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 was asked a question today I couldn't answer
Joshua
Veteran
My friend asked me how is one to lose his or her clinging to rites and rituals when the entire notion of Buddhism is based upon the faith of liberation which may or may not exist. He wants to know how clinging to the notion of not clinging is somehow considered not clinging, to be a Buddhist is against Buddhism's very doctrine.
I kept telling him these things weren't the point of Buddhism, I told him the basis of Buddhism first and foremost is the Noble Truths and despite the faith of enlightenment it still functions as a supreme psychology as Seeker242 once told me. I told him that it probably does rest in the faith of a certain transcendental reality that one must take, but it is still a truth. He said a truth is math. I told him the absolute nature of math is true, whereas the numbers he sees as math are conventional representations of the absolute unfathomable truth, in the same way so is Buddhism's tenets a convention of the absolute truth. I told him enlightenment isn't a state to be reached like you've gone Super Saiyan but rather like the oft quoted teacup analogy is a state where you've rid yourself of all mental defilements. So non clinging is more like stripping yourself of the Veil of Maya. Still this requires dogmatic faith. Still, clinging to non clinging is clinging, yes. We danced about in circles for ten minutes trying to clear the issue up. In the end I realised I was subconsciously trying to confuse him with jargon, I became appalled at myself and then conceded that I couldn't answer the question. Then I said some of my conviction comes from a culmination of personal philosophical inquiries since my childhood whose fruition was given to me wrapped up with a bow by Buddhism combined personal meditative experiences. He knows nothing of such things, and should he? It doesn't matter if he has, his question is valid.
Yet I know intuitively that the question isn't important overall, yet I'd like to clear it up for him.
I kept telling him these things weren't the point of Buddhism, I told him the basis of Buddhism first and foremost is the Noble Truths and despite the faith of enlightenment it still functions as a supreme psychology as Seeker242 once told me. I told him that it probably does rest in the faith of a certain transcendental reality that one must take, but it is still a truth. He said a truth is math. I told him the absolute nature of math is true, whereas the numbers he sees as math are conventional representations of the absolute unfathomable truth, in the same way so is Buddhism's tenets a convention of the absolute truth. I told him enlightenment isn't a state to be reached like you've gone Super Saiyan but rather like the oft quoted teacup analogy is a state where you've rid yourself of all mental defilements. So non clinging is more like stripping yourself of the Veil of Maya. Still this requires dogmatic faith. Still, clinging to non clinging is clinging, yes. We danced about in circles for ten minutes trying to clear the issue up. In the end I realised I was subconsciously trying to confuse him with jargon, I became appalled at myself and then conceded that I couldn't answer the question. Then I said some of my conviction comes from a culmination of personal philosophical inquiries since my childhood whose fruition was given to me wrapped up with a bow by Buddhism combined personal meditative experiences. He knows nothing of such things, and should he? It doesn't matter if he has, his question is valid.
Yet I know intuitively that the question isn't important overall, yet I'd like to clear it up for him.
0
Comments
Even If you understand his question and able to answer him I doubt he will comprehend what you've said. The Dhamma is truly profound and complicated. It can only be understood by practicing meditation and other ways of cultivation rather than being told about it.
If he really wants his questions to be answered and his doubts allayed about Buddhism he should try meditation until he is adept enough to acquire insight.
There are some questions that the Lord Buddha didn't answer because the listener wouldn't understand and will become even more confused.
Best wishes,
exonesion
Yes, you can still cling. Buddhism is about the middle path. Letting go of everything or attaching too much or having too many attachments is against the idea of the middle path. Yes, clinging can cause suffering, but clinging can also be categorized into healthy and unhealthy clinging. The Buddha had a clinging and that was he craved to help others overcome suffering. Healthy clinging are those that are healthy for you or healthy for other people, for example, your desire to overcome jealousy, your desire to help another person). Unhealthy clining are those based on unhealthy selfishness and greed, for example, power, dominance, expensive possessions, status etc).
Secondly, it is a matter of varying your craving or attachment according to your situation. For example, when a child is born, a mother would be expected to be attached to the child. This is a healthy attachment. If there was no attachment, then, this can cause suffering to the child, mother and to other people. If the child was causing the mother significant emotional suffering and is struggling to cope, the mother would then need to lessen her attachment so that she can feel better. Once, she has felt better and is ready to return to care for the child, she can increase her attachment. If the child dies, then it is time for let go. Nothing can be done to revive the child, and it is time to let go the attachment. Holding on will cause suffering. So, what this means, is that we vary our attachments to the situation. This is how we avoid suffering. Having absolutely no attachments is unwise and can cause suffering (for example, loneliness, regret, no motivation, boredom etc). A good example will be the Buddha. He still had attachments, for example, relieve others from suffering, spread the Dharma) whilst still being able to eliminate much of his mental suffering. So healthy craving is fine.
As for clinging to not clinging, clinging to not clining is a healthy attachment. If this clinging does not cause suffering to us or others, it is okay. We have to recall that the Buddha did not mean will detach ourselves from everything including our relationships and live in the desert. He wanted to point out that clinging can cause suffering, and that when it is causing suffering, we need to reduce or let go of our clinging.
So why wait to stop clinging?
You're missing the point....
No it isn't, and I think you're misinterpreting the word 'faith'....
There's a difference between being attached to that which is useful, and being attached to something which hinders us.
Ultimately, as has been said before, even if you need a raft to reach the opposite shore, the raft too, must be abandoned.
But during your crossing, that raft is a damn fine useful thing....
Tell him the Buddha merely said; "I come to teach the origin of suffering and the cessation of suffering."
The more he grasps, clings to and insists on holding this view, the more he perpetuates his own suffering: The insistence to contradict, even though the logic is blinding.
Good luck with that....
Pardon?
What's a "transcendental reality"? No blind, hopeful or groundless faith is required. The Answers exist to questions that are logical and useful to us, and the Faith required is merely one of Confidence in the Buddha's teachings.
I really don't understand what you mean by faith in a transcendental reality.
Just what reality are you referring to? Right.
Painting by numbers, you mean?
Why complicate things?
You don't get out enough.....
Oh dear, simplify. Non-clinging is letting go of all concepts because clinging to the changeable is futile. What else needs saying?
So? let go!
There - clinging over!
Just simplify.
All compounded phenomena are impermanent, and must be released at one point, so this is as good a point as any.
Oh blah blah blah!
"I follow this because it's true for me. To find your truth, you'll have to see for yourself!"
Isn't that better than elaborating your convictions using jargon? (your words, not mine....)
To him, maybe.
Will it matter in a year?
Will his question have changed?
Will he have new opinions?
Then it's changeable, and as such, invalid....
Why?
Clinging to rites and rituals refers to simply going through the motions — i.e., thinking that purification comes from prescribe formulas of speech or action — not having conviction in the efficiency of actions and the intentions underlying them, or utilizing tools to help us deal more skillful deal with the suffering we create with our own actions.
In other words, if you cling to just acting the part (e.g., sitting in the right meditation posture, chanting Pali perfectly, etc.) instead of actually developing skillful mental states and abandoning unskillful ones, cultivating states of concentration, etc., then you're clinging to rites and rituals. If, on the other hand, you're striving to prevent the arising of unarisen unwholesome states, abandon unwholesome states that have already arisen, arouse wholesome states that haven't yet arisen and maintain and perfect wholesome states already arisen, then you're not clinging to meaningless rituals—you're developing right effort.
And whether or not you consider this clinging, I think the Buddha makes a salient point with his simile of the raft in this regard. The Buddha compares his teachings to a raft that's used to cross a river, and once the river has been safely crossed, the raft can be left behind (MN 22). The moral of the story is that some attachments are actually useful up to a certain point, and it's better to drop them when the time's right, not before.
And at least he quotes references, which I never do, because I am an Ignoramus when it comes to Suttas and teachings.
I just keep paddling my canoe.....
Thank you Jason, for that angle.
Removing the fetters that bind us is accomplished by the true-stopping of clinging. We can call the process leading to the true-stopping 'un-clinging'.
When you are completely dressed, you remove your clothes one-by-one. Your shoes first, then your shirt, etc. As each item is removed you (literally) no longer cling to them. Once you stand there completely naked, you can stop the process. It is over. What else is there to cling to?
This is non-clinging.
Can you, at this point, continue un-clinging to the clothes you no longer cling to? No. Once the clothes are completely removed, the process of undressing (un-clinging) spontaneously ends itself, as the causes and conditions of its existence (being clothed) have ended.
This is non-clinging.
Where is the dogma in this? Buddha does not ask you to believe a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof.
He shows you what has caused you to become clothed. You can understand this.
He shows you himself completely unclothed. You can see this.
He shows you how to remove your own clothes. You can do this.
Forgive me for jumping in on my very first post to these boards with such an important question, but I was amused because this question you were asked is almost exactly, word for word, the first question I asked to the person who would become my first Zen Teacher. It is actually one of the first hurdles that must be overcome in penetrating Buddhism.
First, the assumptions your friend has are common and understandable but wrong, just as the previous posters pointed out. He is confusing letting go with pushing away. That path of rejecting the world, asceticism, was the one tried by the Buddha first and found wanting.
So Buddhism preaches the Middle Way. This tells us to unclinch and touch the world and everything we do with gentle hands, neither grasping not pushing away.
In my own case, the Teacher responded with a story from his own tradition called Dropping Ashes on the Buddha that illustrates both the common belief that Buddhist liberation is about rejecting ceremony and custom, and a Zen response to it, and did it much better than my words. I won't repeat it here and make a too long post much longer. You should be able to find it with a quick google.
Hope this helps.
Sounds like any given clinical day for me
I don't see the word faith used much in Buddhism. I suppose this is also related to the question is Buddhism a religion or philosophy. At least from the point of view of myself and my friend, to plunge entirely into Buddhism, deeper than the Four Noble Truths such as reincarnation requires faith. I can't prove it with any scientific instruments right now, only through my own philosophy can I, so, that's dogmatic faith in my opinion.
Yes, I agree, this is the advice I was looking for. My intuition told me this but I didn't know how to put it into words.
Isn't this a little superfluous?
This is true regarding clinging. I believe there were overtones of using Buddhism's impermanence to reach enlightenment though, which as I said, has an aspect of dogma, so this wouldn't be enough to satisfy him.
I was trying to help, that's all. He asked a question, it was fair, according to this logic the better half of these forums are useless?
Regarding why I care what he thinks. He has been both my best friend and roommate for three years, we both also love philosophy. When one of us trails far from the other's logic it's nice to clear things up or at worst to debate.
A better man would say nothing, but in my fallibility I'll admit that responses like these don't make me feel comfortable thinking that there's "no question too basic here!".
@Jason
Thank you for the sutta references.
@upalabhava
The idea is that the goal is to take the clothes off and hence you'd be clinging to the notion of taking the clothes off, and since ridding oneself of mental defilements can take lifetimes, that could become a lot of clinging. However, as was addressed by Federica and Jason, I've overcomplicated things and overlooked the simplicity of the middle-way.
Regarding dogma Buddhism absolutely does a superb job at being a well-rounded, highly logical philosophy. I do, however, think that at some level, and this goes hand in hand with what Federica was asking, there's a some faith involved in transcending some non-dualistic reality. Since this cannot be proven you could simply be destroying parts of your ego (I say that conventionally--I should say defilements of it) and therefore Buddhism functions as a 'supreme psychology' as was said. I would have to be a purist or nothing at all. I can see past the cosmology but not reincarnation or dependent origination which I think is integral to the tenets, which is dogmatic. Sure, the gap between Abrahamic faiths and Buddhism is great in favour of Buddhism, but dogma exist certainly. This does play a huge role in his question.
@Cinorjer
Thank you for the sensitive words. I will certainly look for the story it sounds interesting.
Aiming for a goal is not the same as clinging, for when the goal is reached there is no more aiming for that goal that can be done. Now, you can cling to the vehicle (or method) which carries you to the goal, and this is why we are instructed to leave the raft on the shore when we reach the other side; we do not carry the raft with us.
So, to continue the analogy of removing one's clothes: the goal is to reach a state of nakedness and the method used to reach this state is to remove clothing from the body. Once you achieve a state of nakedness, it would be absurd to continue the practice of removing clothing because there is no clothing to remove. To continue to remove non-existent clothing would be neurotic, perhaps pathological, especially if you started to remove your skin!
But this is not a clinging to the state of nakedness, it is a clinging to the practice that achieved that state.
So, again: the goal is not (as you said) "to take the clothes off". That is the method of achieving the goal, which is the state of nakedness.
You are not required to believe in Reincarnation/rebirth, and as such, this is entirely up to you, whether you decide to believe in it, agree with it, or find it useful to your practice. That's the bottom line with most things:
"How valuable or useful is this to my practice?"
With regard to rebirth (which differs in some Buddhist circles, to Reincarnation) I'm pretty much convinced that it's something that happens, but I have no proof either way, from personal experience, so I'm just keeping an open mind. See? No Faith necessary. Just an open Mind.
If it is the case, then I'm living Life as best I can, to make my next re-birth as Positively-charged as possible.
If it's NOT the case, I don't think I'm wasting my time.
I find it's that simple.
Yes, of course it is.
I'm not one to be too serious all the time.
Life is too short for constant solemnity.
Does it offend you?
If something is unproven but insisted upon, it's Dogma.
If something is proven, then insisting upon it, isn't dogma.
Why would he see an obvious Truth as dogma, when it's true whichever way you look at it?
I would completely agree with you. Possibly better than half of these forums are indeed, useless. Or more accurately perhaps, 'Pointless'.
Consider the Four Unconjecturables the Buddha advised us to not try to figure out.
Many threads focus on these subjects.
Pointlessly.
yet many still insist on focussing, because they believe debate and discussion clarifies matters.
but debate and discussion on these matters can never be clarified satisfactorily, rendering such discussions, pointless.
Even if they are entertaining, insofar that it takes people a while to realise that actually, they are pointless.....
The debate matters little. The answers matter most, and if they help your practice, more power to you....
Basic questions are fine, providing they have basic answers that help the practice.
Consider whether your discussions with your friend, help your practice, help his or help the Ego.
You mentioned yourself that you became wrapped up in trying to blind him with jargon, you see. That's what I am referring to.
Your realisation of this factor does you credit.
I think for him it might be one of those 'where's the reward issues' because the universe could simply be composed of only matter, and if he were to return to dust then way not "live more extravagantly in the bonds of samsara" to use an analogy. He won't follow anything without conviction. He was also raised Pentecostal Christian and I believe that deep down he probably sneers at anything which reminds him of 'what if you're wrong and you burn in hell afterall?' arguments. I confess I myself become less motivated when I think too much about how the universe may not be a product of mind, but when I have a bout of confidence my adherence to the Four Noble Truths is propelled.
It doesn't offend me per se but the combination of your sudden interest in my threads and the meditation thread issue earlier forces me to wonder if you're being aggressive or not.
Of course and I agree thoroughly, but again, I think it's hard for people as rigorous in their logic like my friend or I to ignore certain tenets of Buddhism. I'm very inclined to believe the universe is mind. That makes reincarnation easier for me to accept, my friend is ambivalent with the non-dual issue of mind or matter and therefore his confidence is far more difficult to have.
Interesting, this is probably difficult to direct me to, but are there other suttas like this, advising me against impossible endeavours?
But a lifelong study of The Four Noble Truths, in-depth study of the Simpsapa Sutta,
the Kalama Sutta and The simple Truth that all he was bringing us was the origin of suffering and the cessation of suffering, is quite frankly, more than enough for me to know that living a simple life is more profound and productive than anything else I can think of.
Sometimes complex questions can be answered simply.
"I don't know" is extremely simple and profound.
Might as well throw in the Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta while you're at it.