its enough to fully investigate, no argument here, yet it is not enough to lock out other avenues of knowledge.
A Buddhist student has the onus to assess belief systems that are holding them back. That's one of the two veils of distortion, the other being emotional. Theory that refers to ideas in a post objective view will generally be considered "mystical". Yet they are just natural extensions to reasonable logic and merely another way of looking at things. Yet with a change of view comes a change of perception. Its just a different way of seeing.
In the spirit of fun and exploration,
Cheers, WK
Cheers, WK
My problem with it, is that it would make me feel arrogant. Arrogant in the sense - who am I to know anything by myself and how can I trust it? Where's the third person perspective? Also I was never given a reason to believe in anything mystical. Ever. It also doesn't help that what is mystical today, is scientifically explained in 100 years.
As impartial as buddhism might be, it still sides mostly with logic. Apart from rebirth and karma which make no sense to me.
Basically, mysticism sides with faith and first-hand experience. It is it's own reality. Buddhism tries to explain what we all have in common, an objective reality. It goes on and on about "the truth" after all.
I think the schizophrenic example is a good one. How can he teach you anything, if you don't experience it yourself? How can you prove him wrong if his experience is so different from your own?
Well, maybe you do a scientific brain analysis of his brain
At the end of the day, I'm open to ANYTHING, I just like it when people don't ask me to trust them, and just are able to tell me "no worries, no need to believe me, you can experience it for yourself". I don't like the idea of faith. It is far away from the here and now and what is. It's about imagination.
Let me ask, somewhat jokingly, if you think that 2 or 3 schizophrenics agreeing on some piece of discovery or knowledge is far better than just one schizophrenic's idea of moonlight?
My point being that shared knowledge doesn’t necessarily lend it any degree of legitimacy. After all there was a period when very many people believed, (no, were sure), that the earth was flat.
If however you do think that shared knowledge actually lends it any kind of legitimacy, than obviously the introspection of Buddhist knowledge has been widely share and attested to for centuries, adding the extra strength of longevity of personal discovery and usefulness in this area and to many lives.
Perhaps it always comes back to, “Does this work for you?” Truth in this way becomes very individual and internal. What good would it do you if EVERYONE became enlightened and you were the only person who never could?
Is introspection actually synonymous with mysticism? Well, there is another bucket of worms. Grin!
Peace and love,
S9/Leslie
Ah, but the difference is that with the 3 schizophrenics (provided they didn't talk with each other; we want to make sure they didn't influence each other's perspective) you are hearing them talk from personal experience. It's the difference between jumping into NewBuddhist on a friday night...and actually being able to talk with the Buddha. Second hand vs 100000th hand
Buddhist knowledge, is something a bunch of guys before me talked about. I don't lend it any credence because it was a bunch of guys before me saying it. Otherwise I could that with a lot of other things. Christianity for example.
It's because I read Buddhist knowledge and it partly stands the test of logic, that I get something from it.
If I couldn't, there would have to be a reason for it. Exploring that, would lead me to the truth.
Real truth is not subjective. That is why it's the truth. There is no individual and internal "truth". There is individual and internal faith.
I'm one of the most introspective people I know, and one of the least mystical lol. So I don't think so.
When we finally come to see that what we call our ‘waking life’ is simply a dream that takes place in our mind, one thought at a time, we will also come to see that each individual thought comes up (is born) and each individual thought goes down (dies) continuously, (much like our breath).
Just the clear sight of this dreaming mind, and how very temporary and imaginary it is, is a sure symptom that we are “Waking Up.”
Such clarity of vision is always a crack in our mirror mind, and in what we previously had taken for granted as being real...and aids us in the final dis-identification.
Peace and love,
S9/Leslie
:uphand:
I think it comes down to this, 1) those who allow that it is valid for others to have their beliefs irrespective of whether it conflicts with their own, or. 2) those who insist that their belief structure is the correct one and must be followed.
Point 2) in the Christian world is left over from the days when Christianity was the only allowable religion. Christianity was replaced by Science in the modern world. Now the dogma is scientific.
I have no problem with rationality, in fact I use it regularly. However there is nothing "inherently" good in rationality, in fact most of the time we perform negative acts we rationalise it in some way. So the rational mind is not specifically positive. Of course that does not assert that the irrational mind is good. Rationality itself is neutral, the intention and subsequent action determined whether the rational decision is positive, neutral or negative.
I believe that Buddhist realisation goes beyond the intellect. I don't expect that anyone else should believe this because I do, this is just my belief. Putting it another way, we all have to test our own gold. I tested the gold of rationality and found it wanting.
As to verification, Buddhist meditation manuals list the type of experiences that are indicative of valid practises. So a meditator, even a mystic one, has guidelines that can be used to assess meditation. So if you like, you can say that this is a rational process that helps steer the meditator in the right direction. These practise instructions have been generated over the years by highly experienced meditators.
But I don't want you to think that I'm trying to "sell" mysticism. It's not my intention. What I am trying to "sell", if you like, is tolerance.
Cheers, WK
Or maybe we could just agree to disagree
Cheers, WK