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.
Right 'view' and opinions.
I got this from a question I asked somewhere else:
quote:
"Buddha and subsequent teachers gave many teachings on opinions.
In summary, opinions are viewed as a type of "opposites thinking."
Opposites thinking is characterized by "I like this" and "I don't like that." It divides the world into good/bad, right/wrong, me/you, us/them. Opinions only reflect our preferences and do not reflect any truth about the world. Further, they separate us from the truth by conditioning how we experience the world.
Probably the clearest teaching on opinions by the Buddha is captured in the Kaccaayanagotto Sutta.
In this text, the Buddha describes the problem with opposites thinking, dogma and opinion. It is all marked with "dukkha" or suffering.
Since it's a short sutra, I'll copy the entire text for you:
====
[At Saavatthii the Ven. Kaccaayana asked the Blessed One:] "'Right view, right view,' it is said, Lord. In what way, Lord, is there right view?'
"The world in general, Kaccaayana, inclines to two views, to existence or to non-existence. But for him who, with the highest wisdom, sees the uprising of the world as it really is, 'non-existence of the world' does not apply, and for him who, with highest wisdom, sees the passing away of the world as it really is, 'existence of the world' does not apply.
"The world in general, Kaccaayana, grasps after systems and is imprisoned by dogmas. But he does not go along with that system-grasping, that mental obstinacy and dogmatic bias, does not grasp at it, does not affirm: 'This is my self.' He knows without doubt or hesitation that whatever arises is merely dukkha that what passes away is merely dukkha and such knowledge is his own, not depending on anyone else. This, Kaccaayana, is what constitutes right view.
"'Everything exists,' this is one extreme [view]; 'nothing exists,' this is the other extreme. Avoiding both extremes the Tathaagata teaches a doctrine of the middle: Conditioned by ignorance are the formations. So there comes about the arising of this entire mass of suffering. But from the complete fading away and cessation of ignorance there comes the cessation of the formations, from the cessation of the formations comes the cessation of consciousness... So there comes about the complete cessation of this entire mass of suffering." "
if this is so, then what about in a situation like this-
thinking the smell of urine is foul or seeing a dead animal and thinking that is gross/sad or what have you.
i'm trying to rid of my confusion on the topic.
Thanks in advance
-mh
quote:
"Buddha and subsequent teachers gave many teachings on opinions.
In summary, opinions are viewed as a type of "opposites thinking."
Opposites thinking is characterized by "I like this" and "I don't like that." It divides the world into good/bad, right/wrong, me/you, us/them. Opinions only reflect our preferences and do not reflect any truth about the world. Further, they separate us from the truth by conditioning how we experience the world.
Probably the clearest teaching on opinions by the Buddha is captured in the Kaccaayanagotto Sutta.
In this text, the Buddha describes the problem with opposites thinking, dogma and opinion. It is all marked with "dukkha" or suffering.
Since it's a short sutra, I'll copy the entire text for you:
====
[At Saavatthii the Ven. Kaccaayana asked the Blessed One:] "'Right view, right view,' it is said, Lord. In what way, Lord, is there right view?'
"The world in general, Kaccaayana, inclines to two views, to existence or to non-existence. But for him who, with the highest wisdom, sees the uprising of the world as it really is, 'non-existence of the world' does not apply, and for him who, with highest wisdom, sees the passing away of the world as it really is, 'existence of the world' does not apply.
"The world in general, Kaccaayana, grasps after systems and is imprisoned by dogmas. But he does not go along with that system-grasping, that mental obstinacy and dogmatic bias, does not grasp at it, does not affirm: 'This is my self.' He knows without doubt or hesitation that whatever arises is merely dukkha that what passes away is merely dukkha and such knowledge is his own, not depending on anyone else. This, Kaccaayana, is what constitutes right view.
"'Everything exists,' this is one extreme [view]; 'nothing exists,' this is the other extreme. Avoiding both extremes the Tathaagata teaches a doctrine of the middle: Conditioned by ignorance are the formations. So there comes about the arising of this entire mass of suffering. But from the complete fading away and cessation of ignorance there comes the cessation of the formations, from the cessation of the formations comes the cessation of consciousness... So there comes about the complete cessation of this entire mass of suffering." "
if this is so, then what about in a situation like this-
thinking the smell of urine is foul or seeing a dead animal and thinking that is gross/sad or what have you.
i'm trying to rid of my confusion on the topic.
Thanks in advance
-mh
0
Comments
It is my understanding that this is what is known as the Correct View of Emptiness. I really only know Mahayana/Vajrayana, but it is my understanding that once this point is realized, the seeker comes in touch with what is referred to variously as "luminosity of consciousness" or "primordial wisdom".
According to my understanding, that's it in a nutshell. Attributes such as pretty or ugly are way back up the ladder of the process of reduction.
This has always been one of the things I couldn't so well wrap my mind around.
Pretty and ugly are preferences, sure. But could you compare that to, say, someone helping you up if you've fallen. Could you say that was a nice thing to do, or would that be in 'wrong' view?
Of course it's a nice thing to do. The Correct View of Emptiness takes place on a much different and more elementally phenomenal scale. There is "conventional" phenomenology and "ultimate" phenomenology, and Correct View takes place on the "ultimate" level. I could say "My coffee tastes like sewage" and that would be true on the conventional level even though my coffee doesn't inherently exist.
It's on a whole other level.
(I have an unreliable internet signal, so if I don't come back soon enough to answer again, that's why.)
I am sitting in a chair that does not inherently exist and typing on a keyboard that does not inherently exist. I have a cool little Acer netbook, but it doesn't inherently exist.
So, in these two levels, if you will hang with me on this, ultimate is right 'view', but what entirely would that be? I'm getting what you're saying, from what I can grasp.
Like, I see a tree, I know it is a tree?
No, it's a whole lot of cells that form a trunk, branches, bark, leaves, and so forth.
So it's a whole lot of cells.
A whole lot of cells is a whole lot of molecules.
A whole lot of molecules is a whole lot of atoms.
A whole lot of atoms is a whole lot of quarks or Higgs Bosons or what have you.
The point is, whatever you think you see is reducible until there's nothing but form and emptiness. Some Greek guy said “Atoms and the void”.
So take it as far down as string theory or the most basic physics possible and what do you have? Supposedly you only have pure energy. That is what is fundamental.
And what do we have at that level? Nobody knows.
So nothing exists inherently except maybe this fundamental energy, whatever that is.
In terms of Buddhism and consciousness, in Mahayana and Vajrayana we have Primordial Wisdom.
That's what I've got for tonight. I may post one rendition of the Heart Sutra if I can tonight.
So trees exist on the conventional level, but when you reduce a tree all the way down to the fundamental constituent parts, you have only that Primordial Energy. Having a primordial awareness of the Primordial Energy or the Primordial Wisdom is the whole point of this exercise.
The Short Teaching Regarding the Heart of Perfect Wisdom
The sincere practitioner Avalokitesvara
while intently practicing the Perfection of Wisdom Meditation
perceived that all of the five phenomenal aggregates are empty of inherent existence
and was thereby saved from all suffering and distress.
He told Shariputra:
Form does not differ from emptiness,
emptiness does not differ from form.
That which is form is emptiness,
that which is emptiness is form.
The same is true of feelings,
perceptions, impulses, and consciousness.
Shariputra,
all perceived phenomena are marked with emptiness.
They do not appear or disappear,
they are neither tainted nor pure,
nor do they increase or decrease.
Therefore, in emptiness there is no form, no feeling,
no perception, no impulse, and no consciousness.
There is no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind;
no color, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch,
no object of mind,
no mind to perceive,
and so forth
until it is clear that there is no realm of mental consciousness.
There is no ignorance nor extinction of ignorance,
and so forth until no old age and death
and also no extinction of these phenomena.
There is no suffering, no origination,
no stopping, no path, no cognition,
nor is there attainment, because there is nothing to attain.
If the sincere practitioner depends on the Perfection of Wisdom Meditation,
and the mind is not a hindrance,
without any hindrance no fears exist.
Far apart from every incorrect view one dwells in the final state of seeing clearly.
In the innumerable worlds and dimensions
all sincere practitioners depend on the Perfection of Wisdom Meditation
and thereby attain the final state of seeing clearly.
Therefore know that the Mantra of the Perfection of Wisdom
is the great transcendent mantra,
the great clarifying mantra,
the ultimate mantra,
the supreme mantra
which is able to relieve all suffering,
is perfectly clear,
and is beyond any mistaken perception.
So proclaim the Mantra of the Perfection of Wisdom.
Proclaim the mantra which says:
gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha.
“Gone Beyond, gone beyond, gone completely beyond, gone to the other shore.
Clarity.
So it is.”
I think a human can be deduced in such as the tree, yes?
It is true that people can tell you what something feels like and you can grasp what they mean, but you've really got to experience to get the full feeling.
Yes. That's really the point.
Should you not believe what you hear, see, taste, touch, etc?
Food is food, and you need to eat. Other people are other people, and are in the same human predicament as you. They need to be treated kindly and with compassion.
But the ultimate view is that everything is empty of inherent existence.
Remember that we're talking about two different levels here. To not believe your senses would be going into a type of nihilism, which is inconsistent with the middle way. To believe that things have their own solid inherent existence would be going into a type of essentialism, which is also inconsistent with the middle way.
I know it's difficult- it's possibly one of the most difficult things in Buddhism.
But the answer to your question is to remember that we are talking about a conventional level and an ultimate level. A person needs to eat, sleep, and be compassionate with other people. But the correct realization of emptiness frees us of a lot of baggage.
There's a Zen saying- "Before I gained realization, mountains were mountains and rivers were rivers. When I gained realization, mountains were not mountains and rivers were not rivers. After I gained realization, mountains were mountains and rivers were rivers."
On the conventional level, the phenomenal world is what it is. On the ultimate level, all phenomena are empty of inherent existence.
Thanks for the clarifications.
The tail end of the sutta you quoted was a teaching of dependent origination. Dependent origination is really the key to Buddhism. In fact, it is said that beings that exist in universes in which there is not and never was a Buddha, and in which the there are no Buddhist teachings can still reach enlightenment if they come to understand dependent origination.
So, let's look at some of the 'links' in the chain of dependent origination to see if we can come to understand why a certain smell is thought of as bad. We can start in the middle of the chain with the SENSE MEDIA.
The SENSE MEDIA are 'eye and vision', 'nose and scent', 'mind and thought', etc. In the case of smelling, the nose (and nose-consciousness) attend the appropriate sense-object, odor. When sense-organ (nose) attends the sense-object (odor), and when consciousness attends the pairing of sense-object and sense-organ, this is called CONTACT. With contact as a condition, FEELING arises. Now, the particular subjective feeling of a contact between sense-organ and sense-object is dependent upon the discriminating awareness of the consciousness in attendance. This discriminating awareness, conditioned by karma, determines whether the sensation is 'good' or 'bad', 'sweet' or 'sour', 'fragrant' or 'malodorous'.
Now, here's the rub: conditioned by feeling, CRAVING arises. Craving is the desire to repeat contact with sensations discriminated as pleasant, or the desire to avoid contact with sensations discriminated as unpleasant. Repeatedly seeking or avoiding contact with a sensation reinforces the craving to the extent that it becomes pathological. This is called CLINGING, which leads to BECOMING, BIRTH, AGING & DEATH. And the cycle continues.
What the Buddha is describing at the end of the sutta you quoted is the unraveling of this process.
Nicely said upalabhava.
Here is an extract of the links of dependant origination I've found in the Dhammacakkapavathana sutta which I hope will be useful
In my opinion, it is hard to control your opinions because you could still be opinionated but unaware about it. Even if opinions are eradicated there still would be ignorance which is the root of all problems, root of all existence.
Only when ignorance is completely removed then will all of our problems be solved.
How is ignorance removed from our minds ?
It is by meditation using the forty methods mentioned in the Visuddhimagga or other methods.
Meditation destroys the defilements until ignorance is completely removed from the mind. That constitutes the attainment of arahantship.
Couldn't you even say that meditation was the practicing of no thinking, if you didn't think beyond what was true, then you wouldn't have opinions?
But what about sensory feelings- could you have them, but not cling to the feelings or cravings that come with them?
You know what it is, whether a smell or something, but not like or dislike it, just know it is there.
When you reach enlightenment (even if it is in this lifetime) it will have taken unspeakable numbers of lifetimes to do so.
'No thinking' is a phrase often thrown around in reference to certain meditations -- Zen, for example. But I think the type of meditation is often misunderstood and misrepresented. Correct meditation is twofold: samatha and vipassanā.
Samatha is settling the mind. It is tranquility.
Vipassanā is seeing things as they truly exist. It is insight.
So, in meditation you should first calm the mind, settle the raging torrent of thoughts. Then, you should apply wisdom (what you have come to understand of the dharma) to phenomenon in particular or phenomena in general, and seek to know reality as it truly exists.
Since, we exist as psychophysical aggregates we will always experience sensation. But, yes, it is possible to discriminate and not cling. For example, when calming the mind you will be aware of the flow of thoughts, but you should not cling to them, nor should you be over-zealous in shunning them. You will also discriminate sensations of torpor and excitability while meditating; these provide opportunities for one to apply mindfulness and maintain tranquility and insight.
As well, many thanks on the clarification with samatha and vipassanā.
To be aware of the senses and not cling or set them into likes and dislikes.
To reinforce what Upala had just said I've cited some quotes about Samatha-Vipassana from an E-document.
Source: Vistas – Buddhist Insights into Immortality (previously Sammā Samādhi I) by T. Magness (Venerable Suratano Bhikkhu)
Yes it will definitely lead to correct views.