Contradictions in Buddhism

[sillyman]

I have very little experience in any eastern philosophy or religion so I thought that I might try to get accustomed to the teachings of Buddhism. I understand the Four Noble Truths; that suffering is the result of attachment but I have a hard time grasping the concept of anatman. I know it literally means no soul, but if there is no individual sense of identity, why is there suffering? I might completely have a wrong idea of the term anatman, but I just can't understand why Buddhists preach suffering and the idea of no self. How can someone suffer if there really is no self, or no soul under their appearance?

[Eryk]

Buddhists acknowledge a self, someone who experiences things. What they deny is the existence of a stable and permanent self. An individual is a collection of mental and physical parts and they are all changing and impermanent. Attachment to them is the cause of suffering.

[mal4mac]

But how can you achieve complete unattachment? Any Buddhist monk who sits down to meditate eventually has to move and get *his* dinner. So he is, much of the time, like the rest of us, attached to doing and getting for his self. That this self is not an immortal soul is pretty much taken as given by most secular types these days, so anatman is not definitive of Buddhism.

"The Unexpected Way" by Paul Williams is great account of a conversion from Buddhism to Catholicism. He wrote *the* book on Mahayana Buddhism - the one that's quoted by the Dalai Lama and others as the standard advanced text. Then he decided he didn't believe in Buddhism any more and gives a (quite funny) account about how he became a leading mediation teacher for many years before admitting that he couldn't really meditate! Certainly made me look at Buddhism with a more critical eye. Read some Dawkins to cure yourself of Williams' newly adopted Catholicism, though.

[billl]

I think the deal is that people can start to believe that they have control over things, simply because they have the ability to remember, reflect, plan, etc. Other animals can't do these things as well as people can. So, maybe we start to expect too much from these abilities, and get disappointed when things out of our control go badly, or our plans don't go well. In fact, we might make plans that we don't need, like hording lots of stuff (why?). Our ability to remember, reflect, and plan can lead us into suffering.

So, I think Buddhism takes the interesting idea that things are always in flux and that in a certain sense there is no self, and uses it to say: hey, don't get too hung up on always being in control. But of course, there is (in an obvious sense) a self, and some Buddhist schools seem to have a little more respect for the "darkness" or "selfness" or whatever than other schools/varieties do. Some people grock the idea of "flux" and "self is just impermanent parts," and keep riding that horse into the sunset. Others take that idea and appreciate the tension between it and the tangible selfness that they're faced with (and that the others are trying to perhaps utterly escape from).

I'm no expert about all the schools and who believes or says what, but here's an interesting link that might speak a little to how an appreciation of the contradictions in Buddhism can fit into an approach to Buddhism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandokai

[Eryk]

But how can you achieve complete unattachment? Any Buddhist monk who sits down to meditate eventually has to move and get *his* dinner. So he is, much of the time, like the rest of us, attached to doing and getting for his self.

You are assuming that meditation is a state of unattachment. But it can be as self-directed as anything else.

Doing and getting for your self is just fine in Buddhism. Metta is the cultivation of lovingkindness toards everyone, with no distinction between your self and others. You must have compassion for your self. This is basic Buddhism. Love is conducive to enlightenment.


"The Unexpected Way" by Paul Williams is great account of a conversion from Buddhism to Catholicism. He wrote *the* book on Mahayana Buddhism - the one that's quoted by the Dalai Lama and others as the standard advanced text. Then he decided he didn't believe in Buddhism any more and gives a (quite funny) account about how he became a leading mediation teacher for many years before admitting that he couldn't really meditate! Certainly made me look at Buddhism with a more critical eye.

"The" book in Mahayana is the sutras.


Read some Dawkins to cure yourself of Williams' newly adopted Catholicism, though.

I've read Dawkins, and I like him. But he isn't the cure for anything. A book is not a mind-altering drug. It's not like everyone is going to fall under the spell of one book by a Buddhist apostate, passively absorbing his ideas and attitudes, until another book comes along to purge some of those ideas, and so on. Williams will do "this" to you. Dawkins will do "that" to you. You know, the Buddha said that no one should believe his teaching if it did not agree with their own reasoning. His last words were, "Be lamps unto yourselves".

[NikolaiI]

"How can there be any suffering?" This is a good question. Buddhism teaches that we suffer because we our minds are attached to external objects. Then whenever those objects change, which they are bound to, it jerks our mind around trying to follow them, creating discomfort and suffering. At least this is one point.

Another is that we receive whatever we give, the law of karma. Whatever seeds we sow, those we shall reap. The four goals are something like, eliminating bad thoughts, actions and words; preventing future ones; protecting existing wholesome or pure thoguhts, actions and words, and working to develop future wholesome, or pure thoughts, actions and words. All our thoughts, actions, and words have some effect, they are like formations or suggestions. So that really makes up our consciousness and our life, and thus what we experience. So we will suffer then if we have anger, and other afflictive emotions, that is how we can have the most misery. And likewise, if we can be free of anger, lust, greed, and so forth, and we develop wholesome, positive qualities and habits, then we will have more peace and happiness.

The idea of selflessness means that there is no substantive ego. The ego is just made of aggregates; impressions. Senses, feelings, concepts, thoughts, and consciousness (or something along these linse) are the five aggregates. Taken together, they are our ego. But it's always changing. There is no "I" that is suffering actually. That is the Buddhist idea, and actually it is better to read it from more intelligent persons than myself.

The other point is that, in Buddhism, it's understood that our real nature is buddha-nature. So, there is no "self"... but, what is it that is not there? The nature of form is emptiness, and the nature of emptiness is form. But what is emptiness? What is form? Basically that is saying that

[pagebypage]

I find that the key to understanding most things Buddhist is keeping the notion that all is in flux--impermanence--in the forefront of thought. It is the great unalterable given of the universe which one must deal with by necessity.

Thus, it isn't so much attachment as the source of dukkha as it is the impermanence of the things one is clinging too. If things were permanent, one's attachment wouldn't matter.

The same with anatta. One has to keep in mind that the buddha was reacting to a doctrine common in his day--that there is a permanent independent self that goes from body to body, perfecting itself until it merges with a permanent ground of all-being. He simply rejected the idea that there is anything anywhere permanent. There is a sutta whose name I can't recall where the buddha examines the body and finds no permanence; he examines nature and finds no permanence; he examines the mind and finds no permanence; he examines the consciousness and finds no permanence; he concludes anatta.

Impermanence is the key.

[blazeofglory]

I have very little experience in any eastern philosophy or religion so I thought that I might try to get accustomed to the teachings of Buddhism. I understand the Four Noble Truths; that suffering is the result of attachment but I have a hard time grasping the concept of anatman. I know it literally means no soul, but if there is no individual sense of identity, why is there suffering? I might completely have a wrong idea of the term anatman, but I just can't understand why Buddhists preach suffering and the idea of no self. How can someone suffer if there really is no self, or no soul under their appearance?

It is natural to see contradictions in Buddhism for when you study it superficially you will not understand it at all.

Commenting on it based on little knowledge is a sheer prejudice.

[Paulclem]

But how can you achieve complete unattachment? Any Buddhist monk who sits down to meditate eventually has to move and get *his* dinner. So he is, much of the time, like the rest of us, attached to doing and getting for his self. That this self is not an immortal soul is pretty much taken as given by most secular types these days, so anatman is not definitive of Buddhism.

"The Unexpected Way" by Paul Williams is great account of a conversion from Buddhism to Catholicism. He wrote *the* book on Mahayana Buddhism - the one that's quoted by the Dalai Lama and others as the standard advanced text. Then he decided he didn't believe in Buddhism any more and gives a (quite funny) account about how he became a leading mediation teacher for many years before admitting that he couldn't really meditate! Certainly made me look at Buddhism with a more critical eye. Read some Dawkins to cure yourself of Williams' newly adopted Catholicism, though.

Attachment is more of a state of mind rather than a detatchent from llfe. Human life is regarded as precious and the basis of spiritual attainment. A monk or practitioner needs their body and must thus maintain it. One way to overcome attachment to food, for example, is to regard it as medicine that will keep malnutrition at bay. As with every medicine, too much will have a bad effect and itself cause illness. Thus The Buddha's Middle Way approach advocates a shift in attitude to food. Buddhism is not about rejecting life, but changing attitudes to it.

[Paulclem]

I have very little experience in any eastern philosophy or religion so I thought that I might try to get accustomed to the teachings of Buddhism. I understand the Four Noble Truths; that suffering is the result of attachment but I have a hard time grasping the concept of anatman. I know it literally means no soul, but if there is no individual sense of identity, why is there suffering? I might completely have a wrong idea of the term anatman, but I just can't understand why Buddhists preach suffering and the idea of no self. How can someone suffer if there really is no self, or no soul under their appearance?

There is an individual sense of identity in Buddhism, and it is precisely this that is the root of suffering. From a sense of self comes all the negative traits such as greed, attachment, hatred etc. They are all related to supporting, promoting or preserving the self.

The self though is regarded as a mere mental construction which is a delusion. It appears to be real and to have continuity through our lives, but if we look at it, we can see that we are different people at different stages of our lives. We hold different views, opinions, awareness, and this is constantly changing. There are also meditations which dispel the sense of self and demonstrate the delusion of self from which the suffering comes. .

[NikolaiI]

No self, no karma.

"The viewer disappears along with the scene."

[JBI]

Which kind of Buddhism are we dealing with here? There are contradictions within different schools, and historically canons have altered significantly. I think the new in (as in celebrity) Buddhism is a Westernized variant of Zen (Chan) based on a sort of misunderstanding of Japanese - but the truths and canons of Buddhism have many twists and turns. Which one are we addressing, or does the original poster want only to deal with the four noble truths?

As it is, all this "In Buddhism" or "Buddhists believe" seems to be a little problematic, as Shingon Buddhism is not Pure Land Buddhism, and Saicho is not Budai. Distinction must be made.

[Paulclem]

Which kind of Buddhism are we dealing with here? There are contradictions within different schools, and historically canons have altered significantly. I think the new in (as in celebrity) Buddhism is a Westernized variant of Zen (Chan) based on a sort of misunderstanding of Japanese - but the truths and canons of Buddhism have many twists and turns. Which one are we addressing, or does the original poster want only to deal with the four noble truths?

As it is, all this "In Buddhism" or "Buddhists believe" seems to be a little problematic, as Shingon Buddhism is not Pure Land Buddhism, and Saicho is not Budai. Distinction must be made.

You're right, but I'm unsure as to the original poster's familiarity with the different schools.

I think the main schools - Zen, Therevadan and Northern clearly contain the same core teachings, but there is often a different emphasis on practice and new developments added to the tradition. I think you can speak in general terms about these core concepts across those main traditions.

As for the version which Tina Turner practices, I'm not sure of the details, but it is less relevant to these main teachings.

[Paulclem]

Which kind of Buddhism are we dealing with here? There are contradictions within different schools, and historically canons have altered significantly. I think the new in (as in celebrity) Buddhism is a Westernized variant of Zen (Chan) based on a sort of misunderstanding of Japanese - but the truths and canons of Buddhism have many twists and turns. Which one are we addressing, or does the original poster want only to deal with the four noble truths?

As it is, all this "In Buddhism" or "Buddhists believe" seems to be a little problematic, as Shingon Buddhism is not Pure Land Buddhism, and Saicho is not Budai. Distinction must be made.

On further reflection, I think Sillyman's use of the term anatman refers to the Therevadan tradition.

[hack]

There is nothing
irrelevant
about Tina Turner

but

there is nothing
less relevant
than whether
or not Nutbush
has actual
city limits

[Paulclem]

You're right, but I'm unsure as to the original poster's familiarity with the different schools.

I think the main schools - Zen, Therevadan and Northern clearly contain the same core teachings, but there is often a different emphasis on practice and new developments added to the tradition. I think you can speak in general terms about these core concepts across those main traditions.

As for the version which Tina Turner practices, I'm not sure of the details, but it is less relevant to these main teachings.

I've just looked it up - Nichiren Buddhism. It is quite different from the main schools of Buddhism and considers their teachings to be degraded. It differs considerably.

So Tina is less relevant to the main teachings - good music though. :D

[NikolaiI]

Buddhism can be confusing because there are two main parts of it. One which is logical without much feeling, and one which is mystical. The logical part is the beginning part, which is convinced that there are faults with the current understanding of the universe. The logical side of it analyzes that all suffering world are held up by the foundation of minds which are in confusion, and that when you transform the mind from one confused to one enlightened, then all the states of suffering upheld by the mind vanish.

The logical aspect is also convinced, perhaps by the philosophy and logic of Buddhism. The ideas of selflessness, change, and non-duality. The mystical part of Buddhism is about the experience of these phenomena. The two parts are seemingly at odds whenever the logical side denies the mystical parts because they don't speak in the same language. Sometiems the logical side tries to deny that sometimes something can be true yet also inexpressible. It doesn't realize that there are states which are completely beyond.

And in the mystical side of the tradition, these states are explored in leisure. For example the Heart Sutra describes that Shakyamuni Buddha's enlightenment was beyond everything.

As Paul said however there are difference between different schools of thought. If I remember right, Nichiren Buddhism shares some thoughts with Pure Land Buddhism.

Buddha Shakyamuni's revelation, which was of the emptiness of all forms, and that nirvana is beyond everything... if this is really understood then it's not-different from the states described in the Avatamsaka sutra... It is also akin in quality to the states of production (of buddhas) and destruction (of created buddhas) found in the Vajrayana. Mystical experiences of different Buddhas as persons is also similar to these, for instance when someone gets the rare chance to receive instruction and blessings from Manjushri.

[dizzydoll]

You know, the Buddha said that no one should believe his teaching if it did not agree with their own reasoning. His last words were,
"Be lamps unto yourselves".

Thank you for this snipped of information. If you think about it, its the only way :hurray:



Another is that we receive whatever we give, the law of karma. Whatever seeds we sow, those we shall reap. The four goals are something like, eliminating bad thoughts, actions and words; preventing future ones; protecting existing wholesome or pure thoughts, actions and words, and working to develop future wholesome, or pure thoughts, actions and words. All our thoughts, actions, and words have some effect, they are like formations or suggestions. So that really makes up our consciousness and our life, and thus what we experience. So we will suffer then if we have anger, and other afflictive emotions, that is how we can have the most misery. And likewise, if we can be free of anger, lust, greed, and so forth, and we develop wholesome, positive qualities and habits, then we will have more peace and happiness.

Excellent explanation. But I still dont see how one can be unattached in this world. We are attached to everything whether we like it or not, trying to control something that is impossible to do seems ludicrous to me. But then I dont know enough about Buddhism to comment and therefore I must agree with Blaze here....


It is natural to see contradictions in Buddhism for when you study it superficially you will not understand it at all.

Commenting on it based on little knowledge is a sheer prejudice.



I've just looked it up - Nichiren Buddhism. It is quite different from the main schools of Buddhism and considers their teachings to be degraded. It differs considerably.

Hi Paul, you know someone else mentioned Nichiren Buddhism on another site and when I asked him to elaborate I never got an answer. This piques my interest now, any sites you can recommend for me to explore?

I agree Tina's music is cool :hurray:

[Paulclem]

Thank you for this snipped of information. If you think about it, its the only way :hurray:



Excellent explanation. But I still dont see how one can be unattached in this world. We are attached to everything whether we like it or not, trying to control something that is impossible to do seems ludicrous to me. But then I dont know enough about Buddhism to comment and therefore I must agree with Blaze here....






Hi Paul, you know someone else mentioned Nichiren Buddhism on another site and when I asked him to elaborate I never got an answer. This piques my interest now, any sites you can recommend for me to explore?

I agree Tina's music is cool :hurray:


In the usual sense of the word, you are right. We are attached to work, partners - whatever is going on in our lives. We are inextricably linked in.

In the Buddhist sense of the word, we are too. Attachment in this sense is about some spiritual investment we may have in our job or our partner. For example we might think and feel comfortable with a job for life and a partner for life. In this case though, what happens when we lose our job because the company has gone bust, and we lose our partner?

What happens is we suffer - probably intensely. You can look in the news you can see cases where people's suffering has driven them to murder and mayhem over just these issues. These are extreme examples, but whatever, suffering will take place. This is because of attachment - specifically that we assume in our ignorence that the truth of Impermanence will not apply to our situation. This tenet of Impermanence applies to everything in Samsara without exception. Everything will change over time and we will suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

The practice of Non-Attachment is designed to short circuit ths process that has gone on over our life time and over our countless lives. Lots of bad karma is created because of attachment, and the practice is designed to give the practitioner a spiritual insight into the reality of Samsara - life. It does not mean that you become emotionally cold towards your partner or job as the source of your future suffering. Instead it wil increase your fondness and love because you appreciate the suffering that they will experience.

Instead, Non Attachement gives the practitioner a spiritual insight into the reality of Samsara - it will all end in tears. This knowledge, and the peace that it brings enables the practitioner to face adversity without creating negative Karma, to be positive, and to help others who will face the same problems.

That's not to say that it is just a verbal decision. It is a practice that may take a practitioner a long time to achieve, and it does not involve leaving your family and responsibilities. A monk or Nun will withdraw to practice, but a lay practitioner fits their practice into their life. It is a spiritual realisation that you are in, but not of your situation. It gives space to see the reality of situations, and enables the practitioner to deal more positively with things.
I can't recommend any sites, as I'm only vauely familiar with Nichiren. sorry. :biggrin5:

[dizzydoll]

Thank you Paul, your description helps me to get closer to understanding this philosophy. I do believe there are karmic connections that we are attached to, or will become attached to, for good reason. Not all karma is bad. I still believe any form of control does not benefit us, it serves only to stagnate our true nature. As difficult as they are I feel tears and pain teach us more than denial and restraint.

[Paulclem]

Thank you Paul, your description helps me to get closer to understanding this philosophy. I do believe there are karmic connections that we are attached to, or will become attached to, for good reason. Not all karma is bad. I still believe any form of control does not benefit us, it serves only to stagnate our true nature. As difficult as they are I feel tears and pain teach us more than denial and restraint.

Karma means action in the Buddhist definition, not just bad Karma - which is a phrase that has been appropriated to mean something like bad luck. So your Karma is negative and positive according to previous actions. There are acts which may induce Karma in this life - such as saving someone's life, or taking one, but it is very difficult to ascribe individual's Karma to a cause unless a Buddha - I'm referring to teaching I've had in the past as always.

I feel tears and pain teach us more than denial and restraint

In Buddhism, suffering is central to the teachings. What is difficult in posts like these is to really cover the interrelated network that is Buddhism. I hope I haven't misled you in my description of non-attachment. It's not really about avoiding suffering, but about coping with it, and not reacting negatively.

As for the tears and pain - if you can't deal with it, then you're not able to help yourself, and much less anyone else. Tears and pain are a fact of Samsara, and the Buddhist path is about dealing with it - first your own, and then your own and others. There are specific practices which engage with suffering - Transforming negative conditions into the path (spiritual path) is one where you are able to grow through the practice. In fact Tantra in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition is about transforming your own negative emotions, like anger, into a spiritual practice.

Denial and restraint in Buddhist terms are to foster good conditions and not develop negative Karma. Be careful. Encouraging tears and pain may only teach the benefits of restraint. Tears and pain will come whatever you do - even with the most auspicious life everyone dies and leaves their loved ones. Birth ageing sickness and death - on and on and on.

Buddhism is not a comfortable religion. It's about effort.

It also says to be cheeful. :lol:

[dizzydoll]

Buddhism is not a comfortable religion. It's about effort.

Thank you Paul, your explanation hit the mark. First let me explain, most of my life has been spent learning via word-n-mouth. I was never a reader, preferring to be 'out there', and oh boy is that a true description of my beliefs today. lol, But I realise, in order to grow we must be prepared to do those things that we find tedious. For me its reading. So now, I learn to read. Its not too bad tho, cos thanks to the internet and sites like this, I learn from reading the interaction between people. Still, I dont read books, I listen to reading on CD.

Back to the point. Please correct me if I am wrong. Some Buddhists do not believe in reincarnation and so karma for them is 'cause and effect' right here and now. From what I believe other Buddhist sects do believe in reincarnation until they have achieved enlightenment, in which case they believe they will not reincarnate again. I dont share this belief. On the contrary I believe our energy never dies and we will always return, there is no beginning and no end.

The way I see it is we simply improve as we go. for eg. You might not see your great grandfather sitting on the couch next to you now, but thats not to say you will not see him in the future. We might have to wait for some kind of consciousness veil to be lifted before we are able to see what is already there. And from what I have gathered, I think from "what the bleep do we know!?", there is NO empty space between things... none at all...:shocked: So it begs the question, what fills that space?

More than that tho, its that suffering thingie I care not for, the misery loves company too. Everyone who enjoys Buddhism loves sharing Buddhist stories, most are excellent tales which provide great guidance.. and carried down since the beginning, but the underlying message remains non-attachment, and that just doesnt resonate well with me.

I believe we are all connected in Oneness, let us call that oneness 'a human body'. Now if the foot hurts the body it will experience that pain via impulses sent to the brain. So if we look at 'the human body' as if it were the Globe and the Brain as the Soul, then it opens up a whole new way of looking at life.

We explore as we go and I feel one should explore other faiths just to give a dog a bone, if you will. lol. Anyhoo my spiritual make-up consists of bits and pieces of many faiths. I lean more towards Hinduism I feel, but again not entirely. Actually I am probably more of a pantheist. I also believe we are connected to certain Souls forever, and some are for a reason and some for a season.

Thank you for your input Paul, I do appreciate it.
:coolgleamA:

PS. For all my scatterbrainedness. lol. I have a gnosis [knowingness] that the right information comes to me at the right time.

[Paulclem]

Some Buddhists do not believe in reincarnation and so karma for them is 'cause and effect' right here and now. From what I believe other Buddhist sects do believe in reincarnation until they have achieved enlightenment, in which case they believe they will not reincarnate again. I dont share this belief. On the contrary I believe our energy never dies and we will always return, there is no beginning and no end.

The thing with Buddhism is that it is a very open religion. it has tools and ideas that anyone - Buddhist or not, can use for their benefit. Anyone who follows the Buddhist path will have teachings where Karma and re-incarnation are intrinsic to the overall worldview. The teachings are interlinked.

Having said that, the Buddha's own instruction was to be a lamp to yourself. He was keen to say that no-one should accept or believe the teaching on the strength of what he or anyone else says. But, that is not to imply that you shouldn't study it and investigate it fully. I think the important thing is to have an open mind and test out teachings for yourself. Don't rely on belief, but test out stuff. if it works for you - fine.

As for Buddhist Traditions - Buddhist implies following the Buddha's teachings, and so accepting the path as laid out by him. I can't think of a Buddhist group that believes this but not that aspect of the Buddha's path. Otherwise it would be something else. Nichiren is a case in point where they rely upon faith in Buddha Amitabha to gain rebirth in a Pure Land. This is not the Buddha's teaching, but a development away from it.

More than that tho, its that suffering thingie I care not for, the misery loves company too. Everyone who enjoys Buddhism loves sharing Buddhist stories, most are excellent tales which provide great guidance.. and carried down since the beginning, but the underlying message remains non-attachment, and that just doesnt resonate well with me.


There are fantastic teachings on compassion, Bodhicitta and loving Kindness in Buddhism too. it's a big subject.

Good luck with the exploring!