Buddhist Ontology and Practice

[NikolaiI]

Here's a new thread, I'm creating in the hope of benefiting any who come here, including myself; I took a few minutes to think of this title, which I hope should be inclusive enough to allow many different stimuli for conversation, including past Buddhist masters, present ones, koans, stories, writings, dharma talks, and thoughts and ideas in general pertaining to Buddhist ontology and practice. It is my wish to create a forum for expressing ideas and expanding our understanding of each other and of ourselves. Buddhism is not complex, its essence is quite simple: "Do good, do not do evil, and cultivate the mind." But a thing can be simple and complex at the same time, according to Buddhist logic, so there should be enough substance for discussion. Beyond that, I'm laying down some ground rules; incidentally, after I wrote them out on a separate window, I found they corresponded almost completely to the Forum's rules, so, in order to save time and space. . . just follow those.

[Paulclem]

I see the same issue across such a wide range of topics. Someone asked if they could be Christian and Buddhist, Hebrew Torah Creationism vs assorted evolution where no human groups currently evolve; that only happens to animals. I notice that people stop. Stop is the word for it. It is that whole point at the moon, then admire your finger not the moon. I never hear anyone say they will grow old - all humans die - so grow old and officially be THE old wise human. People lose concern about being human. People don't think to master lessons. A completed Christian or Buddhist would be neither. A person filled with love and goodness would not seek God. Why? Obviously, they never will stop to ask why. If you love, you won't stop if you knew God was not real. The NEED for God comes from lack of love. The need for a name comes from seeking social position. Like philosophy: people know about the philosophers who fought long and hard for FAME and a stage. They never consider the ones who don't want to talk to them. Always the conflict, the 'team sport', everyone is on a team. The internet atheist team, the whatever team. Just asking about God is a sign something is wrong. To me it sounds like someone saying, they have doubt in their team, in their religion, that told them to love their children. If you needed a reason to love your children, you are in a state of failure. If you need a reason to love your world, your dog, your fellow man, you are diseased. If I had another life, I would like to be mute, live in some wild place, and be a farmer. I would not need a team or a reason to grow my plants and raise my animals. I would do it because it was life, being alive, and making more life. The worst thing that happened to so many promising people was their idea that everyone was like them, so they had to make a team sport out of it. If only more people could lead and not follow. I struggle to understand why I would care if God was real. It would not change a single thing in my life. I don't ACT human. It is who I am. I will be that. While everyone else wants to have their team win, I just want to get away from everyone trapped in that mistake. I'd rather people were evil than acted good. At least their evil wouldn't be a lie.

Originally posted by Jamcrackers on the Why does a good God promote suffering thread.

[Paulclem]

I realise that I have made this more complicated than I intended. I responded to Jamcracker's post above with the post here. From "Response from NikolaiI" below, it is all him with quotes from my post here. Duh.



I'm no scientist, but I don't think this is correct. Evolution takes millions of years, not the amount of time modern humans have been around.

Change is taking place as well. We are bigger, faster and stronger these days, though this is no doubt due to environmental adaptation. As I said, I'm no scientist, and so I 'm not sure about the relationship of the two - but stop humans have not.

Love and godness are unfortunately not things that arise in completion in humans. It takes development.

I can't really speak for Christians, but a Buddhist needs to progress along the path to become a better person embodying love and compassion. The teachings form part of this. If such positive traits were a naturally occurring phenomena, then there would be no need for the teachings, but clearly, like every phase of history, love and compassion are all too often lacking in societies. Posted by Paulclem

If I had another life, I would like to be mute, live in some wild place, and be a farmer. I would not need a team or a reason to grow my plants and raise my animals. I would do it because it was life, being alive, and making more life. Quoted from Jamcrackers above

This sounds very idealistic and unattainable. To be human is to socialise and engage with others. It is said that we can't survive without others, and from a merely practial/ medical sense it is very easy to see why, let alone the fulfillment of social and emotional needs. Posted by Paulclem


Response from NikolaiI

This sounds very idealistic and unattainable. To be human is to socialise and engage with others. It is said that we can't survive without others, and from a merely practial/ medical sense it is very easy to see why, let alone the fulfillment of social and emotional needs. Quoted from Paulclem

Which part, the being alone? It's actually very reminiscent of Thoreau, Alan Watts, and Milarepa to me. Thoreau as he lived alone; Alan Watts in reference to the spontaneity of it; and Milarepa as he said the absolute best thing you can do is live alone in a cave on a mountain where it always snows. Next best is to wander nomadically, unattached, and next to live on the outskirts in a hermitage hut (rough paraphrase).

Idealism and realism or practicality aren't opposites, they're actually rather meaningless at a certain point.

People don't think to master lessons. A completed Christian or Buddhist would be neither. A person filled with love and goodness would not seek God. Why? Obviously, they never will stop to ask why. If you love, you won't stop if you knew God was not real. The NEED for God comes from lack of love.

Paul as Buddhist disagrees but I as a Buddhist agree. Pointedly, Buddhist logic allows for two seemingly contradicting points to exist truly. (It both is and is not; it neither is nor is not.) Throughout Buddhism eeeverywhere and all kinds of other philosophical or spiritual writings it's understood: Once you get to a certain level, you're no longer trying, you're no longer seeking. It's one of the important building blocks of a sane view of life. .

Love and godness are unfortunately not things that arise in completion in humans. It takes development. Quoted from Paulclem

I can't really speak for Christians, but a Buddhist needs to progress along the path to become a better person embodying love and compassion. The teachings form part of this. If such positive traits were a naturally occurring phenomena, then there would be no need for the teachings, but clearly, like every phase of history, love and compassion are all too often lacking in societies. Quoted from Paulclem

Love and compassion are natural, and I believe every master (Buddhist or any) that I would respect at all would say the same. These are the natural qualities; after all, isn't it our basic nature? To say anything else is more natural is sacrilege (to say the opposite qualities are more natural). What is more natural than love? Love and kindness heal, love and kindness create, they are everything good and natural. They are absolutely natural, and they're the best that is in us. They're everything.

Likewise - the enlightening Dharma is natural, the enlightened Buddha is natural, and the student is natural. I was listening to a Dharma talk of Thay, and I remember him saying - the Dharma is lovely in the beginning, in the middle, and in the end. In other words, in the very beginning of practice, the experience is beautiful. In the middle it is, and the end is as well.

Pain occurs, but it is natural to learn to avoid it. Vivekananda said, the goal of life is happiness; the bright understand this quickly, the unintelligent, a little more slowly.

For the record, Buddhist teaching doesn't say that love and compassion are lacking; if you immerse yourself in Buddhism you will see absolutely countless cases where it's indicated the Buddha's teaching taught that every moment is complete, whole, lacking nothing, and that we are, as ourselves, complete, whole, and lacking nothing. The very core of Shakyamuni Buddha's enlightenment was that love and goodness do arise in completion in humans, and they arise as soon as we awaken to our Buddha nature - our real nature, which is. . . if I may say so without avoiding circular logic or over-repetition, natural.

The path is difficult for some, it is true, but its essence is not complicated: "Do good, do not do evil, and cultivate the mind."

It is an infinite process, yes, and one of the keys involved is to return to step one; return to the here, and the now - observe. One of the most powerful methods is to become absorbed in the question, "Who am I?" When a thought occurs, "To whom is it occurring?"

There are certain predicates to practice.. master Bassui, as well as Ramana Maharshi (not Buddhist... ) taught questioning as the way, taught this koan, "Who am I?"

[osho]

Here's a new thread, I'm creating in the hope of benefiting any who come here, including myself; I took a few minutes to think of this title, which I hope should be inclusive enough to allow many different stimuli for conversation, including past Buddhist masters, present ones, koans, stories, writings, dharma talks, and thoughts and ideas in general pertaining to Buddhist ontology and practice. It is my wish to create a forum for expressing ideas and expanding our understanding of each other and of ourselves. Buddhism is not complex, its essence is quite simple: "Do good, do not do evil, and cultivate the mind." But a thing can be simple and complex at the same time, according to Buddhist logic, so there should be enough substance for discussion. Beyond that, I'm laying down some ground rules; incidentally, after I wrote them out on a separate window, I found they corresponded almost completely to the Forum's rules, so, in order to save time and space. . . just follow those.

Nicolai, you are a well read person and I find in you an ocean of knowledge and I have read a number of your articles and you have wonderfully quoted from great troves of Vedic literature, Buddhism. I find this thread really interesting and I hope those who have knowledge and information or experience with Buddhism will chip in here so that the rest of we laypersons can profit from it. I have read Buddhism but not enough to deliver discourses on it with authority but enjoy reading any ideas spelled out on this topic

[Paulclem]

Which part, the being alone? It's actually very reminiscent of Thoreau, Alan Watts, and Milarepa to me. Thoreau as he lived alone; Alan Watts in reference to the spontaneity of it; and Milarepa as he said the absolute best thing you can do is live alone in a cave on a mountain where it always snows. Next best is to wander nomadically, unattached, and next to live on the outskirts in a hermitage hut (rough paraphrase).

Idealism and realism or practicality aren't opposites, they're actually rather meaningless at a certain point.

Hi.
If I take the examples of Thoreau and Watts first - they, like everyone else, live with dependancy upon other people. This is from a basic level of food provision, services, medicine up to the requirement for teachings and guidance.

The point is more profound than that though, as every person's dependancy stretches back in time to those who provided roads and buildings and built the society we live in, and even the foundations of language, writing etc etc. Few ordinary people live utterly alone, and even those schooled and skilled in practices still rely upon others, as others also rely upon them.

As for Jetsun Milarepa, he is such a special case as to be unique. He was a being who had mastered Tummo and was able to live virtually naked in the cold, high mountains of the Himalayas, surviving on nettles that gave his skin a greenish tinge. There are practitioners who are Solitary Realisers, but Jetsun Mlarpa was in the Mahayana, and thus returned to society to teach after being requested. He may have said that

the absolute best thing you can do is live alone in a cave on a mountain where it always snows. Next best is to wander nomadically, unattached, and next to live on the outskirts in a hermitage hut

but why didn't he urge all the people he taught - the monks in the Monastery he became Abbot of, to do this? I think because he was referring to the best outcome, but it is one which needs preparation and years of practice to aspire to. He was also on the short Vajrayana path, which is not suitable for most people.

I don't think he can be counted in the example I mentioned, but other practitioners who go into retreat also need the support of family or those who supervise the retreat to provide food etc. (They conduct 3 year retreats in Samye Ling in the UK).

Idealism and realism or practicality aren't opposites, they're actually rather meaningless at a certain point.

They may be, but that certain point does not come easily, but may take a long time.

I'll reply to your other points later.

Cheers.

[Paulclem]

Love and compassion are natural, and I believe every master (Buddhist or any) that I would respect at all would say the same. These are the natural qualities; after all, isn't it our basic nature? To say anything else is more natural is sacrilege (to say the opposite qualities are more natural). What is more natural than love? Love and kindness heal, love and kindness create, they are everything good and natural. They are absolutely natural, and they're the best that is in us. They're everything.

I agree - love and compassion arise naturally, but I did qualify that with the statement "arise in completion".

Children are often loving and compassionate, as are animals, particularly Mothers to their young. It is quite obvious. You can say the same for Gangsters who run mobs, but who also love their Mothers. People are not limited to one emotion, but are often a confusion of feelings without insight. And, of course, they are still subject to the three poisons - attachment, hated and ignorence.

That's what I meant by not arising in completion. In fact the good qualities are often tainted by other qualities, which is why meditation and practice of the path is advocated.

[Paulclem]

For the record, Buddhist teaching doesn't say that love and compassion are lacking; if you immerse yourself in Buddhism you will see absolutely countless cases where it's indicated the Buddha's teaching taught that every moment is complete, whole, lacking nothing, and that we are, as ourselves, complete, whole, and lacking nothing. The very core of Shakyamuni Buddha's enlightenment was that love and goodness do arise in completion in humans, and they arise as soon as we awaken to our Buddha nature - our real nature, which is. . . if I may say so without avoiding circular logic or over-repetition, natural.

The path is difficult for some, it is true, but its essence is not complicated: "Do good, do not do evil, and cultivate the mind."

It is an infinite process, yes, and one of the keys involved is to return to step one; return to the here, and the now - observe. One of the most powerful methods is to become absorbed in the question, "Who am I?" When a thought occurs, "To whom is it occurring?"

There are certain predicates to practice.. master Bassui, as well as Ramana Maharshi (not Buddhist... ) taught questioning as the way, taught this koan, "Who am I?"

Again you are right - if you are immersed, by which I mean practiced in the path. The fact is that Jamcrackers was referring gemnerally to Christians, but for Buddhists I think it is difficult to say "just do this, just think this". There's much more to it than that - otherwise it would be very easy to complete, lots of Masters would be saying "just do this" and lots of examples would be available to show this method.

One of the most powerful methods is to become absorbed in the question, "Who am I?"

This practice - the Buddhist version - is very powerful and important. It is the practice that enables a person to realise the "Emptiness" of the self. One of the stages to realising this - I read - was the development of "Single Pointed Concentration" - an attribute that requires a sustained practice of at least a few months to attain under the best conditions for most. (Of course this is just a guide, but always the aim is to show that these things are not easy. Simple, but not easy.)

The question then arises "should this be a person's main practice?" or "should this practice be the first one?" From what I have read - No. A person needs to become somewhat experienced and skilled in meditation in order to do this. It is also adviseable to be under the guidance of a teacher, as the process is more than unsettling. They need the right grounding for this.

The very core of Shakyamuni Buddha's enlightenment was that love and goodness do arise in completion in humans, and they arise as soon as we awaken to our Buddha nature

Buddha nature - as it has been explained to me - is a potential, and not a mind possessed by beings. Once again I would say - where are the examples of this if it is already present? Why isn't it detected, used, attained more?

I would restate your position to say that The Buddha's example is that every person can attain Enlightenment, not that it is already present.

[cafolini]

"Compassion can only be found in love because love is a natural passion in everyone. But if love is abandoned, in anything else there is only empathy; not enough." C A Cafolini

[YesNo]

I think I understand Buddhist "practice". Thich Nhat Hanh in Going Home mentioned "the practice of the Five Faculties: faith, diligence, mindfulness, concentration, and insight". Actually, I don't know if I understand it or not.

What is Buddhist "logic" and "ontology" mentioned in the OP?

[lawpark]

Isn't Buddhist "ontology" any oxymoron? Ontology is a study of Being, while Buddhism's fundamental position is there is no Self.

[YesNo]

That's what I would have thought, but I realize I don't know much about it.

[NikolaiI]

Hi.
If I take the examples of Thoreau and Watts first - they, like everyone else, live with dependancy upon other people. This is from a basic level of food provision, services, medicine up to the requirement for teachings and guidance.

Yes, sure. All I meant was, it struck me how you reacted to what he said. To me, what he said was very good; to live naturally, as a natural expression of oneself - it's very much like many Buddhist masters. I mentioned Alan Watts because of how it reminded me of something he once said. He was giving a talk and mused, "Why do I give a lecture on philosophy? I suppose it is the same reason a bird chirps." (More or less, as that is a rough paraphrasing). What JamCrackers said was reminiscent of this in my mind.

See: Bankei as well.

The point is more profound than that though, as every person's dependancy stretches back in time to those who provided roads and buildings and built the society we live in, and even the foundations of language, writing etc etc. Few ordinary people live utterly alone, and even those schooled and skilled in practices still rely upon others, as others also rely upon them.

As for Jetsun Milarepa, he is such a special case as to be unique. He was a being who had mastered Tummo and was able to live virtually naked in the cold, high mountains of the Himalayas, surviving on nettles that gave his skin a greenish tinge. There are practitioners who are Solitary Realisers, but Jetsun Mlarpa was in the Mahayana, and thus returned to society to teach after being requested. He may have said that

the absolute best thing you can do is live alone in a cave on a mountain where it always snows. Next best is to wander nomadically, unattached, and next to live on the outskirts in a hermitage hut

but why didn't he urge all the people he taught - the monks in the Monastery he became Abbot of, to do this? I think because he was referring to the best outcome, but it is one which needs preparation and years of practice to aspire to. He was also on the short Vajrayana path, which is not suitable for most people.

I don't think he can be counted in the example I mentioned, but other practitioners who go into retreat also need the support of family or those who supervise the retreat to provide food etc. (They conduct 3 year retreats in Samye Ling in the UK).

Idealism and realism or practicality aren't opposites, they're actually rather meaningless at a certain point.

They may be, but that certain point does not come easily, but may take a long time.

I'll reply to your other points later.

Cheers.

You are correct about Milarepa.

[NikolaiI]

Isn't Buddhist "ontology" any oxymoron? Ontology is a study of Being, while Buddhism's fundamental position is there is no Self.

You've answered your own question.

[NikolaiI]

I think I understand Buddhist "practice". Thich Nhat Hanh in Going Home mentioned "the practice of the Five Faculties: faith, diligence, mindfulness, concentration, and insight". Actually, I don't know if I understand it or not.

What is Buddhist "logic" and "ontology" mentioned in the OP?

I chose the title because I thought it was inclusive enough to cover most topics... I used the word ontology but perhaps should have used theory and practice. There's an article called "The Range of Buddhist Ontology" by Kenneth Inada.. at http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/inada4.htm, but it is kind of lengthy.

Buddhist logic is a little different from Western logic because it allows for the existence of paradox. Western logic generally has two possibilities; either something is, or it isn't. Buddhist logic has four: it is, it isn't, it is and is not, and it neither is, nor is not. In my life this comes second to things like practice, meditation, insight and so forth.

[NikolaiI]

Again you are right - if you are immersed, by which I mean practiced in the path. The fact is that Jamcrackers was referring gemnerally to Christians, but for Buddhists I think it is difficult to say "just do this, just think this". There's much more to it than that - otherwise it would be very easy to complete, lots of Masters would be saying "just do this" and lots of examples would be available to show this method.

One of the most powerful methods is to become absorbed in the question, "Who am I?"

This practice - the Buddhist version - is very powerful and important. It is the practice that enables a person to realise the "Emptiness" of the self. One of the stages to realising this - I read - was the development of "Single Pointed Concentration" - an attribute that requires a sustained practice of at least a few months to attain under the best conditions for most. (Of course this is just a guide, but always the aim is to show that these things are not easy. Simple, but not easy.)

The question then arises "should this be a person's main practice?" or "should this practice be the first one?" From what I have read - No. A person needs to become somewhat experienced and skilled in meditation in order to do this. It is also adviseable to be under the guidance of a teacher, as the process is more than unsettling. They need the right grounding for this.

The very core of Shakyamuni Buddha's enlightenment was that love and goodness do arise in completion in humans, and they arise as soon as we awaken to our Buddha nature

Buddha nature - as it has been explained to me - is a potential, and not a mind possessed by beings. Once again I would say - where are the examples of this if it is already present? Why isn't it detected, used, attained more?

I would restate your position to say that The Buddha's example is that every person can attain Enlightenment, not that it is already present.

I'd suggest reading The Unborn: the Life and Teachings of Zen Master Bankei.. it has some truly enlightening words on Buddha-mind, which he more often calls the Unborn mind. A most enlightening book.