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.
The problem is that the sutras and practices don't just teach the Noble Truths and life of Buddha and give detailed rules for monks to follow. The sutras also include information presented as literal fact that includes gods, demons, miracles, various alternate realms, and of course declarations about past lives and literal reincarnation. Now, anyone who studies the religions and myths of humanity over the ages expects this. Every culture had their own set of beliefs and myths including beliefs on what happens after death, and ancient India was no exception. Buddhism developed within the framework of existing beliefs and those beliefs influenced the monks that wrote the sutras. Obvious.
But unlike science, once Buddhism came to be regarded as Revealed Truth, then anything in the sacred scriptures is to be accepted and you are not allowed to challenge or change anything. Science questions assumptions from even the great thinkers of the past and anticipates old beliefs will be superceded by new knowledge. Religion rejects questioning since the assumption is the original Revealed Truth is by definiton pure and complete and any deviation from ancient teachings is curruption, not advancement.
There will never be a call from some scientific community to "Return to that old time science, the kind our grandfathers believed, where the earth was the center of the universe and everything made sense!"
Granted, Buddhism isn't as bad as most other religions. It started off grounded in human experience and tries to make the case that arguments about unprovable beliefs in gods and such are distractions. One sutra even slipped in a call to question and decide for yourself (but people, being what they are, insist the only conclusion an enlightened person should come to is that the sutras are right).
My own take is that the Dharma can withstand a bit of criticism, a touch of doubt, and seeing the monks and even Buddha as great thinkers, but just people. They were not gods. They lived before telescopes and microscopes and knew nothing about genetics or cells or dna, so a theory about past life karma causing birth defects seemed logical. Today we know better, but refuse to give up the belief because our sacred founders believed it.
There is a core set of observations that Buddha gave us about suffering, the cause and elimination. There is a wider set of instructions the other great Masters gave us as to the nature of our minds and how to change the way we think about ourselves and the world. It changed my life and that itself was a miracle. The rest is fascinating but irrelivent to me.
Excellent post!
Fortunately, although "Religion rejects questioning", man's nature is to question.
Cinorjer: I don't find in your words a genuine, academic criticism of Buddhism. What they reveal, instead, is the all-too-common Western attitude towards Buddhism which comes under the rubric of secular Buddhism. What belies this attitude is a kind of intellectual colonialism in which science is the new missionary whose job it is, is to save Buddhism; to rescue it from its antiquated, outworn superstitions such as karma, rebirth and nirvana.
I have to thank you for a new buzword. "Intellectual colonialism" is a new one on me.
Sorry my words don't impress you, but how am I supposed to respond to what is basically a sweeping condemnation of any foreign influence on your cherished Eastern religion?
What would constitute "genuine academic criticism" in your mind, and why in the world do you expect an anonymous post on a website to meet your strict criteria?
If you can stop attacking the messengers long enough to address the message, what exactly in my post did you disagree with, and why?
There may be times when one supports the other, just as there are times one debunks some aspect of the other.
Does the "may" in the first sentence, apply to the second? And if not, what specifically has science debunked about buddhism (mainly the claims in the sutras)?
@Songhill, (just to be precise), I'm just wondering what the heck makes you the authority to be able to judge or evaluate someone else's PoV in this way....
I think the attempt to compare the natural and physical sciences with Buddhism's own science, which is for the 'first person', can't be done. Nothing is Buddhism should be edited out or revised because it doesn't chime with the natural and physical sciences.
The natural and physical sciences study natural phenomena and physical things. Buddhist science has for its object the mind emptied of all disturbances (which is the One Mind) from which we are able to see the world the way it really is, and not as we imagine.
The world is the same as a dream, and so are the multiplicities of things in it; [the wise] see property, touch, death, a world-teacher, and works as of the same nature. ~ Lankavatara Sutra
... For example, claiming that science 'proves' there is no rebirth is saying experience proves that green-with-pink frogs don't exist. You can't say they surely don't exist just because you've never seen one (I guess you didn't ). So when science has never measured or shown rebirth (some disagree quoting Stephenson) that's in no way a prove for there being no rebirth. ...
There is some room for “evidence of absence”, but it is tricky. However, after two and a half millennium of “absence of evidence” it is fairly reasonable to start talking of “evidence of absence”. We checked our pocket long enough now. (And Stevenson, I think, only found the spare change he put in his pocket himself.)
Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist, as in the evidentiary axiom[1] that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".[2]
A simple example of evidence of absence: checking one's pocket for spare change and finding none but being confident that one would have found it there, were it anywhere to be found. This can be formulated as modus tollens in propositional logic: P implies Q, but Q is false, therefore P is false.
In this regard Irving Copi writes: In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence
... For example, claiming that science 'proves' there is no rebirth is saying experience proves that green-with-pink frogs don't exist. You can't say they surely don't exist just because you've never seen one (I guess you didn't ). So when science has never measured or shown rebirth (some disagree quoting Stephenson) that's in no way a prove for there being no rebirth. ...
There is some room for “evidence of absence”, but it is tricky. However, after two and a half millennium of “absence of evidence” it is fairly reasonable to start talking of “evidence of absence”. We checked our pocket long enough now. (And Stevenson, I think, only found the spare change he put in his pocket himself.)
Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist, as in the evidentiary axiom[1] that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".[2]
A simple example of evidence of absence: checking one's pocket for spare change and finding none but being confident that one would have found it there, were it anywhere to be found. This can be formulated as modus tollens in propositional logic: P implies Q, but Q is false, therefore P is false.
In this regard Irving Copi writes: In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence
2500 years is a drop in the bucket in comparison to how long things have been going on, so I would suggest that your sample size is a weak spot. Also the qualifier of "qualified" on investigators is also another weak spot. Perhaps we as humans are not "qualified" to investigate based on our current biology.
Take for example two eyes vs one. Have you ever just sat and experimented with what you perceive as a 3rd dimension? Close one eye, observe something in the "distance", and then open your eye and see what happens. Do this over and over and see if you can pin down what quality you would appears and disappears. Easy to say depth (a dimension), but what is that really? If it takes two eyes to see "depth", are there the other dimensions that can't be perceived because we don't have a biological part to perceive it?
Here's a very interesting look at applying the scientific method to Near Death Experiences (NDEs):
"This article is a popular version on an article published by The Journal of Near-Death Studies, a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Summary: In this article, we hypothesize that NDEs are the experience of having the state of consciousness in which a person experiences the last moment of their lives being turned, in stages, into first the state of consciousness experienced as the life review, and then "the point of no return" (PNR). The life review is crucial in our hypothesis, as we interpret it as more of a review of the states of consciousness (states) we experienced during our lives. Our responses to looking at how we behaved while in specific states during or lives reinforces our behaviors and 'tags' them for repetition or avoidance in future lives. The traditional doctrines of reincarnation are modified so as to take biological and cultural evolution into account. This allows us to understand how the attributes of NDEs could have selected even though all opportunities for mating have already passed at the time of death. "
Is any source of knowledge an island? Or is knowledge (gnosis) itself the island?
It won't work. There is a huge difference between exegesis and eisegesis. Exegesis has already been done. It is found in the commentarial literature. We don't need eisegesis.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Tough. It's here and it happens all the time. "We" may not need it, but we all do it. Including, I might add, you.
I really like this line. I feel it sums up things rather nicely.
science is as accurate as its description (the physical laws for example) while in Buddhism the description of things is always less accurate than reality.
I think so too. Most people in the world belief their thoughts are right. "I think this, so this is true.", "My thoughts say there is no rebirth, so there is no rebirth." Or as Descartes said "I think therefore I am". Well, as far as Buddhism is concerned, that's wrong. The truth is not in thoughts, and can't be reached through thoughts. I'd even say thoughts can't be trusted, only silence can. That's where we find out what the mind is like. But science is almost entirely -if not fully- made by thoughts, so doesn't really have any role to play for Buddhism as far as I'm concerned. So whoever tries to make any statement for or against rebirth (or other Buddhist aspects) based upon thoughts/philosophy is approaching it from a wrong perspective, imo. Like eating soup with a fork, it's the wrong tool.
So I try to encourage people to investigate it for themselves with a quite mind. And I'll say it here again - rebirth can be verified. One method is in the suttas.
I really like this line. I feel it sums up things rather nicely.
science is as accurate as its description (the physical laws for example) while in Buddhism the description of things is always less accurate than reality.
I think so too. Most people in the world belief their thoughts are right. "I think this, so this is true.", "My thoughts say there is no rebirth, so there is no rebirth." Or as Descartes said "I think therefore I am". Well, as far as Buddhism is concerned, that's wrong. The truth is not in thoughts, and can't be reached through thoughts. I'd even say thoughts can't be trusted, only silence can. That's where we find out what the mind is like. But science is almost entirely -if not fully- made by thoughts, so doesn't really have any role to play for Buddhism as far as I'm concerned.
I think this is why Zen (and eastern perspectives in general) has a focus on not just what is there, but what is not there. Why do we focus solely on thought, when there is both thought and no thought. Furthermore, by seeing thought and no thought, we might actually see the whole that is made up by those pieces. Perhaps even see that that whole is merely a part of another whole, etc, etc.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@federica... is it basically a goal of buddhism (right view/right understanding) to become aware of and change it, is it not?
..."it"....?
The point of Buddhism is to Understand Suffering and end it. How we all go about that, is our own path. We all link arms, but the only ones moving the feet - is us....
@federica... is it basically a goal of buddhism (right view/right understanding) to become aware of and change it, is it not?
..."it"....?
The point of Buddhism is to Understand Suffering and end it. How we all go about that, is our own path. We all link arms, but the only ones moving the feet - is us....
Perhaps I misunderstood your "it". To what were you referring by "it" in the quote below?
Yes... that is to what I was referring. I guess I was equating it to our ignorance... but I guess we can have our own ideas, biases and the like, and still have right view/understanding.... hmmm
Buddhist science has for its object the mind emptied of all disturbances (which is the One Mind) from which we are able to see the world the way it really is, and not as we imagine.
I just want to echo this statement. I feel that Buddhism is scientific in its approach, its object of observation isn't the external world but the internal world of subjective experience.
The nature of our internal world is such that, at least at present, it can't be shared with anyone else. Since that is the case the only way to verify the Buddha's discoveries is to engage in one's own observations of the mind. Many have done exactly that over the years and in doing so have verified Buddha's teaching.
Several of Buddhism's claims about the external world have been disproven and generally abandonded. I think that its claims about rebirth and other more mystical aspects are likely based upon direct knowledge, for me though just the observation that the nature of the mind is immaterial and more than just the body is enough to logically posit rebirth and psychic experiences.
Some of us (including me) have repeated themselves enough, I guess. It doesn’t look like we are going to reach agreement any time soon.
I think this kind of discussions is good though, because – the way I see it - Buddhism should be open to questioning. Practice requires faith; but - again in my opinion – that faith should be put in the process of practice; not in the dogmatic belief-system of any particular school of Buddhism.
Practice requires a ruthlessly critical attitude. It’s supposed to destroy our narrative about who we are. We will get to the point where we will “drop off body and mind”. No one else can do that for us. We can’t do that when we simply parrot some fixed teaching. We must grow up. We need some courage and strength; we need to trust ouw own judgement.
Buddhism developed within the framework of existing beliefs and those beliefs influenced the monks that wrote the sutras. Obvious.
I don't think it's obvious atall. First there was a formalised oral tradition with groups of monks checking each other for consistency and accuracy, eventually things were written down with the same attention to detail. And I think it's very unlikely that monks made things up in the way you suggest. So IMO the likelihood is that the suttas are a broadly accurate account of what the Buddha taught. Obviously we can't be sure, but an objective appraisal is bound to be hindered by either blind belief or skepticism.
Practice requires faith; but - again in my opinion – that faith should be put in the process of practice; not in the dogmatic belief-system of any particular school of Buddhism.
I agree, but I also think we need to view our own dogmatic belief system with the same skepticism.
I think the attempt to compare the natural and physical sciences with Buddhism's own science, which is for the 'first person', can't be done. Nothing is Buddhism should be edited out or revised because it doesn't chime with the natural and physical sciences.
The natural and physical sciences study natural phenomena and physical things. Buddhist science has for its object the mind emptied of all disturbances (which is the One Mind) from which we are able to see the world the way it really is, and not as we imagine.
The world is the same as a dream, and so are the multiplicities of things in it; [the wise] see property, touch, death, a world-teacher, and works as of the same nature. ~ Lankavatara Sutra
My opinion is that Buddhism is either grounded in reality or it's just another set of tribal myths and rituals the same as every other religion. Unless your beliefs are confirmed by your own experience and intellect, all you're doing is playing a game of make believe and you'll never penetrate to the real nature of the world.
Zen Buddhism taught me that there are not two realities: one of the natural or physical world subject to physical laws and one of the mind where anything is possible. There is only here and now, and reality is just like this, and all else is illusion caused by a mind that confuses its own personal desires and sense of importance with reality. When you embark on a journey to enlightenment, reality is not going to change. Reality is not a dream. When you fall off a cliff in a dream, you might fly or you might wake up. In reality, you keep falling until you hit bottom, and then you die.
Buddhism is not a thing that exists in one form and with one practice and set of beliefs, and here is the package and instructions and this is what Buddha taught and what you must believe. From the beginning, people took the Buddha's message and translated it and added to it and used it to create their own customized practice that fit their culture. The Buddha would not even recognize Tibetan Buddhism as practiced today in his name, with its seemingly contradictory demon worship. That doesn't make it invalid.
1. Buddhism is grounded in reality. 2. Evidence for Buddhism is borne out of practice.
Where we seem to separate is what we consider in the scope of reality.
I believe that given the incredible nature of reality we can see thus far, we are not seeing the whole picture. Nor will our current version of science be able to give us that whole picture. Science and humanity will need to change in order to get a better grasp on the "whole" thing, if we even can. It strikes me that striving for the truth through empirical means is just another subtle form of clinging and will never be satisfied. We must use the raft to cross the river, but not continue to carry it with us.
We are all at different levels in our practice-another reason why it is important to travel your own path. It doesn't mean we can't help each other along, but it does mean that we are limited by our our clinging and our ability to see it (right view).
1. Buddhism is grounded in reality. 2. Evidence for Buddhism is borne out of practice.
Where we seem to separate is what we consider in the scope of reality.
I believe that given the incredible nature of reality we can see thus far, we are not seeing the whole picture. Nor will our current version of science be able to give us that whole picture. Science and humanity will need to change in order to get a better grasp on the "whole" thing, if we even can. It strikes me that striving for the truth through empirical means is just another subtle form of clinging and will never be satisfied. We must use the raft to cross the river, but not continue to carry it with us.
We are all at different levels in our practice-another reason why it is important to travel your own path. It doesn't mean we can't help each other along, but it does mean that we are limited by our our clinging and our ability to see it (right view).
Cinorjer : Are you saying that Zen taught you that there is only a "here and now" reality? If this is so, how is a simple here and now not a freeze frame of samara?
Buddhist science has for its object the mind emptied of all disturbances (which is the One Mind) from which we are able to see the world the way it really is, and not as we imagine.
I just want to echo this statement. I feel that Buddhism is scientific in its approach, its object of observation isn't the external world but the internal world of subjective experience.
I'm inclined to agree. I can certainly see Buddhism as a type of contemplative science based upon its contemplative methods and techniques, or at least a stepping stone towards developing, in the words of Sam Harris, "a scientific account of the contemplative path" that can eventually become a contemplative science.
Buddhism developed within the framework of existing beliefs and those beliefs influenced the monks that wrote the sutras. Obvious.
I don't think it's obvious atall. First there was a formalised oral tradition with groups of monks checking each other for consistency and accuracy, eventually things were written down with the same attention to detail. And I think it's very unlikely that monks made things up in the way you suggest. So IMO the likelihood is that the suttas are a broadly accurate account of what the Buddha taught. Obviously we can't be sure, but an objective appraisal is bound to be hindered by either blind belief or skepticism.
I tend to side with Cinorher here in that it only takes the shading of a word here or there (not to mention translation issues) to begin to change meanings.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I tend to side with Cinorher here in that it only takes the shading of a word here or there (not to mention translation issues) to begin to change meanings.
Good point.
Let's eat Grandma! Let's eat, Grandma!
Woman, without her man, is nothing. Woman, without her, man is nothing.
I tend to side with Cinorher here in that it only takes the shading of a word here or there (not to mention translation issues) to begin to change meanings.
Good point.
Let's eat Grandma! Let's eat, Grandma!
Woman, without her man, is nothing. Woman, without her, man is nothing.
On the other hand, we also have context for things. It isn't just one place where certain concepts like rebirth are mentioned: its repeated throughout the sutras. I suppose if there a very error filled text and everything else was based on that, then it would be a valid issue. I am not familiar enough with the history of the sutras to know if this is the case.
Let's eat Grandma! She always makes great food. We eat grandma every sunday. Let's eat, Grandma! She always makes great food. We eat with grandma every sunday.
Sorry... I couldn't help it. I like your grandma scenario.
On the other hand, we also have context for things. It isn't just one place where certain concepts like rebirth are mentioned: its repeated throughout the sutras. I suppose if there a very error filled text and everything else was based on that, then it would be a valid issue. I am not familiar enough with the history of the sutras to know if this is the case.
So why are there thousands of posts in our forum discussing it, if it is all so clear?
On the other hand, we also have context for things. It isn't just one place where certain concepts like rebirth are mentioned: its repeated throughout the sutras. I suppose if there a very error filled text and everything else was based on that, then it would be a valid issue. I am not familiar enough with the history of the sutras to know if this is the case.
So why are there thousands of posts in our forum discussing it, if it is all so clear?
Well I never said it was clear. I just said that if things have multiple descriptions, it is possible to look at all of them-plus our meditation experience-and see past the errors. It is like the concept of RAID in computer data. If you have enough copies of data in various ways, when issues arise, the original data can be reconstructed from the pieces.
But lets call it clear for sake of discussion. There are thousands of posts in our forum, because people approach it from so many different angles. We bring our own background to the table. We all have our own perspectives on it. This is what I would call the assumption of a shared reality. Sure there are common pieces, but your reality and mine are VERY different: different upbringings, different life experiences, etc. @Songhill used the word, eisegesis. We cling to different things, so as a result we have a conformational bias in that direction. Perhaps if we were both fully enlightening, we might be able to see the same reality; but even then I doubt it wouldn't change our unique understanding of it.
Maybe we all agree, but we can't see it because the topic is too subtle and language too coarse.
On the other hand, we also have context for things. It isn't just one place where certain concepts like rebirth are mentioned: its repeated throughout the sutras. I suppose if there a very error filled text and everything else was based on that, then it would be a valid issue. I am not familiar enough with the history of the sutras to know if this is the case.
So why are there thousands of posts in our forum discussing it, if it is all so clear?
Well I never said it was clear. I just said that if things have multiple descriptions, it is possible to look at all of them-plus our meditation experience-and see past the errors. It is like the concept of RAID in computer data. If you have enough copies of data in various ways, when issues arise, the original data can be reconstructed from the pieces.
But lets call it clear for sake of discussion. There are thousands of posts in our forum, because people approach it from so many different angles. We bring our own background to the table. We all have our own perspectives on it. This is what I would call the assumption of a shared reality. Sure there are common pieces, but your reality and mine are VERY different: different upbringings, different life experiences, etc. @Songhill used the word, eisegesis. We cling to different things, so as a result we have a conformational bias in that direction. Perhaps if we were both fully enlightening, we might be able to see the same reality; but even then I doubt it wouldn't change our unique understanding of it.
Maybe we all agree, but we can't see it because the topic is too subtle and language too coarse.
It seems as if you're arguing against your point.
And if we were fully enlightened, we would still see it differently?
I think you put it all on shaky ground.
But that's just my perspective based on what I bring to the table, based on what I am clinging to.
Cinorjer : Are you saying that Zen taught you that there is only a "here and now" reality? If this is so, how is a simple here and now not a freeze frame of samara?
"After Nirvana, the laundry."
Ah, but Zen approaches reality by insisting there is only here-and-now, the present moment, and samsara and nirvana are not two seperate things. They are the same reality experienced by either a clear mind or a defiled mind. A Buddha still eats, craps, gets sick and bleeds if someone cuts him.
Before you think I'm saying that means there is no nirvana, neither does Zen say samsara is nirvana. They are not two separate things, but they aren't the same thing either. Not one, but not two. Is it any wonder Zen Buddhists act sort of spacy after a bout of meditation and wrapping their minds around this?
And thus I've just spouted nonsense and anyone of sense throws up their hands and says Zen is only a bunch of crazy talk. But if reality is what it is, "just like this" in our language, then the mind is what changes. So what is it that is changing? That is the question that Zen practice is designed to penetrate.
So enlightenment is a state of mind. What else can it be? But we don't create our own reality, we only place illusion on top of it. Enlightened or enraged, if you're sitting under a rock when it falls, you're going to get hit.
Cinorjer : Are you saying that Zen taught you that there is only a "here and now" reality? If this is so, how is a simple here and now not a freeze frame of samara?
So enlightenment is a state of mind. What else can it be?
On the other hand, we also have context for things. It isn't just one place where certain concepts like rebirth are mentioned: its repeated throughout the sutras. I suppose if there a very error filled text and everything else was based on that, then it would be a valid issue. I am not familiar enough with the history of the sutras to know if this is the case.
So why are there thousands of posts in our forum discussing it, if it is all so clear?
Well I never said it was clear. I just said that if things have multiple descriptions, it is possible to look at all of them-plus our meditation experience-and see past the errors. It is like the concept of RAID in computer data. If you have enough copies of data in various ways, when issues arise, the original data can be reconstructed from the pieces.
But lets call it clear for sake of discussion. There are thousands of posts in our forum, because people approach it from so many different angles. We bring our own background to the table. We all have our own perspectives on it. This is what I would call the assumption of a shared reality. Sure there are common pieces, but your reality and mine are VERY different: different upbringings, different life experiences, etc. @Songhill used the word, eisegesis. We cling to different things, so as a result we have a conformational bias in that direction. Perhaps if we were both fully enlightening, we might be able to see the same reality; but even then I doubt it wouldn't change our unique understanding of it.
Maybe we all agree, but we can't see it because the topic is too subtle and language too coarse.
It seems as if you're arguing against your point.
And if we were fully enlightened, we would still see it differently?
I think you put it all on shaky ground.
But that's just my perspective based on what I bring to the table, based on what I am clinging to.
haha yep and mine too.
Me arguing against my point is just that I am speaking in dualities, but referring to something that isn't dualistic.
I don't think it's obvious atall. First there was a formalised oral tradition with groups of monks checking each other for consistency and accuracy, eventually things were written down with the same attention to detail. And I think it's very unlikely that monks made things up in the way you suggest. So IMO the likelihood is that the suttas are a broadly accurate account of what the Buddha taught. Obviously we can't be sure, but an objective appraisal is bound to be hindered by either blind belief or skepticism.
Apart from how the suttas seem to have been transmitted, there are other reasons why I see it as not so obvious - reasons that I always gave more weight.
One thing that one could question is why the Buddha and his monks would blindly take on the idea of rebirth, while all other things are investigated and doubted. Even the existence of a self is challenged, something that was also core to Brahman faith. Also casts were set aside by the Buddha, he placed women on equal ability, which was also very challenging at that time. He didn't belief his own teachers, and even had a totally different understanding of how rebirth was seen and how it occured, where it would go, what enlightenment is, on the gods, etc etc.
One could think of many reasons why rebirth would be somehow an exception that wasn't questioned by the Buddha, but I don't think it makes strong evidence; especially considering that there were also many other views existing at the time, as it appears to be in the suttas. Materialism was one of those views the Buddha rejected, was that just based on his environment or..? If people now and before can get beyond the belief in God in christian environments, surely the Buddha and his monks who devoted their entire lives to finding the truth would have been capable of leaving behind old views as well. That's not a superhuman thing to do, not now and not 2500 years ago.
So if one rejects rebirth, on equal grounds everything else in the suttas can be rejected as well. Which is fine, I like critical people. But being critical selectively could not be all that useful.
Zen says there is only the here and the now. Samsara and nirvana are the same when either a defiled or clear mind experiences them. A Buddha is a human being like anyone else.
I am not saying that nirvana and samara are the same or they are different.
You might think this is all crazy talk. But if we grant that reality is what it is just like this, then it is mind that is changing. So what is that changes? This is what Zen tries to answer.
Enlightenment is only a state of mind. We place one illusion on top of another. Awakened or enraged both can get hurt by a rock.
My question is light of this, how does your Zen philosophy deal with this which is from the Udana?
"Monks, there is a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded. Monks, if that unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded were not, there would be apparent no escape from this here that is born, become, made, compounded. But since, monks, there is an unborn ... therefore the escape from this here is born, become ... is apparent" (PTS translation).
Cinorjer : Are you saying that Zen taught you that there is only a "here and now" reality? If this is so, how is a simple here and now not a freeze frame of samara?
So enlightenment is a state of mind. What else can it be?
"Monks, there is a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded.
I gained nothing at all from supreme enlightenment, and for that very reason it is called supreme enlightenment. - the Buddha
If you cannot find the truth right where you are, where else do you expect to find it? - Dogen Zenji
Birth, life, and death; it is all "just like this". What was your face before your parents were born? Answer that, and you comprehend the not-made. If there is a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded, then you are still in this incarnation born, become, made, compounded. How do you get from one to the other?
Emptiness is form and form is emptiness. Not one and not two.
Not one, and not two. To say you either have or don't have Buddha Nature is to already go wrong. As long as you see nirvana as something "out there" or outside of your everyday life, you will never get one step closer to it. You might as well try to reach the horizon. No matter how far you travel, it remains just as far away.
Here I draw my own particular line between knowledge and experience in Buddhism, and say my cherished science reaches a limit and I stand on a sandy beach, looking out at the unknown waters of my own mind.
In all our debates, even with Songhill who asks me such irritating questions, I suspect we tilt at windmills that exist only in our own limited imagination.
If there is a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded, then you are still in this incarnation born, become, made, compounded. How do you get from one to the other?
You don't, because we're already there.
If we're in an incarnation, we're born, become, made, compounded. But we aren't in an incarnation; only words know incarnations and birth and death.
@sabre "So if one rejects rebirth, on equal grounds everything else in the suttas can be rejected as well. Which is fine, I like critical people. But being critical selectively could not be all that useful."
And of course I might be wrong. It's been known to happen, according to my wife. I"m not insisting the sutras are wrong on this, only saying I don't believe either the sutras or evidence is compelling enough for me to believe. And, my own understanding of the Dharma points me toward a different way of looking at life and death.
Comments
Fortunately, although "Religion rejects questioning", man's nature is to question.
Sorry my words don't impress you, but how am I supposed to respond to what is basically a sweeping condemnation of any foreign influence on your cherished Eastern religion?
What would constitute "genuine academic criticism" in your mind, and why in the world do you expect an anonymous post on a website to meet your strict criteria?
If you can stop attacking the messengers long enough to address the message, what exactly in my post did you disagree with, and why?
Used in its broadest sense, "science" refers to theories that go through a logical testing process, versus theories that don't.
Or perhaps we should defer to Einstein:
"Science is the attempt to make the chaotic diversity of our sense-experience correspond to a logically uniform system of thought."
The natural and physical sciences study natural phenomena and physical things. Buddhist science has for its object the mind emptied of all disturbances (which is the One Mind) from which we are able to see the world the way it really is, and not as we imagine.
There is some room for “evidence of absence”, but it is tricky.
However, after two and a half millennium of “absence of evidence” it is fairly reasonable to start talking of “evidence of absence”. We checked our pocket long enough now.
(And Stevenson, I think, only found the spare change he put in his pocket himself.)
Take for example two eyes vs one. Have you ever just sat and experimented with what you perceive as a 3rd dimension? Close one eye, observe something in the "distance", and then open your eye and see what happens. Do this over and over and see if you can pin down what quality you would appears and disappears. Easy to say depth (a dimension), but what is that really? If it takes two eyes to see "depth", are there the other dimensions that can't be perceived because we don't have a biological part to perceive it?
Is any source of knowledge an island? Or is knowledge (gnosis) itself the island?
"This article is a popular version on an article published by The Journal of Near-Death Studies, a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Summary: In this article, we hypothesize that NDEs are the experience of having the state of consciousness in which a person experiences the last moment of their lives being turned, in stages, into first the state of consciousness experienced as the life review, and then "the point of no return" (PNR). The life review is crucial in our hypothesis, as we interpret it as more of a review of the states of consciousness (states) we experienced during our lives. Our responses to looking at how we behaved while in specific states during or lives reinforces our behaviors and 'tags' them for repetition or avoidance in future lives. The traditional doctrines of reincarnation are modified so as to take biological and cultural evolution into account. This allows us to understand how the attributes of NDEs could have selected even though all opportunities for mating have already passed at the time of death. "
http://www.shaktitechnology.com/rebirth.htm
John 14:6
So I try to encourage people to investigate it for themselves with a quite mind. And I'll say it here again - rebirth can be verified. One method is in the suttas.
I think this is why Zen (and eastern perspectives in general) has a focus on not just what is there, but what is not there. Why do we focus solely on thought, when there is both thought and no thought. Furthermore, by seeing thought and no thought, we might actually see the whole that is made up by those pieces. Perhaps even see that that whole is merely a part of another whole, etc, etc.
The point of Buddhism is to Understand Suffering and end it. How we all go about that, is our own path. We all link arms, but the only ones moving the feet - is us....
The nature of our internal world is such that, at least at present, it can't be shared with anyone else. Since that is the case the only way to verify the Buddha's discoveries is to engage in one's own observations of the mind. Many have done exactly that over the years and in doing so have verified Buddha's teaching.
Several of Buddhism's claims about the external world have been disproven and generally abandonded. I think that its claims about rebirth and other more mystical aspects are likely based upon direct knowledge, for me though just the observation that the nature of the mind is immaterial and more than just the body is enough to logically posit rebirth and psychic experiences.
I think this kind of discussions is good though, because – the way I see it - Buddhism should be open to questioning.
Practice requires faith; but - again in my opinion – that faith should be put in the process of practice; not in the dogmatic belief-system of any particular school of Buddhism.
Practice requires a ruthlessly critical attitude. It’s supposed to destroy our narrative about who we are. We will get to the point where we will “drop off body and mind”.
No one else can do that for us.
We can’t do that when we simply parrot some fixed teaching. We must grow up. We need some courage and strength; we need to trust ouw own judgement.
It's very sweet, when the camera pans back and this:
becomes this
Then this
Obviously we can't be sure, but an objective appraisal is bound to be hindered by either blind belief or skepticism.
Zen Buddhism taught me that there are not two realities: one of the natural or physical world subject to physical laws and one of the mind where anything is possible. There is only here and now, and reality is just like this, and all else is illusion caused by a mind that confuses its own personal desires and sense of importance with reality. When you embark on a journey to enlightenment, reality is not going to change. Reality is not a dream. When you fall off a cliff in a dream, you might fly or you might wake up. In reality, you keep falling until you hit bottom, and then you die.
Buddhism is not a thing that exists in one form and with one practice and set of beliefs, and here is the package and instructions and this is what Buddha taught and what you must believe. From the beginning, people took the Buddha's message and translated it and added to it and used it to create their own customized practice that fit their culture. The Buddha would not even recognize Tibetan Buddhism as practiced today in his name, with its seemingly contradictory demon worship. That doesn't make it invalid.
1. Buddhism is grounded in reality.
2. Evidence for Buddhism is borne out of practice.
Where we seem to separate is what we consider in the scope of reality.
I believe that given the incredible nature of reality we can see thus far, we are not seeing the whole picture. Nor will our current version of science be able to give us that whole picture. Science and humanity will need to change in order to get a better grasp on the "whole" thing, if we even can. It strikes me that striving for the truth through empirical means is just another subtle form of clinging and will never be satisfied. We must use the raft to cross the river, but not continue to carry it with us.
We are all at different levels in our practice-another reason why it is important to travel your own path. It doesn't mean we can't help each other along, but it does mean that we are limited by our our clinging and our ability to see it (right view).
Amen.
Obviously we can't be sure, but an objective appraisal is bound to be hindered by either blind belief or skepticism.
I tend to side with Cinorher here in that it only takes the shading of a word here or there (not to mention translation issues) to begin to change meanings.
Let's eat Grandma!
Let's eat, Grandma!
Woman, without her man, is nothing.
Woman, without her, man is nothing.
Let's eat Grandma!
Let's eat, Grandma!
Woman, without her man, is nothing.
Woman, without her, man is nothing.
On the other hand, we also have context for things. It isn't just one place where certain concepts like rebirth are mentioned: its repeated throughout the sutras. I suppose if there a very error filled text and everything else was based on that, then it would be a valid issue. I am not familiar enough with the history of the sutras to know if this is the case.
Let's eat Grandma! She always makes great food. We eat grandma every sunday.
Let's eat, Grandma! She always makes great food. We eat with grandma every sunday.
Sorry... I couldn't help it. I like your grandma scenario.
But lets call it clear for sake of discussion. There are thousands of posts in our forum, because people approach it from so many different angles. We bring our own background to the table. We all have our own perspectives on it. This is what I would call the assumption of a shared reality. Sure there are common pieces, but your reality and mine are VERY different: different upbringings, different life experiences, etc. @Songhill used the word, eisegesis. We cling to different things, so as a result we have a conformational bias in that direction. Perhaps if we were both fully enlightening, we might be able to see the same reality; but even then I doubt it wouldn't change our unique understanding of it.
Maybe we all agree, but we can't see it because the topic is too subtle and language too coarse.
And if we were fully enlightened, we would still see it differently?
I think you put it all on shaky ground.
But that's just my perspective based on what I bring to the table, based on what I am clinging to.
Ah, but Zen approaches reality by insisting there is only here-and-now, the present moment, and samsara and nirvana are not two seperate things. They are the same reality experienced by either a clear mind or a defiled mind. A Buddha still eats, craps, gets sick and bleeds if someone cuts him.
Before you think I'm saying that means there is no nirvana, neither does Zen say samsara is nirvana. They are not two separate things, but they aren't the same thing either. Not one, but not two. Is it any wonder Zen Buddhists act sort of spacy after a bout of meditation and wrapping their minds around this?
And thus I've just spouted nonsense and anyone of sense throws up their hands and says Zen is only a bunch of crazy talk. But if reality is what it is, "just like this" in our language, then the mind is what changes. So what is it that is changing? That is the question that Zen practice is designed to penetrate.
So enlightenment is a state of mind. What else can it be? But we don't create our own reality, we only place illusion on top of it. Enlightened or enraged, if you're sitting under a rock when it falls, you're going to get hit.
Me arguing against my point is just that I am speaking in dualities, but referring to something that isn't dualistic.
One thing that one could question is why the Buddha and his monks would blindly take on the idea of rebirth, while all other things are investigated and doubted. Even the existence of a self is challenged, something that was also core to Brahman faith. Also casts were set aside by the Buddha, he placed women on equal ability, which was also very challenging at that time. He didn't belief his own teachers, and even had a totally different understanding of how rebirth was seen and how it occured, where it would go, what enlightenment is, on the gods, etc etc.
One could think of many reasons why rebirth would be somehow an exception that wasn't questioned by the Buddha, but I don't think it makes strong evidence; especially considering that there were also many other views existing at the time, as it appears to be in the suttas. Materialism was one of those views the Buddha rejected, was that just based on his environment or..? If people now and before can get beyond the belief in God in christian environments, surely the Buddha and his monks who devoted their entire lives to finding the truth would have been capable of leaving behind old views as well. That's not a superhuman thing to do, not now and not 2500 years ago.
So if one rejects rebirth, on equal grounds everything else in the suttas can be rejected as well. Which is fine, I like critical people. But being critical selectively could not be all that useful.
I gained nothing at all from supreme enlightenment, and for that very reason it is called supreme enlightenment.
- the Buddha
If you cannot find the truth right where you are, where else do you expect to find it?
- Dogen Zenji
Birth, life, and death; it is all "just like this". What was your face before your parents were born? Answer that, and you comprehend the not-made. If there is a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded, then you are still in this incarnation born, become, made, compounded. How do you get from one to the other?
Emptiness is form and form is emptiness. Not one and not two.
Not one, and not two. To say you either have or don't have Buddha Nature is to already go wrong. As long as you see nirvana as something "out there" or outside of your everyday life, you will never get one step closer to it. You might as well try to reach the horizon. No matter how far you travel, it remains just as far away.
Here I draw my own particular line between knowledge and experience in Buddhism, and say my cherished science reaches a limit and I stand on a sandy beach, looking out at the unknown waters of my own mind.
In all our debates, even with Songhill who asks me such irritating questions, I suspect we tilt at windmills that exist only in our own limited imagination.
If we're in an incarnation, we're born, become, made, compounded. But we aren't in an incarnation; only words know incarnations and birth and death.
And of course I might be wrong. It's been known to happen, according to my wife. I"m not insisting the sutras are wrong on this, only saying I don't believe either the sutras or evidence is compelling enough for me to believe. And, my own understanding of the Dharma points me toward a different way of looking at life and death.