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. :biggrinjester: 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.

[miyako73]

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

Where did you get the idea that "being" is "self"? "Being" is a process of becoming or existing. "Self" is just one of the results of such process. Buddhist Ontology is not an oxymoron. Being, as a substance, is meaningless. It has to be a result of a process of becoming or existing for it to gain a meaning. Like the case of "human being", it is the result of the process of becoming or existing as a human. "Sentient being" is another example that is related to becoming conscious or existing with sentience or awareness.

[NikolaiI]

Yes, as I understand it, ontology is the study of the nature of existence, being, and reality; two fundamental ideas of Buddhist ontology, I would say, are that form (being) is emptiness, and emptiness is form (expounded in the Heart Sutra) and the idea of dependent origination, or inter-being, that all phenomena are arising together in a mutually interdependent web of cause and effect.

[Paulclem]

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.





I see. I was thinking generally too, but with the sense of interdependance.

How do you interpret "the unborn mind?" I've had a quick scan of a webpage on Bankei, and I wondered what you thought.

[Paulclem]

"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

We're regarding it in a precise definition according to the 4 Immeasurables.

The definition of love in Buddhism is: wanting others to be happy.

The definition of compassion is: wanting others to be free from suffering.


In those terms they are different, but there may well be other ways of looking at them.

http://viewonbuddhism.org/immeasurables_love_compassion_equanimity_rejoicing .html

This link has the definition.

[miyako73]

Also, it is not true that the existence of self is denied in Buddhism. Non-self is the foundation of Buddhism because it goes against the idea of self that causes suffering, chaos, imbalance. You cannot separate the cause from the effect and vice versa.

[NikolaiI]

I've given it a lot of thought, and I don't have any interpretation. :)

But basically, unborn mind is untainted awareness. Bankei teaches, we turn our mind from Buddha-mind into fighting-spirits, when we cling and grasp, or when we are affronted, or so many other things. And then we go from one thought to another, all the while we are lost. But, he says, by resolving firmly to remain in the unborn mind, we can do so.

"Whatever it is confronting you, let it be. As long as you do not pick up on it and react with bias, just remaining in the buddha mind and not transforming it into something else, then delusion cannot occur. This is constant abiding in the unconceived buddha mind."

Yeah, I said that I don't have an interpretation because I really don't. Bankei speaks so clearly that even 400 years later, it comes across plain as day, and anything I might add would probably obscure it more than clarify, so that's why I am hesitant to give any interpretation. I did a lot of searching for good pages, as I have before, and as I have thought before, it would be really nice if all of his work were online. Alas it is not, but this is a decent page; http://www.dharmanet.org/Bankei.htm. Still, the book Unborn doesn't have a substitute. Also, it isn't very large, just a small, wonderful little white book, very easy to carry around with you.

I really like this verse -

"Unborn and imperishable
Is the original mind.
Earth, water, fire and wind—
A temporary lodging for the night."

[NikolaiI]

Also, it is not true that the existence of self is denied in Buddhism. Non-self is the foundation of Buddhism because it goes against the idea of self that causes suffering, chaos, imbalance. You cannot separate the cause from the effect and vice versa.

Tara Brach addresses this in a dharma talk. She makes the good point that until there is a sense of self, non-self isn't the right thing to be focusing on, really.

[Paulclem]

I haven't read the book, but it seems to suggest the potential for a Buddha mind, which appears to be consistent with the potentiality, but not the manifestation, of the enlightened mind in an ordinary person.

Unborn suggests gestation- waiting to be born at the right time - perhaps as a rsult of practice or karma. Just speculation though.

[Paulclem]

Also, it is not true that the existence of self is denied in Buddhism. Non-self is the foundation of Buddhism because it goes against the idea of self that causes suffering, chaos, imbalance. You cannot separate the cause from the effect and vice versa.

It's related to the emptiness of the label - the self - and the two truths - conventional and ultimate reality.

I think there is a denial of an independantly existent self, but I think your post implies that.

[NikolaiI]

I haven't read the book, but it seems to suggest the potential for a Buddha mind, which appears to be consistent with the potentiality, but not the manifestation, of the enlightened mind in an ordinary person.

Unborn suggests gestation- waiting to be born at the right time - perhaps as a rsult of practice or karma. Just speculation though.

Well, Bankei talks primarily about how we all have original mind (unborn mind), and when we sit peacefully, with no distractions, then we are manifesting it. However, when we get swept away in thoughts, then we've changed it. Especially, thoughts based on defending the ego, or striking out, tend to turn it into a fighting spirit. That is the worst one, I believe. Thoughts based on craving tend to turn it into a hungry ghost.

Fortunately I've got the book with me now; yesterday I was really wishing I had it. I couldn't find it for a few hours at home, in fact, as I'd left it in an unusual spot.

[Paulclem]

It reminds me of the Therevadan teaching on dharmas, or moments of mind to use the Mahayanan/ Tibetan term. One measure I've heard is sixy-six within a finger snap. These are moments that arise and decline which give the impression of life as a film rather than moments arising in dependance upon former moments.

[YesNo]

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.
I've read the article although I don't think I understood it entirely. I think ontology is important because it justifies the practice. Why should one meditate the way a Buddhist does? What benefit does one obtain from doing this? Why is it effective?

There are many people who practice some form of meditation or mindfulness of the now, including Christians, Hindus, and a range of people who have no specific religious affiliation but could be called "spiritual", "intuitives", "mystics", or "psychics" among other things. They may each have a different ontology justifying their practices. Buddhists aren't the only ones who meditate.

Here are some questions:

1) Does Buddhism have a form of yoga, or physical discipline, associated with it? Meditation with the spine straight might be a kind of asana, but I suspect this physical practice is something peculiar to Hinduism. As the article says (page 264):


The same format is seen in the Vedaanta system. To wit, it postulated the empirical self (aatman) bound up in the changing world, but when its purity is uncovered by virtue of yogic discipline. the self can rise above the impurities to become the greater self (AAtman) and thereby identify itself within the total nature of things (Brahman). This approach certainly was a great spiritual insight; it captured the imagination of the Indians and has enabled the dominant Hindu philosophy to thrive so powerfully up to the present day.

I suspect yoga is irrelevant in Buddhist practice because of the denial of "the empirical self".

2) How does Buddhism view near-death experiences? This is from the linked text (page 265):


Even the Buddha denied life after death, the immortality of the soul, on the grounds that it would transgress and disregard the normal flow of existence. Thus, if immortality or permanence (eternality) is not to be experienced, then the concentration would have to be on the moment-to-moment existence. In this way, the great insight was not about permanent or eternal life, but on the microscopic behavior within momentary existence.

I've asked this in other threads, but reading Thich Nhat Hanh, he seems puzzled how one could love "nirvana", which he views as corresponding to the Christian "God" in Going Home. Those with a positive near-death experience tell of a sense of acceptance and love that does not seem to be part of the Buddhist tradition.

3) How does Buddhism view the origin of the universe? The article has the following quote from Buddhaghosa (page 273):


Becoming's wheel reveals no known beginning;
No maker, no experiencer there;
Void with a twelvefold voidness, and nowhere
It ever halts; for ever it is spinning.

Modern 21st century science has established that the universe originated out of nothing about 13.73 billion years ago. How does Buddhist ontology reconcile itself with this? I know one can say that this is not important and one should be concerned about removing suffering, but the ontology justifies the means used to remove the suffering.

[lawpark]

It's related to the emptiness of the label - the self - and the two truths - conventional and ultimate reality.

I think there is a denial of an independantly existent self, but I think your post implies that.

Agreed.

Would it be better to use "Buddhist Metaphysics" rather than "Buddhist Ontology", given the common association of "ontology" as a study of (independently existent) being?

[lawpark]

Modern 21st century science has established that the universe originated out of nothing about 13.73 billion years ago. How does Buddhist ontology reconcile itself with this?

Did suffering originate then, or before, or after? Something to think about.

[Paulclem]

I've read the article although I don't think I understood it entirely. I think ontology is important because it justifies the practice. Why should one meditate the way a Buddhist does? What benefit does one obtain from doing this? Why is it effective?

There are many people who practice some form of meditation or mindfulness of the now, including Christians, Hindus, and a range of people who have no specific religious affiliation but could be called "spiritual", "intuitives", "mystics", or "psychics" among other things. They may each have a different ontology justifying their practices. Buddhists aren't the only ones who meditate.



Why should one meditate the way a Buddhist does? What benefit does one obtain from doing this? Why is it effective?

In the Tibetan tradition, meditation is defined as the contemplation of a virtuous object. Breathing meditation etc are regarded as preparatory practices.

There are different emphases in different traditions though, and I wouldn't say one was better than another of course. Our teacher recently advocated adopting practices from different traditions if they are useful. It's a case of which suits you.

As for why Buddhist meditation, this is done with the motivation generated by taking refuge. Otherwise it is not Buddhist. It's about inner motivation.

Interesting questions.

[NikolaiI]

I've read the article although I don't think I understood it entirely. I think ontology is important because it justifies the practice. Why should one meditate the way a Buddhist does? What benefit does one obtain from doing this? Why is it effective?

There are many people who practice some form of meditation or mindfulness of the now, including Christians, Hindus, and a range of people who have no specific religious affiliation but could be called "spiritual", "intuitives", "mystics", or "psychics" among other things. They may each have a different ontology justifying their practices. Buddhists aren't the only ones who meditate.

Here are some questions:

1) Does Buddhism have a form of yoga, or physical discipline, associated with it? Meditation with the spine straight might be a kind of asana, but I suspect this physical practice is something peculiar to Hinduism. As the article says (page 264):

Yes, there is a Buddhist form of yoga. I used to have a copy of a book translated by Thomas Cleary (it was actually a larger book that had several texts in it); here's a link to that.
http://books.google.com/books/about/Buddhist_yoga.html?id=8cAGAAAAYAAJ

Why should one practice Vipassana meditation? From my experience, meditation is like turning a light on, in a way. It's like, a form of emotional and, if you will spiritual growth that doesn't have any other equivalent. If I don't meditation, I won't get the benefits of it any other way.

Which brings us to your second question, what are its benefits? Its benefits are not easy to measure, but they are not small. Meditation as a practice of quieting the mind, of bringing the mind to a quiet state, and holding it there for some time, has many benefits to health, peace of mind, contentment and happiness levels.

Thinking is great, it's wonderful; it allows us to do so many things- reflect on the past, predict outcomes in the future and choose our direction- but if we never stop thinking . . . then we never stop thinking. The mind just continually goes from one thought to the next, to the next, ad infinitum. Meditation is the process of not thinking - not forever, thinking will always resume, but it's the practice of resting in awareness not focused on any thought, but only the breathing.

Meditation for me improves thinking, it really improves everything. Its health benefits are scientifically proven as well. The brains of advanced meditators are different. . I'm afraid I don't have links to the sources for this, but research was done on this.

In the article "How to Meditate," by Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche, the author states at the beginning,

"The practice of mindfulness/awareness meditation is common to all Buddhist traditions. Beyond that, it is common to, inherent in, all human beings."

It makes sense to me to think of meditation as a very natural practice, common to all human beings, much in the same way that walking is common to all human beings -- barring some exceptions.

Why it is effective I am not sure I can answer.

(A link to download that article can be found on this site - http://tommyangelo.com/meditation-101/)



The same format is seen in the Vedaanta system. To wit, it postulated the empirical self (aatman) bound up in the changing world, but when its purity is uncovered by virtue of yogic discipline. the self can rise above the impurities to become the greater self (AAtman) and thereby identify itself within the total nature of things (Brahman). This approach certainly was a great spiritual insight; it captured the imagination of the Indians and has enabled the dominant Hindu philosophy to thrive so powerfully up to the present day.

Yes, other cultures meditate. I think Taoists meditate, I know Hindus do as there are many counts of great yogis meditating; Christians meditate as well. There is an excellent book by Henri Nouwen, "The Way of the Heart" which sheds a great deal of light on the subject. My mother's Presbyterian church in Kansas City has a Christian meditation once a week, a small group including the pastor and his wife, who sing a song, speak a little, light a candle and strike a small gong and meditate for thirty minutes.


I suspect yoga is irrelevant in Buddhist practice because of the denial of "the empirical self".

Well, I've read parts of the Buddhist Yoga work, but it was some time ago and I don't remember much about it, I'm afraid. I think yoga's importance to Buddhists may vary widely.


2) How does Buddhism view near-death experiences? This is from the linked text (page 265):


Even the Buddha denied life after death, the immortality of the soul, on the grounds that it would transgress and disregard the normal flow of existence. Thus, if immortality or permanence (eternality) is not to be experienced, then the concentration would have to be on the moment-to-moment existence. In this way, the great insight was not about permanent or eternal life, but on the microscopic behavior within momentary existence.

I've asked this in other threads, but reading Thich Nhat Hanh, he seems puzzled how one could love "nirvana", which he views as corresponding to the Christian "God" in Going Home. Those with a positive near-death experience tell of a sense of acceptance and love that does not seem to be part of the Buddhist tradition.

Near death experiences aren't given a central place in Buddhism, as in, they're not the most important thing. However, the question of love and acceptance is given consideration. In a dharma talk by Tara Brach I recently listened to, she talked about how the nature of things is "emptiness suffused with compassion," and this is fairly reasonably descriptive of it, as I have experienced it.

I think it can be downloaded here. . http://www.dharmaseed.org/teacher/175/talk/1951/

If it's the talk I remember, she talks about it very well.


3) How does Buddhism view the origin of the universe? The article has the following quote from Buddhaghosa (page 273):


Becoming's wheel reveals no known beginning;
No maker, no experiencer there;
Void with a twelvefold voidness, and nowhere
It ever halts; for ever it is spinning.

Modern 21st century science has established that the universe originated out of nothing about 13.73 billion years ago. How does Buddhist ontology reconcile itself with this? I know one can say that this is not important and one should be concerned about removing suffering, but the ontology justifies the means used to remove the suffering.

Actually I believe there is now some new evidence and some doubt about whether the Big Bang theory is the best idea we have. I believe there is more and more weight being given to the idea that something else may be true, for example a universe that expands and contracts, but I am not 100% sure.

I could not answer without doing research, and I found this:

"Now there comes a time, Vasettha, when after a long period of time this world expands. When the world expands beings
for the most part fall from the realm of Radiance and come here; and they exist made of mind, feeding on joy, self-luminous, moving through the air, constantly beautiful; thus they remain for a long, long time. Now at that time, all had become one world of water dark, and of darkness that maketh blind. No moon nor sun appeared no stars were seen, nor constellations, neither was night manifest nor day, neither months nor half-months, neither years nor seasons, neither female nor male. Beings were reckoned just as beings only. And to those beings, Vasettha, sooner or later after a long time, earth with its savors was spread out in the waters. Even as a scum forms on the surface of boiled milky rice that is cooling, so did the earth appear. ~ Aganna Sutta"
http://www.parami.org/buddhistanswers/origin_of_the_world.htm

"Even so, questions regarding the origins of the world and such were not considered important by the Buddha and not made out to be a big deal as in other religions. In a famous story, a man called Malunkyaputta approached the Buddha and demanded that the Buddha explain the origin of the universe before he would become a disciple of the Buddha. Then the Buddha said that he would not go into a discussion of the origin of the Universe. To him, gaining knowledge about such matters was a waste of time because a man's immediate problem was his own suffering and his task was to liberate himself from the present state of affairs. To illustrate this, the Buddha related the parable of a man who was shot by a poisoned arrow. This foolish man refused to have the arrow removed until he was told who shot the arrow, what he looks like, the kind of wood the arrow was made of and so on. The Buddha said that before the man could learn such information, he would be dead. Similarly, our immediate task is to be enlightened, not to speculate about the metaphysical. Thus, the Buddha's teachings centre around mankind and emphasises the methods by which he can liberate himself."

I've heard elsewhere in Dharma talks and so on, the latter idea. Wondering about whether the universe is one, etc. leads us into metaphysical discussions which are distractions from what really matters.

[NikolaiI]

Agreed.

Would it be better to use "Buddhist Metaphysics" rather than "Buddhist Ontology", given the common association of "ontology" as a study of (independently existent) being?

You could very well be right. When I read that article before, the one called The Range of Buddhist Ontology, I was far more impressed with it than when I glanced over it now. However, is it important enough to petition the moderators to change it? I am not sure metaphysics is much better anyway, especially since Buddha rather warned about going off into metaphysical debates, considering it unhelpful. Earlier I thought the use Ontology was worse, but now I am thinking it's better - but who knows. Maybe a fair definition of Buddhist ontology is: "The nature of being is emptiness suffused with compassion," in which case, Ontology is a fair word to use, though Buddhist ontology means something very different from plain ontology.

I think I've used the word ontology too much. Maybe it will linger around too long. :p

[Paulclem]

Why should one practice Vipassana meditation? From my experience, meditation is like turning a light on, in a way. It's like, a form of emotional and, if you will spiritual growth that doesn't have any other equivalent. If I don't meditation, I won't get the benefits of it any other way.

Which brings us to your second question, what are its benefits? Its benefits are not easy to measure, but they are not small. Meditation as a practice of quieting the mind, of bringing the mind to a quiet state, and holding it there for some time, has many benefits to health, peace of mind, contentment and happiness levels.

Thinking is great, it's wonderful; it allows us to do so many things- reflect on the past, predict outcomes in the future and choose our direction- but if we never stop thinking . . . then we never stop thinking. The mind just continually goes from one thought to the next, to the next, ad infinitum. Meditation is the process of not thinking - not forever, thinking will always resume, but it's the practice of resting in awareness not focused on any thought, but only the breathing.

Meditation for me improves thinking, it really improves everything. Its health benefits are scientifically proven as well. The brains of advanced meditators are different. . I'm afraid I don't have links to the sources for this, but research was done on this.



To add to Nik's post, I found that meditation is very practical in that it can be used to "step back" from situation rather than become involved - usually in a negative way - immediately. I found this very useful as a teacher dealing with kids, and I found it useful today when i had to deal with an abrasive learner.

One of the purposes of meditation is to help a practitioner get to know their own mind. The fact that you can watch your thoughts arise suggests something about where your thoughts come from in relation to your perception of "you" - or rather your sense of I. It's a real eye-opener to discover that "you" don't necessarily cause your thoughts, but that they arise unprompted, and goes against common assumptions.

It also introduces the idea of personal mental power over oneself. It's a common idea that a person's self control makes them either tremendously respected - especially in adversity - or a little ridiculous when they demonstrate a lack of control and "lose it". We've all lost it, and we've all experienced the calm of someone with a better sense of self control - or is that just me? :biggrin5:

As Nik says, it improves thinking, and can be used to focus - especially with concentration added in - very clearly on analytical and placement meditations. Analytical is where you mentally explore an idea or emotion - such as anger, and develop the reasons why it is a bad thing because of all the negative effects it has. Placement medtation is where you make a resolution to try to be more patient - the antidote to anger - and generate that feeling in your heart - (where Buddhsits say the mind is located).

[Paulclem]

Near death experiences aren't given a central place in Buddhism, as in, they're not the most important thing. However, the question of love and acceptance is given consideration. In a dharma talk by Tara Brach I recently listened to, she talked about how the nature of things is "emptiness suffused with compassion," and this is fairly reasonably descriptive of it, as I have experienced it.


To follow on from what Nik says - I hope you don't mind me following you like this Nik - there isn't the focus upon something called a near death experience. Quite a bit of Buddhist meditation is a preparation for death though - either simply as a way of calming the mind during the death process or coping with the pain, or to use the death experience as part of the practitioner's practice.

In the Tibetan tradition I follow, there is a death meditation, whose purpose is to rehearse an experience of death. The thinking behind this is that familiarity and preparedness will enable the practitioner to recognise the process as it manifests. It is said that a state of mind called The Clear Light arises at death, but passes if it is not recognised by the practitioner. It presents a powerful opportunity to spiritually progress, and possibly achieve enlightenment. This is also a mind cultivated by practitioners of tantra.

The Tibetan tradition also describes an intermediate state called The Bardo in which a person has a Bardo body. There are instructions in the texts advising people of what to look for to check that they are dead, such as walking in sand and leaving no footprints. It seems to admit the possibility of the person being around their family, though they cannot be seen.

This state is said to be temporary, traditionally lasting 49 days. The time can vary though. It is a sobering thought if you contemplate the possibility of reincarnation that you can be thrown through the windscreen of your car and straight into your next life. (There's no guarrantee that you will experience the Bardo).

It is merely speculative, but not beyond the bounds of possibility, that near death experiences offer a vision of some passge into the Bardo, or the next life. We'll all find out eventually. :biggrin5:

[YesNo]

Thanks for the responses, Paulclem and NikolaiI. The use of "intent" as a way to distinguish Buddhist meditation from other forms makes sense. The "motivation generated by taking refuge" can characterize Buddhist meditation. I was hoping to find some way to make a distinction through the "ontology" that the Buddhist practice implies.

It also looks like there is a Buddhist yoga, but perhaps with a different intent from what the Hindus have.

The reason I ask the questions about near-death experiences where a persistent self appears to resurrect and the beginning of the universe which implies some sort of originator are that these are my base points of reality. These are my starting assumptions. I don't have any others that I am aware of. I would like to know if Buddhism would claim that I am wrong or not with accepting these assumptions.

Edit: Paul, I just read your post which seems to address the near-death experience issue. I didn't include that in the above.

[Paulclem]

I see what you are saying, and it is a good question. The problem is that we are deluded whether we are alive or experiencing the bardo, and so will always be aware of an I whatever state we are reborn in. It is said that an insect has a sense of I too.

The teachings suggest that is why a teacher is so precious, as they can lead someone to an understanding of not-self. I don't think your theory will demonstrate an originator fro the Buddhist perspective. It is a good idea and it would be interesting to read the testimony of a Buddhist who experienced it.

[YesNo]

I would think that anything that is conscious, alive or not, would experience a persistent "I" of some sort.

Thanks for the dialog. It is good to have the chance to formulate ideas and bounce them off of someone else. These things are not clear in my mind.

[Paulclem]

I would think that anything that is conscious, alive or not, would experience a persistent "I" of some sort.

Thanks for the dialog. It is good to have the chance to formulate ideas and bounce them off of someone else. These things are not clear in my mind.

Yes.

Realising non-self, or the absence of an I, is a key factor in escaping from samsara in that it is this which prompts the unskillful pursuit of happiness through the reliance upon the three poisons - ignorence, hatred and attachment - to achieve this.

[NikolaiI]

To add to Nik's post, I found that meditation is very practical in that it can be used to "step back" from situation rather than become involved - usually in a negative way - immediately. I found this very useful as a teacher dealing with kids, and I found it useful today when i had to deal with an abrasive learner.

One of the purposes of meditation is to help a practitioner get to know their own mind. The fact that you can watch your thoughts arise suggests something about where your thoughts come from in relation to your perception of "you" - or rather your sense of I. It's a real eye-opener to discover that "you" don't necessarily cause your thoughts, but that they arise unprompted, and goes against common assumptions.

It also introduces the idea of personal mental power over oneself. It's a common idea that a person's self control makes them either tremendously respected - especially in adversity - or a little ridiculous when they demonstrate a lack of control and "lose it". We've all lost it, and we've all experienced the calm of someone with a better sense of self control - or is that just me? :biggrin5:

As Nik says, it improves thinking, and can be used to focus - especially with concentration added in - very clearly on analytical and placement meditations. Analytical is where you mentally explore an idea or emotion - such as anger, and develop the reasons why it is a bad thing because of all the negative effects it has. Placement medtation is where you make a resolution to try to be more patient - the antidote to anger - and generate that feeling in your heart - (where Buddhsits say the mind is located).

I recently came across a Dharma talk by Thay that is a few years earlier than the ones I have been listening to, which were quite recent. It was striking because he was younger, I can tell by the way he was speaking significantly more quickly. Anyway it was called "Being Peace," it was one of the best talks I've ever heard... so inspiring and so enlightening.

For me, in my practice, I am mostly following Zen, which places a very high value on purity, discipline, but also devotion and love - loving-kindness. I am far less likely to talk about how the "I" is this, or that, or how it is so hard to get rid of the "I" completely. For me, my goal is not to get rid of the "I" completely; my goal is just to live in the here and now; it is to learn to smile more, to increase my understanding. . .

For me practice is a very simple, easy, and beautiful process. I used to live in a mind-state where I was feeling bliss almost all the time, and my dreams were especially peaceful and blissful. Since that time many things have happened, and now my main goal is to reach it again, and I use it as a measuring stick. . I've always known dreams are clear indicator of all that's going on in my life, reflected in my psyche and subconscious mind.

But it isn't about getting rid of the "I," really I would say, it's just about being free of all suffering, and learning to experience joy and peace more deeply. An over-active self-partiality is a symptom and not a cause. Well, perhaps that is in reverse. Bankei teaches that self-partiality is the root of all my illusions, and without the self-partiality, just living in the here and now, illusions don't/can't arise.

But being free of self-partiality isn't at all about negating the self. And self-metta is actually extremely important. Buddha said - no one deserves your love more than you yourself! So this is a cornerstone of Buddhist practice. We can't love others if we don't love ourselves deeply. It's a common thread throughout all cultures' wisdom. But I meant to say, we are kind to ourselves, it is actually a part of practice. Thay said a wonderful thing; he talked about how we have a Buddha-baby inside of us, and we should remember.

We shouldn't practice asceticism just to practice austerity. And yet, there is a great deal of value in many practices which are meant to develop purity. It runs so incredibly counter-grain to Western culture. This fact alone may be discouraging; and yet I have found, though living a life devoted to living rightly is in some ways so opposite to the culture around me, which at times can be discouraging, whenever I begin to bend under this, there is usually something which by chance occurs at the exact right time to lift me back up.

[Paulclem]

But it isn't about getting rid of the "I," really I would say, it's just about being free of all suffering, and learning to experience joy and peace more deeply. An over-active self-partiality is a symptom and not a cause. Well, perhaps that is in reverse. Bankei teaches that self-partiality is the root of all my illusions, and without the self-partiality, just living in the here and now, illusions don't/can't arise.

But being free of self-partiality isn't at all about negating the self. And self-metta is actually extremely important. Buddha said - no one deserves your love more than you yourself! So this is a cornerstone of Buddhist practice. We can't love others if we don't love ourselves deeply. It's a common thread throughout all cultures' wisdom. But I meant to say, we are kind to ourselves, it is actually a part of practice. Thay said a wonderful thing; he talked about how we have a Buddha-baby inside of us, and we should remember.

We shouldn't practice asceticism just to practice austerity. And yet, there is a great deal of value in many practices which are meant to develop purity. It runs so incredibly counter-grain to Western culture. This fact alone may be discouraging; and yet I have found, though living a life devoted to living rightly is in some ways so opposite to the culture around me, which at times can be discouraging, whenever I begin to bend under this, there is usually something which by chance occurs at the exact right time to lift me back up.

Thay said a wonderful thing; he talked about how we have a Buddha-baby inside of us, and we should remember.

What do you interpret this to be? Is it just another way of saying that there is Buddha potential?

But it isn't about getting rid of the "I," really I would say,

The idea is that we cause our own suffering because we are attached to a self existant I which we defend, and nurture and try to make happy to the exclusion of others. This is not necessarily the gross forms of selfishness, but a subtle grasping.

[Paulclem]

This is a quote from the website linked below to support the post above which states it more strongly:

According to the Buddha, as long as we do not realise emptiness directly - especially of our idea of how our "I" or 'self' exists - we do not properly understand how the world functions and we will continue to create causes for our own misery.

"How much suffering and fear, and
How many harmful things are in existence?
If all arises from clinging to the "I",
What should I do with this great demon?"
Shantideva

http://viewonbuddhism.org/wisdom_emptiness.html

[NikolaiI]

Yes; it's about language. The language Bankei uses is speaks more directly to my heart: the root of all your illusions is self-partiality. Thay speaks a very wonderful mantra.. he says, "breathe. . . smile . . . this moment . . . only moment." Also, Bankei teaches the way out; simply reside in your unborn Buddha-mind, without turning it into anything else. If we do so, then not only do we experience for that moment, but also for all moments, as illusion cannot arise if we simply dwell in the unborn Buddha-mind.

One of the beautiful concepts Thay gives from the talk I mentioned is, he asks, "Does it take any particular effort to enjoy a beautiful sky?" To me this, and his further statements about it, expresses beautifully how practice can become enjoyable and effortless, we can enjoy the present moment and engage more fully, just as it doesn't take an extra effort to enjoy a beautiful sky.

[Paulclem]

The nub of the matter is that our suffering comes from ourselves, and our regard and protection that we afford a non-existent self - the I.

This is a very difficult concept to accept, as it appears that suffering comes from all the harassing and difficult external conditions that arise in a life. Combined with karma, it presents us with the idea that the situation we are in has been generated by our negative actions in other lives. The regard for the I is what causes the clinging to this life - Samsara.

[NikolaiI]

The nub of the matter is that our suffering comes from ourselves, and our regard and protection that we afford a non-existent self - the I.

This is a very difficult concept to accept, as it appears that suffering comes from all the harassing and difficult external conditions that arise in a life. Combined with karma, it presents us with the idea that the situation we are in has been generated by our negative actions in other lives. The regard for the I is what causes the clinging to this life - Samsara.

I know, and I agree with you - we are saying the same thing. It just sounds so strange the way you say it, the I.

I understand what you are saying with your last sentence, "The regard for the I is what causes the clinging to this life - Samsara," and in a sense what you're saying is exactly true. The mind creates samsara, and when the mind is transformed, etc., the universe is transformed. . . this is what Geshe Dorje taught me.

However the way you say it seems to indicate that the solution is just to not have regard for "the I" and that is all. But two things; first, we have to develop loving-kindness for ourselves, Metta, and compassion. That is a very, very integral part of the practice. The Buddha said, "No one in the universe deserves your love more than you yourself."

Tara Brach gave the wonderful point in one of her talks - there are times when it's inappropriate to focus on the non-existence of the self. For instance, if you are in a relationship with someone, and there is anger arising in you because of an abusive situation, it is not appropriate to just try to understand that there's no anger, there's no self, there's no person who is abusing you - this, she says, will only create the conditions for more karma.

However, I don't want you to think I'm just disagreeing with you. I do agree with you that taking responsibility for basically all things in your life, being aware that you did indeed create your life, is one of the most important steps to make in growing. It is also incredibly liberating. The weight of blaming others for one's situation is incredibly heavy, and it can literally trap a person and weigh them down.

I would also point out one small detail, in your sentence, Combined with karma, it presents us with the idea that the situation we are in has been generated by our negative actions in other lives. The situation we are in has been generated by all the actions in our previous existence(s). You may think it's a small quibble, but to quote Sherlock Holmes. . . details matter. :)

[NikolaiI]

I wanted to share some of Thay's words, in a Dharma talk, I thought I would type it out here to share it with you. The whole talk can be downloaded for free, here, http://diydharma.org/audio/by/artist/thich_nhat_hanh it is the one called "Being Peace." I'm going to type out the first 15 minutes or so. I hope you will read it if you want, and I hope I may encourage some of you to download his talk, because I think hearing him sends much more information than just type. I'm sharing it because to me he is one of the wisest and most skillful teachers of enlightenment living today.

I've never done this before but I will try to put line breaks in appropriate places. In some places I have slightly adjusted phrases to make it more correct English.

Without further ado -


"Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

"This morning is really a wonderful morning. We just spent one hour practicing walking meditation, and we did it in a way that each step would be a joy for us. And beginning this retreat I asked a question, as whether a particular effort should be made in order for us to enjoy a beautiful morning. And that was almost four days ago.

"I did not give the answer. But it seems that after four days of practice, my friends here found out that well, there's no particular effort that should be made for us to enjoy a beautiful morning. When you look at the blue sky, you see the beauty of the sky. And do you have to make a special effort in order to enjoy it? That is the hard question. And that is the question of the practice, also, because, is the practice hard? Do we have to make a lot of efforts in order to practice? To us who have gone through four days of practice, we think that practicing is a very pleasant thing. And each second of the practice, each minute of the practice, should be a second of joy, a minute of joy. Do you have to practice enjoying the blue sky? Hm, no, I guess not. You just enjoy it.

"This morning during some questions and answer period, I said something like this, "Life is full of suffering, but it is also full of wonderful things, like the blue sky, the sunshine. . . the eyes of a baby, and that to suffer is not enough." We should be in touch with the wonder of life. It is all around us. Anytime, and anywhere. We don't need to go to China to enjoy the blue sky. We don't have to travel into the future in order to enjoy the air we are breathing here. So please be in touch with the wonderful aspects of life, because it would be a pity if we are only in touch with the suffering.

"You know as well as I do that in Theravada Buddhism we stress more on the aspect of the pain, suffering, and in Mahayana we stress more on the aspect of the wonderness of life. Look at the arhats, and the Bodhisattvas. The Bodhisattvas are very beautifully dressed, smiling all the time. Today I have asked all the children to dress very beautifully in order to be Bodhisattvas. And the other day, during a Dharma talk, children were sitting in front of me, and there was a boy, whose name is Tim, smiling beautifully and I said, "Tim you have a very beautiful smile." And he said, "Thank you." And I said, "No, you don't have to thank me. I have to thank you, because of your smile you make life more beautiful. So instead of saying thank you, you should say, 'you're welcome.'" And then, in the last two days, children have been smiling a lot, and when I look at them, they say, "You're welcome."

"So, you know that a tree - if a tree is a tree, that is about all that a tree can do. If a tree is not a tree, and life is not life, you cannot profit from the tree. The fact that a tree is a tree is very important to us, for we profit a lot from the being of a tree. Therefore, one person should be a person. If one person is a real person, living happily like a tree, smiling, then all of us, all the world will profit from a person. A person doesn't have to do a lot in order to save the world. A person has to be a person, and then that is the basis of peace. If a child smiles, if an adult smiles, that is very important. Because if, in our daily life, we can smile, we can be peaceful, happy, not only we profit from that, but the members of the family will profit from it. Living peacefully, joyfully, smiling, is blooming like a flower. And everyone in the family will profit from it - the world around us will profit from us, and that is the basic kind of peace work.

"Therefore, when I see Tim smiling, I was so happy, and if he is aware of the fact that he is making other people happy, he can say, "You're welcome." Therefore, to be in touch with the wonderful things in the world, to be able to smile, to be able to enjoy the blue sky, the sunshine, the presence of each others, I think that is the first thing [we] have to practice. And that kind of practice does not need a particular kind of effort. . . Just to be aware of the presence of these wonderful things.

"We have been practicing smiling, not only during walking meditation, during the time in the kitchen, cutting carrots, but also while we sit. Sitting in Zendo and smiling, that would be a very revolutionary act.

"At first some of us find it very hard to smile, really hard to smile. And we have to think as to how, it's so difficult to smile. Smiling means that you are yourself, that you have sovereignty over yourself, that you are not drowned into forgetfulness, and that kind of smile can be seen on the face of the Buddhas, and Bodhisattvas. So, I would like to ask you all not to be observers here, or spectators, but to be actors; let us smile, and enjoy our breathing while we go on.

"There is a gata for us to breathe and to smile, I would like to share with you, because we have been practicing that for four days. "Breathing in, I calm my body and mind. Breathing out, I smile, and I actually smile. Dwelling in the present moment, I know it is the only moment." I would like to say something about these four lines. "Breathing in, I calm body and mind." And this I do, not just reciting the line - I practice. It's like when you drink a glass of ice water, you feel the cold, the freshness, permeates the body, your whole body. So when I breathe in, I feel the breathing calming my body, calming my mind, and I feel like a glass of orange juice just pressed from fresh orange, I put it on the table, and the small particles of the orange slowly go down to the bottom and settle. So when I breathe in, I see clearly that the breathing calms my mind and my body. And when I breathe out, I smile. You know the effect of the smile. The smile can relax hundreds of muscles on the face, and relax your nervous system. And make you master of yourself. That is why the Buddha, and Bodhisattvas, are always smiling. Smiling, if you smile you see the wonder of the smile.

"Dwelling in the present moment." Though I sit here, I don't think of elsewhere in the future or the past. I sit here, and I am aware that I am sitting here. This is very important. Because we tend to be alive in the future, not now. We say that, "Wait until I finish school, and get my PhD degree, then I will be really alive." And when you got it, and it's not easy to get, then you say to yourself, "I have to wait until I get a job to be really alive." And then after the job, a house. After the house, a car. And we are not capable of being alive in the present moment. And we tend to postpone being alive to the future, to a distant future, we don't know when. Now is not the moment to be alive. And we may not be alive at all in all our lives. Therefore the technique, if we have to speak of technique, is to be in the present moment, to be aware that I am here, and now, and the only moment for me to be alive is the present moment.

"So the time you are out with me, here now, is not to listen to a lecture, but to be in the present moment. Listening to a lecture is not the important thing, but to be here, now, to enjoy the present moment, is the most important thing. "Dwelling in the present moment, I know that this is the only moment." Well, the present moment, the only moment that is real is the present moment. And we should demonstrate to ourselves that we are capable of being alive in the present moment.

"I would like you to practice that gata now, with the bell, because there is no way for us to share with you our practice except practicing together one minute. I would like to like to repeat the gata. "Breathing in, I calm the body and mind." If you don't remember, you just remember one word, calming. "Breathing in, calming," calming body and mind. "Breathing out, smiling, smiling." Real smile, you smile to yourself, not to anyone else. "Dwelling in the present moment," You have to dwell really in the present moment, be here and now; be your own true self. Don't jump into the future. Don't jump into the past. It's wonderful, this morning, it is wonderful that we sit here, able to breathe and to smile. And if you cannot enjoy the moment, if you cannot be happy now - when? When shall we be happy?

"Dwelling in the present moment, I know that this is the only moment." So, we should become - alert. Should I repeat? "Calming, smiling, present moment, only moment."


- -

So that is 17 minutes into it, and the whole talk is 73 minutes. I hope I've inspired anyone to try giving Thay a listen, as I have found doing so, and immensely beneficial. I had no idea how many words it would be. One note, I am not sure when I typed "gata," if that is the correct word, as I'm not familiar with it, but that is what it sounds like. I think of it as a mantra.

[Paulclem]

The talk I attended in Birmingham by Thic Nat Hahn was inspiring and similar. I'll never forget him holding up an orange and asking us to consider how it was made. Looking into it deeper, he was pointing to the interdependance of all phenomena.

"This morning during some questions and answer period, I said something like this, "Life is full of suffering, but it is also full of wonderful things, like the blue sky, the sunshine. . . the eyes of a baby, and that to suffer is not enough." We should be in touch with the wonder of life.

I think this acknowledges suffering, but he is very encouraging. The truth is that you have to have an enthusiasm for practice and "love the cushion".

His paragraph about smiling is very positive.I think he's teaching about self awareness and the results of even the simplest actions. We all know how positive it is to smile and be smiled at, especially in a world where we are experiencing some level of suffering.

"Wait until I finish school, and get my PhD degree, then I will be really alive." And when you got it, and it's not easy to get, then you say to yourself, "I have to wait until I get a job to be really alive." And then after the job, a house. After the house, a car. And we are not capable of being alive in the present moment. And we tend to postpone being alive to the future, to a distant future, we don't know when.

This is a gentle exhortation to practice. Again he's very encouraging, but the message is a lifelong one, to practice now. A good message.

[NikolaiI]

The talk I attended in Birmingham by Thic Nat Hahn was inspiring and similar. I'll never forget him holding up an orange and asking us to consider how it was made. Looking into it deeper, he was pointing to the interdependance of all phenomena.

"This morning during some questions and answer period, I said something like this, "Life is full of suffering, but it is also full of wonderful things, like the blue sky, the sunshine. . . the eyes of a baby, and that to suffer is not enough." We should be in touch with the wonder of life.

I think this acknowledges suffering, but he is very encouraging. The truth is that you have to have an enthusiasm for practice and "love the cushion".

His paragraph about smiling is very positive.I think he's teaching about self awareness and the results of even the simplest actions. We all know how positive it is to smile and be smiled at, especially in a world where we are experiencing some level of suffering.

"Wait until I finish school, and get my PhD degree, then I will be really alive." And when you got it, and it's not easy to get, then you say to yourself, "I have to wait until I get a job to be really alive." And then after the job, a house. After the house, a car. And we are not capable of being alive in the present moment. And we tend to postpone being alive to the future, to a distant future, we don't know when.

This is a gentle exhortation to practice. Again he's very encouraging, but the message is a lifelong one, to practice now. A good message.

Glad to have your analysis, and thank you for reading it sir.

[Brynmr]

Oh boy I just love the topic of Emptiness! I kicked the stuffing out of phenomena (or maybe the other way around LOL) but that 'I' is super tricky. Took a break for a few years but will be getting back into it. Anyone here actually find their object of negation re: 'I'? It's diabolically slippery isn't it. Great thread - I was surprised to see it.

[YesNo]

Nice way of putting it: "kicked the stuffing out of phenomena".

Did you find your "I"? The topic doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[Brynmr]

Did you find your "I"? The topic doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

The inherently existing 'I'. The 'I' that we normally grasp as being our true self. We need to become familiar with this 'I' (the image or concept of it) that appears to us so we can negate it's existence through meditation.

[Brynmr]

It's like when you negate the true existence of phenomena. You first have to understand what you're negating.

[YesNo]

The inherently existing 'I'. The 'I' that we normally grasp as being our true self. We need to become familiar with this 'I' (the image or concept of it) that appears to us so we can negate it's existence through meditation.
Why would you want to do something like that?

What is the "I" that embodies one reincarnation and then another and generates "karma" along the way?

[Paulclem]

Cheers Nik.


Oh boy I just love the topic of Emptiness! I kicked the stuffing out of phenomena (or maybe the other way around LOL) but that 'I' is super tricky. Took a break for a few years but will be getting back into it. Anyone here actually find their object of negation re: 'I'? It's diabolically slippery isn't it. Great thread - I was surprised to see it.

What method do you use?

One I heard of was to remember a situation of embarrassment where you become very self conscious and then use this to try to focus on the I.

I did also hear theat it is useful to develop single pointed concentration too.

[Paulclem]

Why would you want to do something like that?

What is the "I" that embodies one reincarnation and then another and generates "karma" along the way?

The point of that YesNo is that the I is the core reason for our grasping and generating negative Karma. It is the very subtle trick that keeps beings in Samsara because we all assume - deep down - that our sense of I is real. We assume that it is self evidently existent, and we consciously and subconsciously strive to protect, promote and feed it.

The Buddhist teachings deny this, stating that the I is merely a label we place upon an impression of the I - perhaps our sense of self. This is based upon the logic that if an I exists - as it so surely seems to, then we will be able to locate and find it. As Brynmr has noted - it is a slippery semi image, sem impression. This is because it can't be located anywhere. This impression we have of our self is a lie, and with practice will disappear.

Apparently it is very liberating, though it can be initially very disconcerting.

[Brynmr]

Cheers Nik.



What method do you use?

One I heard of was to remember a situation of embarrassment where you become very self conscious and then use this to try to focus on the I.

I did also hear theat it is useful to develop single pointed concentration too.

Yes, embarrassment is a good one. Being falsely accused of something another. Mostly I just sit and think 'I' and carefully and lightly watch from the corner so to speak.

[Brynmr]

Good explanation to YesNo Paulclem.

[YesNo]

The point of that YesNo is that the I is the core reason for our grasping and generating negative Karma. It is the very subtle trick that keeps beings in Samsara because we all assume - deep down - that our sense of I is real. We assume that it is self evidently existent, and we consciously and subconsciously strive to protect, promote and feed it.

The Buddhist teachings deny this, stating that the I is merely a label we place upon an impression of the I - perhaps our sense of self. This is based upon the logic that if an I exists - as it so surely seems to, then we will be able to locate and find it. As Brynmr has noted - it is a slippery semi image, sem impression. This is because it can't be located anywhere. This impression we have of our self is a lie, and with practice will disappear.

Apparently it is very liberating, though it can be initially very disconcerting.
So what is it that is doing "the grasping and generating of negative Karma" if the I does not exist? Call this the "real I".

I was checking out the Wikipedia article on the Four Noble Truths and wonder where in these Four Noble Truths, or elsewhere in the original Buddhist canon, one finds the non-existence of the I?

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

Under the 2nd truth the article lists kinds of craving which is the "origin" of suffering and includes the following as a "craving":


Craving not to be (vibhava-tanha): this is craving to not experience the world, and to be nothing; a wish to be separated from painful feelings.

When one engages in meditation to become aware of the non-existence of the I, is the part of us that is aware of our non-existence included in that non-existence? If it is, how does this differ from the "craving not to be"?

My suspicion is that if such a meditation actually worked to remove suffering in someone by making the person aware of their non-existence, what it really did was generate a victim who is now in denial that he or she is actually suffering but cannot admit it because to do so would admit their meditation is failing. It does not actually help the person remove the cause of the suffering.

I do see an interpretation of the idea of the "self" that seems to fit your description which I can accept. I assume you acknowledge that our material bodies exist. Although changing and temporary, they are not illusions. The "self" in this context is the relationship between our bodies and the environments we live in along with mental ideas of that relationship. We each have our self image and it should change with changes in the environment. Suffering could be considered a clinging to an old self that needs to be reinvented. That is different than the non-existence of the self. Beyond that there is still the "I" which is conscious of the various selves that we each invent throughout our lifetimes.

I'm just trying to conceptualize the problem I'm having with this.

[Paulclem]

So what is it that is doing "the grasping and generating of negative Karma" if the I does not exist? Call this the "real I".

I was checking out the Wikipedia article on the Four Noble Truths and wonder where in these Four Noble Truths, or elsewhere in the original Buddhist canon, one finds the non-existence of the I?

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

Under the 2nd truth the article lists kinds of craving which is the "origin" of suffering and includes the following as a "craving":


Craving not to be (vibhava-tanha): this is craving to not experience the world, and to be nothing; a wish to be separated from painful feelings.

.

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

Sorry Yesno - Therevadan Buddhism refers to a lack of an I as Anatta - Pali.

[Paulclem]

Under the 2nd truth the article lists kinds of craving which is the "origin" of suffering and includes the following as a "craving":


Craving not to be (vibhava-tanha): this is craving to not experience the world, and to be nothing; a wish to be separated from painful feelings.

When one engages in meditation to become aware of the non-existence of the I, is the part of us that is aware of our non-existence included in that non-existence? If it is, how does this differ from the "craving not to be"?



Excellent question.

The Buddha's teachings are based upon The Middle way. Part of this is the middle way between eternalism and annihilation.

Eternalism implies the existence of a soul or a perpetual I which survives death and goes into some afterlife.

Annihilation implies that when you die, that's it.

The Buddha's contention was that neither were true, but that the energy from one life was the cause of the next. The classical image is of a candle representing a life lighting a second candle and then being blown out.

The first candle caused the second candle, but it is not the same.

I may have used this analogy before, but it is used in the texts.

Interestingly, the annihilation/ eternalism argument continues from the Buddha's day to this - and on these very forums between the Theistic religions and the atheists.

[Paulclem]

My suspicion is that if such a meditation actually worked to remove suffering in someone by making the person aware of their non-existence,

I'm just trying to conceptualize the problem I'm having with this.

making the person aware of their non-existence

This is denied, but i can see your thinking.

There is also the notion of two truths - conventional reality and ulimate reality.

The ultimate reality is emptiness. Conventional reality states that things exist, but only in a relationship to other things - which is where the I comes in. The I is a construct that depends upon the conglomeration of the sense perceptions and the mind.

[YesNo]

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

Sorry Yesno - Therevadan Buddhism refers to a lack of an I as Anatta - Pali.
I skimmed the article and it looks like it points me in good directions for further reading. Thanks! I'll probably be back with more questions if I am able to digest this. :)

[YesNo]

I admit I know very little about the religions coming out of India. It looks like there are 3 principle religions of India: Hinduism (linked to the Vedic literature from the Indus Valley), Jainism (linked to the Ganges river area) and Buddhism which derived from these two. My naive view of "Hinduism" is probably the Jain religion.

So, I agree that Buddhism promotes the idea of the "not-Self" which both the Hindus and the Jains oppose. I understand it claims this is neither "eternalism" nor "nihilism" through its "middle way" doctrine, but I don't see how you can have a middle way unless there is something in the middle and this has not been clearly described.

It seems that all three religions promote religious practices to allow one to escape the continual reincarnations. Where they go, if anywhere, after they escape the cycle, would differ among them.

Buddhism seems to value experience, but denies the experience of the "I", calling it a delusion, in favor of a doctrine that the "I" does not exist. It does look like the meditation techniques practiced by Buddhists are ways to convince the meditator that the I does not exist. That is the criteria I'll use to tell if a meditation technique is Buddhist or not.

I was aware from near-death experience (NDE) literature that the Tibetan Book of the Dead recounts similar experiences to those reported by people having NDEs and NDEs can be simulated and because of that do not require an actual death. My suspicion is that whatever the Buddha experienced during his enlightenment could be classed in a broad sense as an NDE which he interpreted through his culture as "nirvana".

[NikolaiI]

Buddhism seems to value experience, but denies the experience of the "I", calling it a delusion, in favor of a doctrine that the "I" does not exist. It does look like the meditation techniques practiced by Buddhists are ways to convince the meditator that the I does not exist. That is the criteria I'll use to tell if a meditation technique is Buddhist or not.

I don't think it's really about convincing people that the "I" does not exist. Concepts in Buddhism such as Anatta, aren't given as absolute conclusions; they're more like tools to help us make our way. I like one thing Tara Brach said; we eventually may realize Not-self, but not because we posit it at the beginning, and try to make it real. If it's real, it'll be there, and we'll be able to see it. We don't need to go into it with an idea in mind that we're trying to achieve.

[NikolaiI]

Buddha basically said, "this is the way I have realized things, this is the way I've seen how things are, and the nature of my own mind." At one time the Buddha was giving a teaching, and it was new and somewhat different from anything he'd taught before. At the end the Buddha asked his disciple Sariputra if he believed the teaching was true, and Sariputra said, "No, not yet." When Buddha asked him why, he said, "I haven't seen it for myself." And the Buddha praised him and said that this was as it should be. Sariputra was his closest disciple, Buddha was supposed to be an enlightened being, and Sariputra also was an enlightened Buddha, but still he didn't expect him to believe what he taught without understanding it in his own heart.

[YesNo]

Did the Buddha describe anywhere what his enlightenment experience was like? I may not have been searching correctly, but I don't think I've found this.

It seems that all three of the main Indian religions use their religious practices as a way to exit the cycle of reincarnation. I wonder at the moment whether that is the best use of religious practices.

[Paulclem]

Did the Buddha describe anywhere what his enlightenment experience was like? I may not have been searching correctly, but I don't think I've found this.

It seems that all three of the main Indian religions use their religious practices as a way to exit the cycle of reincarnation. I wonder at the moment whether that is the best use of religious practices.

Buddhism seems to value experience, but denies the experience of the "I", calling it a delusion, in favor of a doctrine that the "I" does not exist. It does look like the meditation techniques practiced by Buddhists are ways to convince the meditator that the I does not exist. That is the criteria I'll use to tell if a meditation technique is Buddhist or not.


No, there are many types of meditations, and the way to tell if they are Buddhist is about the motivation.

We have been discussing the existence of the I, but you wouldn't start with that meditation. You begin with what your basic delusions are - anger, jealousy, pride, lack of confidence, and work on them. Not only do you have to begin to follow the Noble 8 Fold Path, but this involves right effort and right concentration - meaning, you have to develop as a meditator. This takes time, ideally with a group or a teacher.

It is impossible to rationalise or logically deduct the truth of whether the I exists or not in any significant way without a direct experience. To support what Nik says, you shouldn't either accept or reject the teachings, but try them, if you want to, with an open mind.

Your ideas about near death experience are about your perspective and worldview. You can test these out, but don't accept or reject without a proper test of their validity.

[YesNo]

It makes sense what both of you are saying. I'm just exploring the ideas.

By accident I found Todd Murphy's article "Forgetting About Enlightenment":

http://www.shaktitechnology.com/enlightenment.htm

I've never heard of him before. If you have and think he is inaccurate, let me know. He tries to describe the enlightenment process by discussing what might be going on in the right and left amygdala and hyppocampus in the brain during the process. I think linking spirituality to the brain provides it with more credibility and allows us to explore it in a new way.

[NikolaiI]

Did the Buddha describe anywhere what his enlightenment experience was like? I may not have been searching correctly, but I don't think I've found this.

It seems that all three of the main Indian religions use their religious practices as a way to exit the cycle of reincarnation. I wonder at the moment whether that is the best use of religious practices.

Well, I wouldn't exactly agree with that. To give an example, I'll quote a Buddhist teacher in a Dharma talk, who describes some of her own motivations..



"To begin, I'd like to pose on of the great questions in spiritual life, which is 'What motivates us?' What really motivates us - what, at core, brings us here, or gets us to practice, or really compels us through our life. Under all the habitual grasping, and avoiding, what do we most deeply long for? I can speak for myself and say that quite a many years during my early practice and so on, I found myself flip-flopping, and one day I would say, 'what really matters is truth, I just want to know truth.' And then some months later, it would be, 'it's about love. I just want to - ' and it would depend on the context, you know, when I was doing a lot of devotional chanting, it was just love was where it was at. And in some of the depth of Buddhist retreats, I'd start seeing the emptiness of everything, and I'd say, 'ah this is truth, this is it, you know, the way to freedom.' And then I'd go and do some deep healing work and say, 'ah, compassion,' so you get the idea, I went back and forth.

"In more recent years, what's increasingly appeared to be the case is that they're inextricably intertwined. This part of us that really wants to know, "what's it all about?" and this part of us that just wants to be free to love fully, they go very hand in hand. And that's what I want to talk about tonight. Lat week I emphasized some of the great truths of the wisdom traditions, and I'm going to go back to them again, and I'd like talk about how some of these basic truths, in particular the truth of no self or emptiness goes hand in hand with the arising of compassion, that they're not separate, in the final experience of it, in a very pure way."


So, at least, for her, she's doing it to understand truth, to be able to love fully. For me, I can say that Buddhism wasn't the beginning of my path to understand, but what led me to Buddhism was my earlier pursuit of understanding myself, and others, and specifically, what caused suffering?

You know, seeing all the people in my life, and their different life choices, the good and the bad, a main focus of my efforts in this life became to understand myself and what are the causes of suffering - and of happiness? Once I began to delve into these topics, I became more aware of 'the building blocks of consciousness' or how the mind works. I became gradually aware that some modes of thinking caused me harm, and lost energy, and others brought me peace and happiness, and increased energy and creativity.

One revelation to me was how little this information was understood in our daily society and culture. Later on, I began to appreciate minds like Emerson more, and I understood that others had made many of the same strides - but even though they had, there's still a significant lack of self-knowledge in many people. (I don't speak of everyone, and I don't paint people with a brush - besides which, looking for the positive traits in people helps bring out the positive traits, and vice versa. I'm also aware that none of this is new. Emerson says, society always has the same number of great men. :p In other words, I'm aware of the trap of thinking our time is special, when actually it's in all likelihood, remarkably similar to all the other eras.)

I suppose what I mean is - yes, there is the 'goal' of Nirvana. But greater than that is the goal of relieving suffering of others - which involves enlightening them, which involves first becoming enlightened. In other words, it involves understanding the causes of happiness and the causes of suffering, and nourishing the former, and decreasing the latter. Does that help?

To answer your first question - yes, there are descriptions of Buddha's experience of enlightenment. But it's important to learn the rest first, so to speak. There are more esoteric sutras and teachings, but we have to build a wider base of knowledge first. The wider the base, the higher the pinnacle.

[Paulclem]

It makes sense what both of you are saying. I'm just exploring the ideas.

By accident I found Todd Murphy's article "Forgetting About Enlightenment":

http://www.shaktitechnology.com/enlightenment.htm

I've never heard of him before. If you have and think he is inaccurate, let me know. He tries to describe the enlightenment process by discussing what might be going on in the right and left amygdala and hyppocampus in the brain during the process. I think linking spirituality to the brain provides it with more credibility and allows us to explore it in a new way.

Although it's good to read around, I have a number of issues with this article.

It seems to make a correllation between Enlightenment and an experience of God. this is supposition

Buddhist ideas - not a very good approximation of reality - suggests a similarity between medieval ideas. Buddhism predates this by 2000 years. lots of aspects of buddhism - in psychology for example, have been adopted by modern medical practitioners.

Suggests Buddhism doesn't encourage questioning - but it does. See the last words of The Buddha.

Suggsts that Masters are not sure what Enlightenment is, but it is actually difficult to relate, and so it is often described using a similie or in terms of what it is not.

Refers to water into wine - Not a Buddhist idea.

Uses statements like "I have the feeling that..." which is neither scientific nor does it really encourage confidence in his knowledge of something he has purportedly got a theory for.

He also makes the presumption that Buddhists consider the brain to be the seat of the mind where in fact it is said to be in the heart.

I didn't read it all because I'd picked out so many points that I felt that the whole credibility of the article was challenged - particularly by the last point, which contains the nub of his postulations.

Having said that, there have been experiements upon Buddhsts to test the brain for the effects of meditation etc.

[YesNo]

All good points, Paulclem. I've read a few of the articles on the site with some suspicion. I think he claims to be a Buddhist somewhere, but who knows what that means.

He also mentioned a theory for an oscillating universe rather than the current big bang creation out of nothing theory. I wasn't sure why he was even talking about that topic on this site, but it must have bothered him.

Since I know little about "neurotheology", I assume the reading will help me get some idea what this is before moving on.

I listened to Thich Nhat Hanh's Zen Garden and found it interesting on the site that NikolaiI referenced: http://diydharma.org/audio/by/artist/thich_nhat_hanh He was talking about karma and said, "Nothing can be lost. It continues always." This seemed to be a sort of permanence. I agree with "We only want to discourage the rebirth of bad karma."

[YesNo]

I've wondered what the idea of self-immolation shows about Buddhist ontology and whether it should be considered as an extreme form of practice or rejected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-immolation

As the article above notes, self-immolation is not peculiar to Buddhism, or even Hinduism, but in my mind I have associated it with Buddhism. Perhaps ritual suicide makes sense with a rebirth or reincarnation belief.

[Paulclem]

I remember the study group I was with at university asking about the Vietnamese Buddhist Monk's immolation. We asked our University Tutor, Peter Harvey, who runs part of the Samatha Trust and who was involved with the Pali Text Society in the UK.

He said that to do that a Monk would have to get permission from his teacher, and would feel no pain due to the deep level of meditation - a realisation of Emptiness means that a practitioner can choose not to feel pain. So why would a Monk's Teacher give his permission for such an act that would kill him and end his precious Human Life?

The reason is intent - the compassionate wish to end the suffering of the Vietnamese people through an act which symbolises this suffering.

It is said that the immolation had a positive effect upon the media and readers observing the Vietnam war in increasing the wish to end it.

It is unfortunate if anyone does this without the correct practice/ preparation/ permission and intent.

[NikolaiI]

It makes sense what both of you are saying. I'm just exploring the ideas.

By accident I found Todd Murphy's article "Forgetting About Enlightenment":

http://www.shaktitechnology.com/enlightenment.htm

I've never heard of him before. If you have and think he is inaccurate, let me know. He tries to describe the enlightenment process by discussing what might be going on in the right and left amygdala and hyppocampus in the brain during the process. I think linking spirituality to the brain provides it with more credibility and allows us to explore it in a new way.

I agree with basically everything Paul said; I too skimmed it and found most parts I glanced at objectionable. Particularly I was struck by his statement that "The Buddhist and the Hindu concepts, like other ideas from the middle ages, may not be a very good approximation of reality." Like Paul said, Buddhism predates the middle ages by two millenia. But mainly I disagree with his statement.

Primarily in the field psychology, I've always been struck by how much further advanced Buddha and many of the masters after him have been, compared to Western psychology. The saint-poet Milarepa, as one, is an example. I have never seen any person, past or present, with the depth of wisdom of human nature as he shows. I was struck reading him, by the depth and brilliance of his understanding of psychology - although he speaks of many other subjects. I couldn't give him adequate praise. There are Westerners who have reached a lot of understanding of psychology; Abraham Maslow, Walt Whitman... and I'm sure, many others. But the Western psychologist, as a general rule, seems to be held back by many things such as this deeply rooted idea of the sinfulness of our original nature, which is so different from Buddhist understanding (and I believe, from what Christ originally taught).

That leads the discussion a little bit away; but in general, I don't think there's ever been anyone to understand human psychology as Milarepa, and certainly a few other masters.

So, like Paul, I too wouldn't be interested in reading more of the article, for the same reason. It wasn't just that - other places struck me as false as well; I won't give examples as Paul already has sufficiently.

The oscillating universe though, is I believe an interesting idea that is gaining merit scientifically; although without being deeply involved it's hard to know for sure what the main consensus of the scientific community is, or where it will go, as such things move slowly.

[YesNo]

NikolaiI, why do you find an oscillating universe interesting? The reason I am asking in this thread is I wonder if Buddhism needs this in some way for its ontology to work correctly. People who want an oscillating universe usually want an eternal universe for some reason. The fact that our universe of matter and energy, space and time had a beginning does raise the problem of why or how it started in the first place. One now has to place whatever the eternal happens to be outside the physical universe.

The WMAP data (which is still being analyzed) so far shows the universe to be "flat" which means it will not stop expanding from its beginning 13.73 billion years ago. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/

I agree with you about Todd Murphy. The fact that he even talked about cosmology on his site discredits the rest of what he said. I am mainly using the site to learn the terms he employs. Do you have any links about science done on the enlightenment experience and the brain that you find more scientific? At the moment I suspect Buddhist enlightenment is similar to a near-death experience. If that is the case, it could be studied by looking at NDEs. These are powerful spiritual experiences that can deeply change a person's life.

Thanks, Paulclem, for the comments about self-immolation. It puzzles me that any teacher would ask a student to do something like that, especially, a monk. These acts will be remembered long after people have forgotten what the political tensions were that originally motivated the self-immolation. It would seem to me that the most important thing for monks to do is to show others by example how to live not how to commit ritualistic suicide in such circumstances.

My main motivation in asking these questions is trying to make sense out of the religions from India. I don't trust the Anatta doctrine of Buddhism, but other than that, I find it very attractive. If the Anatta doctrine is replaced with a more traditional Jainism doctrine, I would not have any problem with Buddhism, but then I say to myself: I don't really know what any of these religions are about.

[Paulclem]

The WMAP data (which is still being analyzed) so far shows the universe to be "flat" which means it will not stop expanding from its beginning 13.73 billion years ago. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Thanks, Paulclem, for the comments about self-immolation. It puzzles me that any teacher would ask a student to do something like that, especially, a monk. These acts will be remembered long after people have forgotten what the political tensions were that originally motivated the self-immolation. It would seem to me that the most important thing for monks to do is to show others by example how to live not how to commit ritualistic suicide in such circumstances.

My main motivation in asking these questions is trying to make sense out of the religions from India. I don't trust the Anatta doctrine of Buddhism, but other than that, I find it very attractive. If the Anatta doctrine is replaced with a more traditional Jainism doctrine, I would not have any problem with Buddhism, but then I say to myself: I don't really know what any of these religions are about.

It puzzles me that any teacher would ask a student to do something like that

The teacher wouldn't ask a student to do this. It came from the monk himself. The time place and circumstances were very specific.

I also may have made an error in describing why the Monk committed suicide. It may have been that he did this in protest against the regime that was South Vietnam. I'm sure I've seen a colour version too which may have been the later immolation I was referring to.

Suicide is regarded as unskillful in Buddhism, as is murder. Yet tthere are always conceivable situations - very specific to the circumstances - where that might be the coursde chosen. In the case of murder, you might do this in order to protect others who are weaker and who are threatened. As always the motivation is the key.

[usman.khawar]

Buddhism seems to value experience, but denies the experience of the "I", calling it a delusion, in favor of a doctrine that the "I" does not exist. It does look like the meditation techniques practiced by Buddhists are ways to convince the meditator that the I does not exist. That is the criteria I'll use to tell if a meditation technique is Buddhist or not.


No, there are many types of meditations, and the way to tell if they are Buddhist is about the motivation.

We have been discussing the existence of the I, but you wouldn't start with that meditation. You begin with what your basic delusions are - anger, jealousy, pride, lack of confidence, and work on them. Not only do you have to begin to follow the Noble 8 Fold Path, but this involves right effort and right concentration - meaning, you have to develop as a meditator. This takes time, ideally with a group or a teacher.

It is impossible to rationalise or logically deduct the truth of whether the I exists or not in any significant way without a direct experience. To support what Nik says, you shouldn't either accept or reject the teachings, but try them, if you want to, with an open mind.

Your ideas about near death experience are about your perspective and worldview. You can test these out, but don't accept or reject without a proper test of their validity.

i like those who are trying to refine themselves by considering and thinking. Paul what are the 8 noble Fold Path, are they other then which u mentione as anger, jealousy, pride, lack of confidence, ?

[NikolaiI]

NikolaiI, why do you find an oscillating universe interesting? The reason I am asking in this thread is I wonder if Buddhism needs this in some way for its ontology to work correctly. People who want an oscillating universe usually want an eternal universe for some reason. The fact that our universe of matter and energy, space and time had a beginning does raise the problem of why or how it started in the first place. One now has to place whatever the eternal happens to be outside the physical universe.

The WMAP data (which is still being analyzed) so far shows the universe to be "flat" which means it will not stop expanding from its beginning 13.73 billion years ago. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/

It sure isn't scientific to try to get an outcome you 'want,' and I don't have this bias in my thinking of how the universe functions. I grew up understanding the Big Bang theory was true; although understanding isn't perhaps the best word because it's rather hard to conceive, though it's something we like to do. But my tendency towards the oscillating universe isn't based on desire; I merely mention it that I've read that there are scientists who believe it is possible or plausible, and that there is perhaps increasing evidence for it. Again, I said this with a caveat, that I don't know 100% for sure; and also the fact that scientific opinion is very slow in changing, and it is never 100% unified. To give another example of someone's theory relating it, see Friedrich Nietzsche idea of Eternal Recurrence. William Sidis is also someone, if I understand correctly, who thought the universe continually came and went.

Buddhist, and Hindu for that matter, cosmology does understand the universe to be 'oscillating."

However, it's important to note that the Buddhist view is that this is not the important thing in life. Buddha specifically said about this topic, it's more distracting than beneficial, and he never encouraged us to focus on this topic, instead of focusing on understanding the causes of happiness and suffering.


I agree with you about Todd Murphy. The fact that he even talked about cosmology on his site discredits the rest of what he said. I am mainly using the site to learn the terms he employs. Do you have any links about science done on the enlightenment experience and the brain that you find more scientific? At the moment I suspect Buddhist enlightenment is similar to a near-death experience. If that is the case, it could be studied by looking at NDEs. These are powerful spiritual experiences that can deeply change a person's life.

Buddha's enlightenment, is nothing like an NDE... One apt analogy is to compare the difference between when you are dreaming and when you are awake. When you wake up from dreaming, you realize - first of all, that the dream was not real, and that nothing in the dream could harm you, because you weren't really in the dream, you were in bed sleeping; second, that you are someplace else than the dream, that is, you are in this world - reality; and third, being in this reality, you have many different levels of experience not existing in the dream. For example, you can move around, interact with space, you can see and hear things, everything is clear, and everything is simply more real.

Enlightenment in one sense is exactly like awakening from a dream, except it is awakening from the dream of samsara.

The second point of difference is that enlightenment is not brief or momentary, but it is an enduring state. We may have glimpses and then come back to our ordinary consciouness, but full enlightenment is characterized by never slipping back.


My main motivation in asking these questions is trying to make sense out of the religions from India. I don't trust the Anatta doctrine of Buddhism, but other than that, I find it very attractive. If the Anatta doctrine is replaced with a more traditional Jainism doctrine, I would not have any problem with Buddhism, but then I say to myself: I don't really know what any of these religions are about.

I can say more of this later but I think it's important to realize that Anatta is not a doctrine - it is a concept. It's not a conclusion, it's a tool. I believe it's important not to practice with any goal in mind - to say, "I will realize Emptiness," or anything like this. That's my personal preference, though.

Buddha never said to believe what he said on his word, in fact he said the exact opposite.

[YesNo]

I understand that Jainism has an eternal or perhaps oscillating universe. I don't know why or whether it matters for that religion. I don't want to pursue it if it is a side issue to this thread since I am more interested in Buddhist ontology here. I did look for some alternatives to the Big Bang which is considered the "standard model of cosmology". Here is a review of the "non-standard" models: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_cosmology

I see what you are saying, NikolaiI, about the NDE and Enlightenment. The NDE ends, although the individual experiencing it may change, whereas Enlightenment does not end. What I am trying to find from Todd Murphy, and his mentor, Michael Persinger, is how the brain functions during these experiences and what the difference is at that level. I find it important that these experiences be mapped to physical aspects of our bodies. This means that these experiences are ways that our species behaves rather than something that we have culturally trained each other to experience.

[Paulclem]

It's speculaton, but I think the descriptions of the Bardo experience are closer to NDEs than Enlightenment.

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

It's something to find out though.

[YesNo]

I agree. The fifth Bardo, Chikkhai bardo, in the article sounds like an NDE. Perhaps what the Buddha experienced was different.

I have been looking more closely at Todd Murphy's videos and I think I am finding them more interesting. He claims to be a Buddhist. He considers the self an hallucination of the one of the parts of the brain, but I don't remember which. His mentor, Michael Presinger, has done studies on consciousness that intrigue me relating psychic experiences with geomagnetism.

[NikolaiI]

I see what you are saying, NikolaiI, about the NDE and Enlightenment. The NDE ends, although the individual experiencing it may change, whereas Enlightenment does not end.

Yes, that is one, but there are many other differences as well. I think it is not particularly good to speculate too much on things like that. Again, the main emphasis is on living in the present, living well, understanding ourselves, and cultivating an environment which brings out the best in ourselves and others. But especially, living in the present, and cultivating those factors which help us to grow spiritually.