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.
Explain what Buddhism has to say about materialism
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
however, here, now, today, the cessation of suffering can be experienced in the mind
free from craving, free from clinging, free from appropriating, free from self-views, knowing life is just natural elements (dhamma dhatu), the mind can be at peace
may all beings experience some nibbana
all the best
heres a simple buddhist monk speaking clearly on rebirth, heaven hell etc, he doesnt speak for all buddhists but at least a good share of the tibetan ones.
Thanks for your post, here is my take on this:
- Our "gates" to the outside world are our perceptions. Everything we, as individuals, know is determined from our perceptions. Sure we learn theories about reality, but all these theories are limited by the experimental data which is gleaned though perceptions.
- What we perceive is modified by our beliefs and ideas and other mental states. eg) A nice juicy steak can taste really good (if you're into meat), but eating one after the death of a very close friend or family member or even a dear pet would be a completely different situation, in this case it tastes completely tasteless (an extreme example yes but quite descriptive if somewhat morbid).
So no matter what objective and materialistic theories we have about reality they are 100% dependent (without exception) on the subjective process in some way. So we cannot have a purely objective understanding of reality unless we "chose" to ignore this. In this case the ignoring of the participation of subjectivity in our world view is a clear case of standard Buddhist ignorance.
Also scientific experiments are always artificially set up to exclude outside interference, which is fair enough. However by doing this we are creating artificial environments, who is to say that the results from such restrictive experiments can be extrapolated into the world at large with possibly infinite complexity?
There are so many other assumptions made in science: 1) nature is subject to a mathematical explanation: isn't it collectively egotistical of us to expect nature to conform to maths?, 2) the laws of nature are time independent? Where's the proof to this, most scientists just assume this to be true otherwise all their theories fall down, 3) the Laws of nature are location independent: again no real proof on this one, we may have determined this based on a small amount of experiments here on earth but hardly very conclusive. 4) What is this thing "nature" that scientists refer to? All it is is the modern day equivalent of excluding God. Remember that modern day science was founded on religion, sure they ditched it later but were left with many holes in the basic theories.
Also scientists often, particularly in the media, forget to differentiate between proven theories and their personal beliefs. I saw the other day a scientist was commenting on some (rudimentary) sensory experiments on brain activity and reporting on the results, it was quite interesting, however he then followed up with "in a short while we will know everything about the working of the brain and the mind". The problem is that this was presented as a scientific "fact" rather than just some unproven BS from an undisciplined scientist who doesn't know the limits of his knowledge and authority. There is no scientific evidence at all, even a tiny tiny amount to support his statement.
Basically, materialism just isn't able to withstand analysis, it is flawed. These are the only loop holes there are many more....fundamental particles, the shifting paradigm, etc.
Cheers, WK
Naturally, I would not agree with your appraisal
Firstly, in the Pali, the term 'past lives' does not exist. The term is 'pubbe nivāsā', which means 'past dwellings' or 'past abodes', literally, 'past homes'. When the Buddha spoke to Brahmins & layfollowers, he described pubbenivāsānussati in a certain way, such as in the Bhaya-bherava Sutta
When the Buddha spoke to bhikkhus for the purpose of enlightenment, he described pubbenivāsānussati in another way, such as in the Khajjaniya Sutta
As we are not Arahants, we cannot really know what happened during the Buddha's final completion of enlightenment, when his mind totally 'unwound' or 'purified' its past karma, its past clinging, its past self-views, etc
for example, as adults, we may have clinging & self-beliefs buried within the subsconscious of the mind, formed when we where children, which are not conscious now, which may become conscious via memory but which must be purified if the mind is to reach complete purity from self-view
so when all attachment & self-view was erased from the Buddha's mind, we can speculate this was not only the mind's present attachment but also that from the past
it is our choice to understand this as a literal 'past life' or merely as 'past self-views' (such as when "I was the best artist in kindergarten")
kind regards
But this monk was expelled from the Thai Forest Tradition. Not simply for ordaining women but also for being overly concerned with teaching contrary to the teachings of the Forest Tradition.
This monk's teacher, Ajahn Chah, did not teach the same as him.
the Buddha taught that the senses are likely to delude us in to wrong ideas and create suffering, and to see things as they truly are we have to put our senses, our ego, and a lot of what we call the mind on hold. true awareness, or mindfulness shows us things as they really are, and we can achieve happiness with a much simpler life less obssesed with "things",
Some of the happiest people in the world are Buddhist monks and nuns who have renounced the world to practise simple living, love, compassion, and mindfulnness in humble settings with very few possesions. Certainly the Buddha offered a way to happiness for poor people who in Hindu society were taught they were nothing compared to the wealthy Brahman elite.
No not specifically this one, but a lot of these shows have the same simplistic representation of science. Unfortunately, this is the same representation that teachers of science present. So you end up with a lot of educated scientists that do not know the real bounds of their knowledge. It should be necessary for scientists to have a real working understanding of philosophy to be able to report scientific facts. That will keep them honest. If only 21st century science could catch up with 21st century philosophy (or even 20th).
BTW: I'm passionate about this just because I ***was*** an absolute scientific materialist and absolutely believed that this theory was flawless. It took my investigation of buddhism to realise how flawed scientific materialism was as a theory of reality. It was like being hit over the head with a brick!
Don't believe anyone, especially theories based on consensus (aka peer reviews)!
Cheers, WK
Certainly not an ad-hominem attack. You posted Buddhism is not for those who do not believe in rebirth.
Example, when Kitsagotami lost her child & the Buddha instructed her to acquire one mustard seed, was the Buddha concerned with rebirth or was he concerned with relieving Kitsagotami of her anguish & suffering?
Your view is dangerous & disrespectful.
It is like say a human being does to need to see a doctor because they do not believe in rebirth.
It is saying the many practitioners who have strived to extinguish dukkha using the Buddha's methods do not need Buddhism.
:screwy: The Jataka stories are for children, just like the rebirth teachings, to encourage morality. They are unrelated to the end of suffering.
The Jataka stories could not end Kitsagotami's suffering. The Jataka stories cannot result in enlightenment & Nirvana. I have not misrespresented the Buddha-Dhamma. The Buddha taught there are two kinds of right view, namely, mundane & supramundane.
The two kinds of teachings are given to different dispositions of students.
Each of us has the right to chose whatever suits us.
As for your "Western Buddhists" ad-hominem attack, there are many Eastern Buddhists who do not ascribe to rebirth.
There is no agreement to date, however, in my view, there are ample means for women to take full ordaination. It has not been agreed on or openly accepted however it is openly tolerated. For example, the Thais do not want female ordaination but female bhikkhunis receive sufficient hospitality in Thailand.
Kind regards
Ven. S. Dhammika: http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/gqga-4ed.pdf
Ven. Narada, Thera: http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/nutshell.pdf
Aggacitta Bhikkhu: http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/dietolive.pdf
Bhikkhu Nanamoli & Bhikkhu Bodhi: Introduction to the Majjhima Nikaya
In addition of course there are many suttas which mention rebirth including the Buddha stating where dead monks have been reborn, including material and non-material realms of existence. And of course, the Buddha himself recalled innumerable past lives which led him to declare:
"Without recognisable end is this samsara. A first beginning of beings, who, obstructed by ignorance and fettered by craving, wander and fare on, is not to be perceived."
I could go on as the number of monks that discuss rebirth is enormous. However, this is a pointless exercise, ultimately. I suggest you drop your wrong view and aggressive personal attacks and accept the Buddha-dhamma as it is being taught by the Sangha and the suttas.
if anyone has dangerous and disrespectful views i would look within myself before criticising someone for only believing what most buddhists believe, so you're beliefs are in the minority, big deal, you still have every right to believe them, you strike me as a buddhist nihilist, a lot of new buddhists want to hear about reincarnation, in fact a lot of new believers are drawn to the idea,
the scriptures you're continually quoting aren't basic buddhism for new buddhists, and are incomprehensible to newcomers. try to answer this question; how does not believing in rebirth and an afterlife make my life better and happier, less suffering, and how can it help others feel the same? you're words, please, without quoting scripture, personally my life would be completely hopeless if i had no belief in the afterlives, but thats just me
Most things DD says make perfect sense to me, and his quotes from the Buddha and various teachers are extremely helpful in supporting what he says. He also has considerable offline experience.
Were you a Buddhist or a Christian monk,by the way, 'former monk John'?
You need to control yourselves, folks.
one of my main inspirations at the temple for being a monk was a cambodian family man, married, who had taken the vow for three days only, so he could go back to his family. i hope this answers you're question.
To answer your question, you don't need to think of it in any special way. The physical brain is the part that contains memories, memories that condition the mind's state and were conditioned by previous states of mind. And so changes in the mind are changes in the brain; changes in the brain are changes in the mind. Enlightenment can be explained as the perceptions of the world of the mind, in the here-and-now, and the perceptions that have previously existed and solidified in the memory, changing to align with reality.
So the answer is yes. There's no need to go further or for there to be argument, and regardless of your beliefs in rebirth, enlightenment can help you go beyond all suffering in this life while still living. My two cents.
(It may not be perfect, in fact I wrote this real quick without trying to think about it, so please don't nit-pick... but the truth is, the truth is beyond belief and systems of thought. It can come to anyone, simply by realizing what is there. Don't get too caught up in what others tell you that you must believe... because that's their belief. This too is my opinion, but take it for what it's worth.)
Namaste
The primary matter was the ordination.
But then, when the bhikkhus were giving Brahm the dressing down, they also labelled him "Mahayana", saying he visited Thailand often but did not visit the forest monastary. Instead, he was overly obssessed with teaching laypeople (mundane Dhamma) in Bangkok.
As least Ajahn Buddhadasa regarded being overly concerned with teaching morality as unacceptable.
I do not have a dual personality.
I give credit where I believe it is due and where i believe it is not.
Now about your post, it is this that makes no sense:
(1) Contrary to what you asserted, the OP in this thread, a new buddhist, did not want to hear about reincarnation.
(2) The Buddha did not define a "nihilist" as you did. The Buddha defined nihilism in two ways: (a) morally, not believing results of actions, which includes not believing there are happy & painful destinations; and (b) spiritually, believing death will bring peace (what he called "over reaching"), rather than practising the 8FP here & now.
(3) The scriptures I am quoting are not comprehensible to you. But the first scripture I quoted was comprehensible to the OP. He confirmed that, saying he agreed with MN 38
(4) personally, your life would be completely hopeless if you had no belief in the afterlives, but thats you. for the OP it is the contrary. for me, it is the contrary. quoting scripture below, what you must rely on in your life is inappropriate for enlightenment. if you have no interest in practising the noble path, of letting go of 'self-view', of developing the perception of impermanence (anicca sanna), of abandoning craving, then that is your choice
(5) personally, I would not have got so involved in this thread if Vangelis did not say: "Buddhism is not for you if you do not believe in rebirth". This is entirely false. If a person wants to believe in rebirth, they can become a Hindu. In Hinduism, the 8FP, three characteristics, etc, are not found but rebirth is found. If person has no suffering that needs to be extinguished, then they do not need the 4NTs, 8FP, 3Cs, emptiness, etc.
Each time you yearfully argue your case for reincarnation, as the Buddha advised, unarisen fermentations [of becoming] arise and arisen fermentations [of becoming] increase.
I would suggest being open to possibilities. Why should we think the world is ordinary and 'explained' by our intellectual assumptions and understanding?
(the opinions expressed here are not necessarily representations of my own realization, my readings, the dharma, or my teachers communication to me. Nonetheless I enjoy sharing my ideas with fellow brothers and sisters)
In Thailand, it is the norm most young men spend three months as a monk. Many do so reluctantly. Why? Their mother's push them to do it because she believes it will help her gain a favourable rebirth. Also, practically, in the atmosphere of sensory deprivation, the monks can brainwash the young men into respecting them, so when they get married, when their wifes run to the monastery complaining about their husband's bad behaviour, hopefully the husband will listen to the monks.
All of this is part of the Buddhism of Thai society.
Have you not realised yet the grave & deadly error of your original post, where it was asserted: For one who believes in rebirth, all I can say is you are quite heedless.
The suttas teach as follows:
Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves.
Here, ruler of gods, a bhikkhu has heard that nothing is worth clinging to. When a bhikkhu has heard that nothing is worth adhering to, he directly knows everything; having directly known everything, he fully understands everything; having directly known everything, he fully understood everything,
And what is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the other worlds. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the others after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions.
"And what is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for Awakening, the path factor of right view of one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is free from effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
:om:
same man on the 'simple' Dalai Lama
I said the primary reason was the ordination.
But he was dressed down for other matters considered alien to WPP.
For example, if Ajahn Sumedo ordained the woman, I sense the matter would have unfolded much differently. Ajahn Sumedo would probably have been treated with much more respect by WPP.
Jason. Do you not regard it rather unusual Ajahn Brahm's teachings do not have the same flavour as Ajahn Chah? For example, Ajahn Brahm's explanation of Dependent Origination is in complete contradiction to that of Ajahn Chah.
In response to the expulsion, do you regard Ajahn Amaro was speaking falsely when he said it was his duty is the deliver "the message" [of Emptiness] of Ajahn Chah?
Anyway. My questions are just for your reflection. I have no wish or expectation you reply.
Are not our motivations rooted in the brain, according to psychology & biology?
For example, when human beings have psychiatric conditions, they may be given medications that include certain chemicals or, in rare cases, receive a lobotomy.
By directly affecting the brain, these treatments are able to control the mind's moods.
Now enlightenment also controls or negates the mind's moods. The Buddha taught enlightenment results in the ending of the asava (mental fermentations), that is, the ending of greed, hatred & delusion.
It follows we can speculatively but confidently probably make a correlation between enlightenment & brain activity.
For example, I recall the His Holiness The Dalai Lama, in his wisdom, has taken a scientific interest in meditation, enlightenment & brain activity.
Hi Vajraheart,
Could you explain what you mean by 'lack of experience' ?
kind regards,
Dazzle
As for speculating whether things would have been different if Ajahn Sumedho were to have done it, I think that's rather pointless. There's no way of knowing whether things would've been different. Not really. Ajahm Brahm isn't Ajahn Chah. Different people have different teachings styles. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "Ajahn Brahm's explanation of Dependent Origination is in complete contradiction to that of Ajahn Chah." To be honest, I'm not really that familiar with either. Maybe you could start a new thread comparing the two. I'm not really sure what that means. I'd have to read what he said in context. I'm about to run out the door right now, but when I have the time, I'll do that and tell you what I think if you're still interested.
Did i read you post somewhere you had experienced "your" past lives?
The Buddha taught all things are not "ours".
The Buddha also taught the mind can only experience five things, namely, form, feeling, perception, mental formation & consciousness.
Whatever your mind experienced within itself was simply mental formations.
The Buddha said:
Thus, monks, any mental formations whatsoever that is past, future or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right wisdom as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
(Khajjaniya Sutta: Chewed Up)
In short, your mind did not experience your former lives. Instead, I say, your mind is deluded.
All the best
Though it points out the fallacy of undermining confidence in our own discernment by describing it as a mental formation.
The suttas state the Buddha remembered, with memory, his previous "homes".
The suttas state the Buddha did not use any special means (such as the divine eye) to recollect his past dwellings.
Keep in mind the Buddha said:
"Monks, any priests or contemplatives who recollect their manifold past dwellings all recollect the five aggregates, or one among them. Which five?
When recollecting, 'I was one with such a form in the past,' one is recollecting just form.
Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a feeling in the past,' one is recollecting just feeling.
Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a perception in the past,' one is recollecting just perception.
Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such mental fabrications in the past,' one is recollecting just mental fabrications.
Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a consciousness in the past,' one is recollecting just consciousness.
The continuation of habit patterns within consciousness lasts beyond the individual body due to it's subtlety and clinging to self. For an enlightened being, this patterns is transformed into maintaining self awareness as an offering, leading to things such as the tulku tradition. There are too many proofs for past lives, kids that remember spontaneously without parental inference, etc.
Because you are reading this sutta with an attachment to an outcome, you are not open to any sort of possible clarification and might not take my clarification with any weight. This has more to do with your pre-conceptions than my level of delusion.
Seeing past lives directly for me does not solidify this sense of self, but realizes more deeply relativity and the subtle depth of mind. Sensations, forms, etc. exist on other dimensions, not merely physical. You are limiting your perception to gross level, and are missing much of what the Buddha taught in the Pali Suttas. You should go deeper into Jhana and stop attaching so much onto the body.
As an aside my teacher says that the skandas are mistaken perceptions of how reality is. They are how things appear. As much 'relative truth' as rebirth and karma in fact.