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.
Middle Path and Cause-Effect
The middle path is an important concept in Buddhism. I understand the middle path means that extremes are bad
Here is a question. What criteria can we use to judge middle-pathness? How to determine what is extreme and what is not so?
I think, for example, if you practice an austerity that is too hard to be painful, it is off middle-path. On the another end, If you indulge into pleasures so as to find yourself guilty, it is an extreme of the another direction. It seems to me that there is only one critrion of middle pathness that is how you feel of your deeds. Or there is a code of mid-pathness in Buddist classics?
Examples, to withdraw from one's all sexul interests isn't off mid-path? It is a very natural of human being to have sexual desires.
So I think the middle path would mean that we should be directed by our natural feelings, but here is another question: It is very possible to go into bad ways after our "natural" feeling. then what to do?
IMHO, this is the reason why we have to understand the pronciple of cause and effect. Buddha would mean if one understand cause and effect, that all our feelings have its reasons, then one will not feel bad desires anymore, therefore be able to satidfy middle-pathness without painful efforts.
The above is my understanding of Buddha's teaching. A naive thought of a newby. What do you think about middle-path and cause-effect? Hope your opinions.
Thanks
Here is a question. What criteria can we use to judge middle-pathness? How to determine what is extreme and what is not so?
I think, for example, if you practice an austerity that is too hard to be painful, it is off middle-path. On the another end, If you indulge into pleasures so as to find yourself guilty, it is an extreme of the another direction. It seems to me that there is only one critrion of middle pathness that is how you feel of your deeds. Or there is a code of mid-pathness in Buddist classics?
Examples, to withdraw from one's all sexul interests isn't off mid-path? It is a very natural of human being to have sexual desires.
So I think the middle path would mean that we should be directed by our natural feelings, but here is another question: It is very possible to go into bad ways after our "natural" feeling. then what to do?
IMHO, this is the reason why we have to understand the pronciple of cause and effect. Buddha would mean if one understand cause and effect, that all our feelings have its reasons, then one will not feel bad desires anymore, therefore be able to satidfy middle-pathness without painful efforts.
The above is my understanding of Buddha's teaching. A naive thought of a newby. What do you think about middle-path and cause-effect? Hope your opinions.
Thanks
0
Comments
I hear your wondering about how to stay balanced, and how it relates to interacting with the world. I think its very common to examine that as we begin to wonder how to relate to things with skillfulness. Congratulations on being mindful enough to entertain these questions, it takes some serious detachment to look at this kind of thing! As far as the middle-path...
The middle path is described as a path in-between self-mortification and sensual indulgence. What I have found this to mean is that as we engage in phenomena, we allow our body to fully interact with the experience. However, we use our minds to neither cling to or repel it. For instance, we do not restlessly seek cookies, but we also do not get angry and stomp on our own fingers if we eat one.
As you maintain that balance, you are in a prime place to see how actions resonate off what you're doing. Because you're not getting upset when either experiencing or not experiencing, you maintain a clear awareness. From this awareness you are more skillful in what you choose to do because you can see the cause and effect (or know that you are not seeing the cause and effect, so you ask a teacher for help.)
If you are feeling painful events, being skillful would mean sitting down and examining those pains, to find out why they are painful. There's the old joke "Doctor, when I do this (raising arm) it hurts"... the doc ignorantly says "well, don't do that". This is the fundamental teaching of the middle path. Its not complete to just not do the action, because the pain is arising from something worth examining. You can't bury your head in the sand, but neither can you get swept into the chaos of the world... because then you'll never notice your sore arm.
With warmth,
Matt
You are right, lust is natural. But so are lots of things. Earthquakes and floods are natural but totally destructive for human beings. Just because something is natural doesn't mean it is beneficial for us. Lust is basically the opposite of contentment. Granted, there are biological factors (hormones) which can increase sexual lust but if we train our minds (through the practice of the Noble Eightfold Path) there is no harm (and even potential benefit) in not following that lust. Not only that, but the Buddha teaches us that it is ultimately possible (and worthwhile) to abandon lust altogether.
Lust is not necessarily sexual either. Lust can be for virtually any object. We can have lust for a nescafe (;)), for a promotion at work, for a new car, for world domination or even lust to be seen as someone really wise and spiritual. Some things are more harmful for us to lust over than others. Ideally we should abandon lust. But if we aren't ready to go for that ideal we should, in my opinion, at least try to decrease our lust and increase our contentment. Maybe if we taste enough inner-peace and contentment we will get disenchanted with all that lust nonsense.
With Metta,
Guy
I think the middle path is between extreams of nihilism and mysticism, its pretty specific and,moreover exactly directed by the Noble eightfold path. They are the same path of course. Consider one aspect is instructions and the other is reasons.
namaste
Would you explain me little more about what is between nihilism and mysticism? I think for nihilists there is nothing mystic, and for mysticist the world is filled with meanings. What is between existence and non-existence?
Sure, but please note this is just my opinion....
So I think the Buddha realized via contemplation and meditation that all things are empty and impermanent and naturally negative.
The natural state is one of meaningless nothingness...
But the human soul struggles with this, as the Buddha saw, and so clings to the illusion of permanence; that it can exist and have meaning beond the empty. But through meditation and contemplation the buddha saw that this clinging for more than this leads to a mysticism that is just as meaningless as nihilsm.
So this was the dilemma, trapped between the meaningless and the nonsensical, what is a sould to do?
And the answer was, in part, to renounce a number of false beliefs in ego, permanence, afterlife, sucheness and intrinsic value. Only when these beliefs are renounced can the path be seen clearly.
I hope that makes some sense:)
namaste
I think for nihilists there is nothing mystic, and for mysticist the world is filled with meanings. What is between existence and non-existence?[/QUOTE]
It's a dilemma the Buddha solved, demonstrably and irrefutably.
Also don't forget that it isn't just one's ego that is illusionary, but all. Those other egos that interfering with your experience as just as illusionary as your own ego interfering with your experience.
namaste
I am not sure what you mean here:) The reason the ego is illusionary is specific to the experience of atman. There has to be a perspective to experiencing but that doesn't mean there is a thing that is experiencing. This perspective is the illusion of atman.
It feels so real.
i think the most important way to understand anataman is in the Buddha's saying "There is no thinker only thought/thoughts."
namaste
I meant in the previous post that in the chain of cause and effect, "ego = free will" is something that should be denied as an illusion, for decisions made by indivudulas should come to them from the preceding reasons. My view.
OK. My view is that free will doesn't actually make sense, either in affirmation or denial. Free will involves the notion of a agent, which is meaningless in the dharmic context. But i may well be wrong on this.
namaste
Really? When did the Buddha say this?
When the Buddha spoke of the Middle Way he spoke of something very specific, that which avoids two extremes. The Middle Way (aka the Noble Eightfold Path) is supposed to be the way to Ultimate Happiness (aka Nibbana) whereas the two extremes we are to avoid (namely self-mortification on the one hand and indulgence in sensual pleasures on the other) don't lead to the real deal.
Self-mortification was quite a common practice in ancient India and it can still be found in various forms today. People used to think that (and some still do), because their body can't give them any lasting happiness, then maybe the way to some kind of lasting happiness is to torture it. So you see people doing all kinds of crazy things like sticking bolts through their tongue, lying on beds of nails, not eating enough to sustain their bodies properly. Of course, most people recognize this as totally deluded.
What is less recognized in our world is that chasing after sensual pleasures is also a dead end. Sensual pleasures are extremely fleeting. For example, we are enjoying some delicious food and it makes us feel good...for a very brief amount of time, then we have forgotten about it or we are craving for more or craving something else. So it is a never ending chase for the next best thing. If we think this is the best approach we will never find any peace.
So what is left? The Buddha taught us to keep moral precepts, practice meditation and develop wisdom. This is the way to Nibbana.
With Metta,
Guy
The Middle Path is a path with the absence of wants. There is no wanting to have or to not have. The mind stays in the middle just watching without wanting anything at all [or not clinging to anything].
.
Not wanting anything one would be beyond cause and effect or kamma.
We don't know when the Buddha said anything, or even if he said anything. All we have to go by are the much later extant texts, copies of copies of hearsay of hearsay....
I see the texts as more like archeology than scriptyure. We have to deduce what we can from them and simple, this is what I think: the middle path is between the extremes of nihilism and mysticism.
Sorry, I don't think we are entitled to claim The Buddha was specific on anything.
No I think not. I don't think it is mere sense pleasures, that seems almost trite when compares with the majesty of Dharma. Equally for self-mortification, I don't think that either, but a more encompassing mysticism.
Yep, it is but one mystical practice of many mystical practices.
We agree on the path, I guess we disagree on its boundaries.
Unto each their own, and please don't come back telling me I am wrong, as we are both on unsteady ground when it comes to the suttas.
namaste
I won't tell you that you are wrong, but lets see what the Suttas (which are our most reliable resource when it comes to understanding what the Buddha actually taught) say...
"Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta: Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion"(SN 56.11), translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight, May 29, 2010, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.than.html.
With Metta,
Guy
No!:) This is the entire point I make. The Suttas are not the most reliable resource we have when it comes tro understanding The Budda.
The suttas are a vast collection of claims, not all of them compatible.
What we have to sort through this is the Dharma.
We should look at any point in any sutta and ask: Does this make sense? Does it fit with the rest of Dharma that I understand? Can it be doubted? What would it take to be wrong? Is it possible the point is cultural contamination, translation error etc... Is it explained by Anataman, Annica, Dukka and dependent origination?
If you don't want to adopt that approach, that I believe is clearly outlined in the kalama suttra, thats totally fine, but I am not sure how you can justify claiming that others take this approach are in some sense mistaken?
Any sutta you paste, before you do, have a reread (I am sure we have read this one many times) and of each single point ask yourself the above kinds of questions.
You will find, if you are clear and unfettered by prior assumptions, that the points of the suttas pretty cleanly divide into two types: those that cannot be doubted, those that can.
Which should you believe are the words of the Buddha?
namaste
I am not sure how much more clear I can be guyC.
Pick a sutta, any sutta. Read it. Think about it. For any claim, teaching, observation or whatever you find in that sutta ask yourself:
Can I doubt it?
If you can it is not what the Buddha taught.
very simple, methinks...
What can be indulged in or abstained from outside the Buddhist sense spheres?
In the case of the nihilistic end of the spectrum exitstential and epistemic beliefs as well as mere sense pleasures.
In the case of the mystical end, unjustified beliefs.
namaste
I think you're mistargetting with this. Buddhism isn't halfway between real and unreal, known and unknown. Buddhism is directly known. I think it would be better to say that the middle path is between self-mortification and sensual indulgence.
On the side of self-mortification you have nihilism, where you deny the body, the senses, declare that all experience is invalid, holds no meaning, a full disconnection from reality. If someone is angry in front of you, you are completely apathetic.
On the side of sensual indulgence, you regard the present moment pleasure as the guide and dictating factor, where this is all that is, so engorge on the moment, absorb yourself in the fluid juiciness, and submit to the energy around you. If someone is angry in front of you, you get riled up with them.
In between there is the eight fold path, where mindfulness would allow for a skillful, compassionate interaction with the angry person, where you would nether repel the experiences, nor be absorbed by them.
When you say "epistemic vs mystic" I think you are missing the target almost completely.
With warmth,
Matt
I think you are mistargetting with your thoughts that I am mistargetting.
I think that over the millemnia, the idea extreme view of mysticism has been diluted into refering the frankly trivial (relative to dukka and its cessation) practice of self-mortification.
As said, I think it is more than that in both directions. the nihilsim the Buddha warns against is far deeper than mere sense indulgance.
Your take buddha seems to be against self-harm and headonism.
We are not denying the eightfold path is in the middle. We are disssuing the edges of the path.
Can I ask you try one thing: read the first sermon with the view that his extreams are nihilsm and mysticism and see if it makes sense.
Sure, but don't forget I think you are too;)
namaste
If we are talking about the Middle Path, we might be actually talking about directions. (Of course this is not the only way this concept can be applied.) Two of these directions might be traveling out into the world and getting lost, or the other direction might be traveling into states within, like trancing states or even psychotic states and so also getting lost. So what exactly would the Middle be in this?
I think it would be to stay at home, within your own Awareness, and to view both of these directions away from staying centered, as well as all of the states and actions therein as simply mind (aka imagination) only. In this way, we extricate ourselves from duality.
Naturally we of necessity must live in the world as/if it were real. But, Buddha’s Wisdom gives us an overview, a calm island of wisdom to look out from. This I believe is the Middle, which protects us from falling in.
Warm Regards,
S9
The millemnia? The suttas were mostly recorded at the first Buddhist Council shortly after he died. You seem to want to make it fit for you, using your mind to bend the reliability of the canon. This isn't wise in my opinion.
Its one thing to look deeply and ponder what is being said, its quite another to say that "thickpaper and buddha agree, the canon is wrong" There is no foundation for this assumption. If you apply Occam's razor, it seems completely unlikely that the suttas in the canon and countless Buddhists are misconceiving, and somehow your interpretation is transcendent. It is clear and precise with the traditional meaning, in both the Theravada and Mahayana interpretations of those ideas.
That's not what I said, not even close to what I said.
It does not make sense with your translation. Buddhism is about truth, direct and accountable. There is no "halfway between concrete and mist" as a middle road. The road exists where we have the discipline to interact with experiences skillfully.
With warmth,
Matt
This might seem simple to you but it seems like a logical fallacy to me.
Our personal doubts do not in any way prove/disprove that this Sutta or that Sutta are/aren't the Buddha's words. If we have doubts, all this proves is that we have doubts, nothing more, nothing less. Which Suttas are actually the words of the Buddha (or at least a very close representation of what he is likely to have said) is primarily the realm of historians and archaeologists.
Perhaps the best method we have of determining the probability of certain Suttas being accurate representations of the Buddha's words is through reading many of the Suttas and comparing the suttas with each other. Then we can ask ourselves, are the teachings in (for example) the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta consistent with what the Buddha (is believed to have) said in the rest of the teachings? In this particular case it appears as a yes to me.
Whether or not any of the Suttas are actually the words of the Buddha or whether or not there actually existed a person called the Buddha - I don't know, do you? For me it is largely a matter of faith. When I read the Suttas, based on their content, I get the impression that these are indeed the words of a remarkable man who (in my opinion) was fully enlightened. This is not to say that all Suttas or anything attributed to the Buddha's name are infallible and we cannot question them, but this has been my experience with virtually everything I have read in the Pali Suttas. While I can't say with 100% certainty that the Suttas are the Buddha's words I can say that "These words seem, to me, very likely to have come from an enlightened being" and that's good enough for me.
With Metta,
Guy
But are those something other than thoughts?
Gosh no. We are looking at probably 500n years for the first written record which about 500 years after that became the first surviving Pali Cannon.
Please check this out for yourself.
Not really, i just doubt everything I can doubt:)
Please don't misquote me. The cannon is not all wrong at all, I am inclined to think most of it is correct. I certainly dont believe any of it which can be doubted.
Most of it i think is what the buddha taught, not all of it.
I disagree.
I agree.
You know, I know from experience I could sit here and fire off many questions to probe you. And you would snap back with snappy answer ... yada yada....
But this boils down to ego.
Why should you care what I say?
Be your own light.
I find it interesting how you quickly crumple into barbed statements like "you would snap back with snappy answer" and "this boils down to ego" rather than staying engaged at a decent level of intellectual resonance. I hope you re-engage respectfully, your declarations in this instance are sophomoric and unhealthy.
Of course your words are just words, and so they do not bother me. You seem the one disturbed. Look at how you crumpled into personal attacks!
I am not here to joust. You have a misunderstanding of a fundamental teaching of Buddhism, and I have been trying to help you. I'm sorry you consider this egoic, but this perception of what the middle path is does not belong to me, it is well documented in the canon and deeply penetrated by many Buddhist's minds who have come before us. You are clinging to a false view.
With warmth,
Matt
FWIW this has been my intention too.
Really, don@t take it personally. This debate has been thrashed out countless times in the past, let us not think we are being original.
And it has always, and will always, as the buddha said, end up in fruitless pointless dukka discussion.
I think we can both agree that in the p[ast we have shared a good and fruitful discussion, and I hope we do again. but this chat, about that which neither can show as true or that the buddha certainly taught and thought, this chat will only ever end in defeat for the both of us.
It is that simple, this chat is utterly similar to which is better, bananas or mangoes. there is no proof, either way.
No really, not at all personal. As said, I refer to the discussion, not the dicusssors. If we continue this you and I will be belittled into reckless assumptions and ego combats. This is how this topic is fruitless.
I think you have a fundamental misundertsaning of Buddhism. I think the vast majority of Buddhists, not all, have this missundertanding. But it is not for me to show you or tell you this, I am not here as a teacher, not to be taught.
I very may well be wrong, so may you, we clearly cant both be right.
We will never, ever, know.
So why waste time on fruitless discussion? State your opinions with passion but never attach the opinions of others unless you know you speak a demonstrable and indubitable fundamental truth.
If you meet someone who is sure there are permanent things. Or discrete things. Or things in themselves, I hope you show them how their beleifs cannot be true, as the Buddha does to us. In all his schools and ways.
But never pretend you can speak with the same certainty about an afterlife, that is wrong view, and the buddha clearly states we can never be sure of that or meaningfully question it.
Perhaps I am. I admit that is entirely possible. I used to think dependent origination was not what I now think it is. How can i know that I haven't made the same mistake about the noble truths or vispanna?
I cant, and I never can.
All I cling to is skepticism about all things, and if that is wrong view THEN I certainly cant prove you wrong.
Doubt everything,
namaste
Gawd no. I might be able to offer some moderately reasonable relationship advice, and maybe some run of the mill dharma interpretation, but no teaching from me:)
Is shouting "Doubt everything People!" teaching?
On further reflection, I have decided to abandon traditional interpretations of the middle path. I realized just now that the Buddha was actually talking about a middle ground between cheerios and honey-nut cheerios.
With warmth,
Matt
Hi Matt,
In a sense that is good, in that you are not going by tradition ("Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition...")
But in a sense it is not so good because your realization can itself be doubted and, moreover, I doubt any of us can see how it is in accordance with Dharma....
I guess we are done now,
namaste
AM: On further reflection, I have decided to abandon traditional interpretations of the middle path. I realized just now that the Buddha was actually talking about a middle ground between cheerios and honey-nut cheerios.
S9: Darn, does that mean I have to give them both up? Or can I just eat the tiny holes in the middle? ; ^ )
Miles of Smiles,
S9
I would say instead of “doubting everything,” it would be more productive to investigate everything, repeatedly.
Doubting stuff can almost be like slamming the door, once and for all, whereas investigating is a more receptive animal.
Does that make sense? : ^ )
Warm Regards,
S9
I have concluded that following either extreme of honey-nut or no-honey-nut lead one into whole (grain) confusion.
With warmth,
Matt
Hi:)
I think you have a different understanding of doubt to me. Doubting everything you can, as hard as you can, leads to clarity and perhaps sometimes certainty.
Dharmic Doubt is creative and illuminating, not destructive and unproductive.
namaste
T: I think you have a different understanding of doubt to me. Doubting everything you can, as hard as you can, leads to clarity and perhaps sometimes certainty.
S9: I can fully understand not swallowing whole what you are told. ; ^ )
But, when you hear something, what is the exact avenue (mechanism) your doubt takes that creates this Certainty, which you speak of?
It must entail more than one of two statements like: “No way!” or “Yes, way! ; ^ )
Perhaps if people (I) understood what “doubt” entailed for you, they (I) too could also find it useful.
T: Dharmic Doubt is creative and illuminating, not destructive and unproductive.
S9: Okay, but what is the difference between just being stubborn and doubting, and this Dharmic Doubt you speak of? Is it a Zen thing? The reason I ask this is because years back I ran into a Zen phrase “The Great Doubt,” but never really understood this fully.
Warm Regards,
S9
AM: I have concluded that following either extreme of honey-nut or no-honey-nut lead one into whole (grain) confusion.
S9: Only if you remained on the surface of either of these little o’s.
I would think if you somehow made it into the calm center of either of these Cherri-little o’s (like the eye of the hurricane), it would matter very little if one was honey coated or one was not, let alone if the form itself was whole wheat or even a bit nutty. But, maybe I take my breakfast cereal way toooo serious. ; ^ )
Q: Anthony De Mello (paraphrased), "Before I was enlightened, I was depressed. Now that I am enlightened, I am still depressed, but I don't care."
Smiling on the inside,
S9
Ok, so take a proposition, like "all contingent things are empty" and try to doubt that. So, for example, try to imagine a case in which there could be something that isn't empty, that contains a discrete indivisible thing etc.
try to find example in the world that show it false. try to find examples from your experiencing and science. Try to see if there are cases where others have successfully doubted it... and so on.
At the end of this process you will come up being unable to doubt anataman. It will be as close to certain to you as a thing can be.
This is what I mean:)
If someone doubts something just because, that is clearly pointless and whatever the object of doubt is, its fruitless. This is the kind of doubt I think is treated as a defilement.
But to doubt and try to move from that doubt to a point of clarity and/or certainty until one "knows they know" or "knows directly" is different.
One doubt leads to truth and the other leads to just stubborn nihilsm etc...
I don't know about Zen. But i like the notion of "the great doubt" as being in the universal and total doubt of the KS. those 10 points really do contain all possible types of human knowledge.
namaste
Re: S9: “...when you hear something, what is the exact avenue (mechanism) your doubt takes that creates this Certainty, which you speak of?”
TP: Ok, so take a proposition, like "all contingent things are empty" and try to doubt that. So, for example, try to imagine a case in which there could be something that isn't empty that contains a discrete indivisible thing, etc. Try to find example in the world that show it false. Try to find examples from your experiencing and science. Try to see if there are cases where others have successfully doubted it... and so on.
S9: Isn’t that the same thing as investigating a particular notion without any preconceptions that it must be right? (Except, of course, that you will find your answer either in or with the mind.)
TP: At the end of this process you will come up being unable to doubt anataman.
S9: Where exactly would you look to find this no-atman? Remember, if you define the atman in some way which is very similar to the ego self, perhaps you are not actually proceeding without any preconception, are you?
Also your definition of atman or the Original Self may actually be incorrect. Do you doubt your own definitions too? Atman or Buddha Nature is supposed to be ineffable, meaning that it cannot be defined as a mind object, or discursively (with words). Atman or Buddha Nature is not necessarily synonymous with the soul as so many people think.
TP: It will be as close to certain to you as a thing can be.
S9: Doubt as an instrument, I believe would bring you to what is called “The Don’t Know Mind,” IMO, which is very Zen. The reason I say this is because, our minds cannot travel beyond thoughts and thoughts themselves are by nature empty and temporary. So if there is something (a Reality) that isn’t temporary, how could the mind being temporary in nature be the appropriate tool? Wouldn’t the mind be trapped in thinking an answer? Wouldn’t the dualistic mind in this case be “over it head,” when traveling into this dimension on One-ness?
RE: TP: Dharmic Doubt is creative and illuminating, not destructive and unproductive.
RE: S9: Okay, but what is the difference between just being stubborn and doubting, and this Dharmic Doubt you speak of?
TP: If someone doubts something just because, that is clearly pointless and whatever the object of doubt is, it’s fruitless. This is the kind of doubt I think is treated as defilement. But to doubt and try to move from that doubt to a point of clarity and/or certainty until one "knows they know" or "knows directly" is different.
S9: Yes, I agree, we should question everything and question it again and again repeatedly. This is a journey that travels inwardly, deeper and deeper as insights reveal a deeper perspective over time. : ^ )
TP: One doubt leads to truth and the other leads to just stubborn nihilism, etc...
S9: I would think that even nihilism could be a great teacher if deeply examined and put into a practical use by living from it. If it is wrong, the suffering in our life will only increase to show us our error.
A great master once said, “Sometimes a mistaken road is the quickest way home.” I think this is because very often a person can hold a cherished view and never examine it thoroughly, that is until he begins to live it and consequently falls flat on his face.
If we live exclusively in our heads and cherish certain ideas without even trying to live from them, certainly they can become deeply entrenched and we are for all due purposes are done with growing, and the journey towards truth will be halted.
TP: I like the notion of "the great doubt."
S9: I Googled “The Great Doubt” and it turned out to be all about the intensity of which one investigated concepts (usually Zen koans, but really anything we think we already know and actually don’t), until we come to such an impasse (of not knowing) that the next event is usually an “insight,” (aka a breakthrough).
The last great impasse or breakthrough, is what St. John of the Cross called, “the Dark Night of the Soul.” (A different choice of words, granted, far more Christian, but basically the same experience, IMO.) This is where you take the final leap beyond mind.
Thank you for answering me at length. I found it both interesting and informative.
: ^ )
Warm Regards,
S9
No it isn't. Doubting everything necessarily includes preconceptions.
You are getting bogged down in a singular example rather than what the example was illustrating. I could equally have spoken about impermanence, dukka, the four noble truths and I would imagine even metta....
The point is that much of dharma cannot, even after all kinds of doubts, cannot be doubted.
(Inicidtentally, I see anataman as a very simple proposition about emptiness. it applies to asteroids as much as minds and souls. When we think of "no soul doctrine" or " no ego doctrine" they are are all just different views on the same intrinsic emptiness and interconnectedness of all things...)
The latter is a systematic process followng the principle "doubt all things except that those that cannot be doubted" the former is not.
Of course it is!
namaste
RE: TP: Ok, so take a proposition, like "all contingent things are empty" and try to doubt that...
RE: S9: Isn’t that the same thing as investigating a particular notion without any preconceptions that it must be right? (Except, of course, that you will find your answer either in or with the mind.)
TP: No it isn't. Doubting everything necessarily includes preconceptions.
S9: Are you saying that “Doubting” everything includes doubting all preconceptions too, or that “Doubting” itself is a preconception and therefore doubt cannot be doubted, as it is necessary as a first premise?
RE: S9: Where exactly would you look to find this no-atman? Remember, if you define the atman in some way which is very similar to the ego self, perhaps you are not actually proceeding without any preconception, are you?
TP: You are getting bogged down in a singular example rather than what the example was illustrating.
S9: Perhaps, but if you keep you example so general and do not insist that it can stand on its own to prove you point, than your example will be “pointless.”
TP: I could equally have spoken about impermanence, dukka, the four noble truths and I would imagine even metta....
S9: Yes indeed, but if you kept each of these in their turn general…again they would lead no-where.
TP: The point is that much of dharma cannot even after all kinds of doubts, cannot be doubted.
S9: This is a proclamation and not a proof of any kind.
TP: Incidentally, I see anataman as a very simple proposition about emptiness.
S9: Simple is not synonymous with easy, or we could accomplish Realization in a weekend. ; ^ )
Friendly Regards,
S9
__________________
I think I see where we are not connecting on this issue.
You are speaking of this as this is some kind of logical argument that needs to be valid and satisfied.
I cannot doubt anataman is true, not because of some deductive, logical conclusion from premises but because, simply, and deeply, It cannot be doubted.
Don't forget, the buddha in the Kalama Suttra warns against even accepting first hand axioms and induction.
You see the truths that the buddha speaks of are more fundamental than those of science. You can doubt the theory of relativity. You can easily cite conditions that would falsify it. We can imagine universes where it isn't true, perhaps even this one. The same is not true of anataman or annica. We cannot even imagine how they could be false.
Try to. Can you? I can't.
there is no proof here, it is more about the simple method of doubt followed by direct and indubitable knowledge.
No I don't think so. We don't even need to talk about any particular dharmic proposition. This comes before the "content" of dharma...?
In the same way as I am not trying to reason with you or beat you in an argument, I an not trying to lead you anywhere:)
Absoultly. There are no proofs about this. You cant prove why ignorance causes suffering, you can only, on seeing things as they are, know directly that ignorance leads to suffering, etc etc...
Dharma is not a simple sylogism, its a complete path, rich and deep and spanning all human experience. And it comes with its own tool to navigate the path; with metta and insight and wisdom and, essentially, doubt.
Doubt everything and from there begin to enlighten yourself.
What is contentious about that? What is against any of the scriptures or any of the schools?
great chatting with you as always:)
namaste!
TP: You are speaking of this as this is some kind of logical argument that needs to be valid and satisfied.
S9: Heaven knows I am not a logician. All I am saying is that if you use the mind to doubt, wouldn’t reasoning be a part of that process? Or are you saying rather that your method of doubting is a form of meditation of some kind?
TP: I cannot doubt anataman is true, not because of some deductive, logical conclusion from premises but because, simply, and deeply, It cannot be doubted.
S9: Do you have some way of speaking of why you cannot doubt anataman, or must I simply take your word for this?
I know that you are trying to convey that certain truths are obvious to you. But you have not explained adequately enough why they are obvious to you, or where exactly I must also look in order for them to be come obvious to me.
TP: The same is not true of anataman or annica. We cannot even imagine how they could be false.
S9: First of all, I do not believe that the Anatta Doctrine is false. However I do suspect I interpret its meaning differently than yourself. I see no-self as being synonymous with no-ego-self.
Do you see this differently?
When I reason out about the Buddha’s words, while also looking about me in order to see if these words are remaining consistent with personal experience, I am not so much looking for logical proof as I am looking to keep my reasoning consistent with my experience. In this way, I feel I can lead myself beyond at least false reasoning, and wishful thinking.
Ultimately however I put most of my trust in immediate insights. Reasoning, or intense investigation, acts like a mudra…or puts you in a position to receive these insights.
TP: In the same way as I am not trying to reason with you or beat you in an argument, I am not trying to lead you anywhere.
S9: What exactly ARE you trying to do with your words?
TP: You cant prove why ignorance causes suffering, you can only, on seeing things as they are, know directly that ignorance leads to suffering.
S9: Actually I think you can choose certain ways of acting that represent ignorance, and I believe I can point out how these acts create suffering for oneself and others.
For instance if I were to be jealous, obviously this wouldn’t be a pleasant state of mind. If I also said or did cruel things to others, I would be causing harm or spreading my suffering around. When others reacted to my hash treatment and perhaps hit me back in some way, than suffering would continue to escalate. Can you see this?
I do not see our discussion as being contentious in any way. I see us as examining certain things from multiple perspectives. To me this is a good thing. : ^ )
Warm Regards,
S9
Doubt means "trying not to believe." It isn't any particular methodology or system of knowledge. I need to keep stating that the KS includes reason....
S9: Do you have some way of speaking of why you cannot doubt anataman, or must I simply take your word for this?
I think your not thinking on this, as I have said it a few times. There is not a reason why I cannot doubt anataman, I simply cannot, after extensive attempts, continue to doubt it.
This is not a contingent thing that could be otherwise. I dont have a reason why 1+1=2, I just cant doubt it.
And of course not take my word for this, quite the opposite. Please doubt my doubts and doubt your own;) Be your own light...
I am not sure obvious is the word. How about indubitable.
Look to the world, at all of its levels and possibilities, and try to doubt that all things are empty... etc
So do I. I also see anataman as being true of atoms and molecules and galaxies and hopes and dreams.....
Talk about Buddhism and clarify doubt, this latter point I don't seem to do to well with you:)
Yes.
namaste:)