Brahman, Tao, Sunyata, Thales, Einstein

[Paulclem]

I take it very seriously, his blog just caused me to jack in Buddhism (again!) It uses rather more terminology from Critical Theory than I think is necessary, or to my taste, but if you read a substantial part of the site you might get some idea what he is talking about. The guy has serious credentials in Buddhist Studies, he shouldn't be dismissed so lightly. Also I've just read someone complaining about his verbosity on his blog, to which he responds, he's not ducking the issue.

It's good that he's not ducking the issue because such language use smacks of inauthenticity, which is a shame if he has something to say.

As for the content of the article, I can't say I was at all impressed. His main point seems to be that Buddhism is anti- body and character, and perhaps anti-human. This in itself is a valid point and worthy of discussion, though I didn't see that he presented it in a particularly coherent fashion. I don't think his attempt at parody worked, and it got in the way of what is an interesting point.

I hope you find what you want anyway. I'll have a look at his blog.

[Darcy88]

They are all the same thing: mechanisms for spiritualized power and domination

http://speculativenonbuddhism.com/20...esh-and-blood/

Too many words, too many thoughts, too much beclouding analysis. That article and that man are decidedly un-zen. Nietzsche, Marx, Zizek..... these have next to zero relevance to the Buddhist aspirant and yet you can tell this writer's ideas on Buddhism are very much informed by such thinkers.

[YesNo]

how does nothingness which is a state of not being there unites anything.
nothing is empty and a human is not.

I'm confused with what Buddhists are aiming to achieve with meditation, but when I hear talk of "nothingness", from whatever source, I assume there is some implied "field" that the person is talking about even when they seem to deny it.

Fields do exist such as the magnetosphere around the earth that protects us from solar winds and allows life to exist. Such a field is no-thing, but it is real and can trap radiation in the Van Allen Belts and protect us. As I currently see it, achieving actual nothingness, neither things nor fields, is likely an impossible and undesirable goal.

Perhaps there is too much emphasis on the non-self in Buddhism in the way it is presented. I've never actually achieved nothingness as a result of the amateurish meditations I have tried, but then I could not see myself having "nothingness" as an intention. If I were convinced nothingness were the ultimate goal of mediation, I would stop doing it.

[Darcy88]

I'm confused with what Buddhists are aiming to achieve with meditation, but when I hear talk of "nothingness", from whatever source, I assume there is some implied "field" that the person is talking about even when they seem to deny it.

Fields do exist such as the magnetosphere around the earth that protects us from solar winds and allows life to exist. Such a field is no-thing, but it is real and can trap radiation in the Van Allen Belts and protect us. As I currently see it, achieving actual nothingness, neither things nor fields, is likely an impossible and undesirable goal.

Perhaps there is too much emphasis on the non-self in Buddhism in the way it is presented. I've never actually achieved nothingness as a result of the amateurish meditations I have tried, but then I could not see myself having "nothingness" as an intention. If I were convinced nothingness were the ultimate goal of mediation, I would stop doing it.

That's because you're only considering it intellectually. If you meditated deeply on it and apprehended it with more than just the intellect you'd see that there is much more to it and that it is very positivistic.

[YesNo]

If it is positivistic, then it is not the "nothingness" (neither object nor field) that I am seeing it as. In that case, Hinduism and Buddhism would be two different approaches to the same end.

[mal4mac]

I'm confused with what Buddhists are aiming to achieve with meditation...

The end of "dukkha" where dukkha is Pali for any kind of suffering or irritation you might feel in life... this is expressed very clearly in the basic doctrines of the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path.

This is achieved, supposedly, through Insight Meditation (Vipissana) where you "let go" of everything that causes suffering, which means letting go of everything... leaving you with nothing. To do this you are supposed to see the unsatisfactoriness, impermanence, and "non-self-essence" of every "dependent origination", that is, of everything that appears in consciousness.

I think this is impossible... how do you you, for instance, get rid of the feeling of the chair against your buttocks... your buttocks, the chair, and gravity are permanent (at least as long as you live...) so you can never see their impermanence. You can intellectualize it... you know your buttocks are impermanent... but, as Darcy says, intellectualising is a big-no-no in Buddhist circles. You have to see impermanence. Because you can't do this you keep on buying Buddhist books and repeatedly going on meditation courses, it's a great way to money and power for Buddhist monks and lay teachers.... just as being gatekeepers for the impossible ideas of "heaven" and "God" are great ways to money & power for Christian monks and bishops.

And you can't end all pain, anyway, I think most Buddhists accept that, so it's really just talking about mental suffering/irritation. If you're happy enough, not suffering that much, I don't really see the need to bother. Also, there are other less difficult, less impossible, things you can try first... like Socratic, stoic, skeptical and epicurean methods. Or just read a detective novel to distract you from your worries. These are more intellectual methods, of course, but I much prefer them to meditation, and they usually get me to a "happy enough" place.

[mal4mac]

If it is positivistic, then it is not the "nothingness" (neither object nor field) that I am seeing it as. In that case, Hinduism and Buddhism would be two different approaches to the same end.

Isn't the end of suffering positive? That occurs when you think of nothing.

Also, you do get states of "joy" and "calm" in samatha meditation (the precursor to vipissana)... but as you are supposed to let go of them, 'cause they are "something", I am not sure if they really count as positive... in fact they are probably negative 'cause you kinda want to hold on to them!

Hindus believe that the ultimate level of reality is atman, which is one with Brahman, this is not nothing. The Buddhist philosopher Candrakīrti shows the difference:

"Ātman is an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is an intrinsic nature. The non-existence of that is selflessness."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80tman_(Buddhism)

[Paulclem]

I'm confused with what Buddhists are aiming to achieve with meditation

For an ordinary practitioner - most practitioners - they are trying to gain a psychological insight into the mind, and, depending upon the tradition whose programme of meditation they are following, reducing their delusions by recognising negative features of their mind. This might be through a focused meditation on anger or Vipassana or Zazen. There are lots of types. I would disagree with Darcy that what Buddhists are trying to achieve is nothingness. The ordinary practitioner is not trying to achieve anything like an insight or realisation of Emptiness, or the ultimate nature of reality. It is much more prosaic, and therefore more relevant. In trying to reduce delusions by gaining insights into the nature of the mind, the practitioner is trying to reduce their suffering and increase their wisdom - a wisdom that recognises aspects of the Four Noble Truths, such as the causes of suffering ie delusions like anger, jealousy etc that are expressions of egotism.

Perhaps there is too much emphasis on the non-self in Buddhism in the way it is presented.

You may be right with this. Non self is a concept that is related to Emptiness and is an advanced practice. Although I may be making a very wrong assumption - and apologies if I am - I don't think we who are chatting here are anywhere near this. As a result we are talking without experience. Though there's no problem in discussing it, we have to concede that we may well be making assumptions and making statements that we wouldn't make if we had realised the concept.

I think this is impossible... how do you you, for instance, get rid of the feeling of the chair against your buttocks... your buttocks, the chair, and gravity are permanent (at least as long as you live...) so you can never see their impermanence. You can intellectualize it... you know your buttocks are impermanent.

I don't know why it would be taught if it were impossible. This is the claim of the Pure land Buddhists who hthus rely upon Amitaha's mantra on the basis that enlightenment is unachievable. This is denied by the other Buddhist traditions, and, as I said, why would teachers like HH The Dalai Lama promote something that is impossible? Have you considered that there are other types of practice that might be more suited to you? I'm not trying to drag you back to practice though Mal.

Because you can't do this you keep on buying Buddhist books and repeatedly going on meditation courses, it's a great way to money and power for Buddhist monks and lay teachers.... just as being gatekeepers for the impossible ideas of "heaven" and "God" are great ways to money & power for Christian monks and bishops.

This is very unfair to the sincere efforts of teachers to teach the Dharma. In fact, you could buy lots of Buddhist books, but texts are freely available on the internet, and there are often free books distributed sometimes which are sponsored by patrons. We had some a number of years ago from Taiwan. The teachings themselves are given free, and Monks and Nuns, as part of their vows, are not supposed to own property. In practice though, all organisations need funds, and I don't see any problem with selling books. No-one is forced to buy anything, and I don't buy your argument that repeated failure will lead to people buying more books. A friend of mine once accused a Driving instructor of the same thing on the basis that more fails would bring his customers back. His response was that success spreads the word and that's how he sustained his business. I think the success of Buddhism, not just as a philosophy and practice, but as a moral way of life, is down to the beneficial changes - deep and superficial - it can effect in a person.

[Darcy88]

My main motivation for meditation is quelling psychological turmoil. But I also do it to come to a deep intuitional realization of the truths of certain principles of Eastern religions. Buddha is number one for me, but I am also interested in the philosophies of Laozi and Patanjali.

There is hard science to back the benefits of meditation up.

[Paulclem]

My main motivation for meditation is quelling psychological turmoil. But I also do it to come to a deep intuitional realization of the truths of certain principles of Eastern religions. Buddha is number one for me, but I am also interested in the philosophies of Laozi and Patanjali.

There is hard science to back the benefits of meditation up.

That's a good motivation. We've all got something about us that needs improving. For me, the biggest is anger. I often think - in calm professional mood - that I'm doing alright, but then I go home and the bloody dog winds me up. Not so good then.

[Darcy88]

That's a good motivation. We've all got something about us that needs improving. For me, the biggest is anger. I often think - in calm professional mood - that I'm doing alright, but then I go home and the bloody dog winds me up. Not so good then.

"Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned." - The Buddha.

I love that quote and often recollect it in moments of anger.

[mal4mac]

I'm confused with what Buddhists are aiming to achieve with meditation

For an ordinary practitioner - most practitioners - they are trying to gain a psychological insight into the mind

That isn't fundamental surely, if so it's a pretty unattractive thing! Surely the important thing is to end suffering, and the Buddha indeed puts that up front in the 4NT and N8P. The pursuit of insight is 7th part of the N8P, not the be all and end all.

, and, depending upon the tradition whose programme of meditation they are following, reducing their delusions by recognising negative features of their mind. This might be through a focused meditation on anger or Vipassana or Zazen. There are lots of types.

Aren't these all fundamentally the same? Don't you focus on anger to see the Three Characteristsics: "suffering, impermanence, no-self"? Don't you sit in wait, in Zazen, for mental events so you can gain insight into their nature? Don't all methods, really, reduce to Vipassana, which means Insight in Pali?

I would disagree with Darcy that what Buddhists are trying to achieve is nothingness. The ordinary practitioner is not trying to achieve anything like an insight or realisation of Emptiness, or the ultimate nature of reality.

Aren't all practitioners seeking the end of suffering? I don't get your "ordinary" practitioner distinction, who are the extraordinary practitoners? Chogyma Trungpa? He was an alcoholic who crashed a car into a joke shop - now that's an extraordinary practice ! (Either that or he's just a common criminal...)

... why would teachers like HH The Dalai Lama promote something that is impossible? Have you considered that there are other types of practice that might be more suited to you?

He's a nice guy, preaching compassion and democracy, but that doesn't mean that his metaphysics and meditation practices are worth a dime. Newton was a great physicist, and I greatly admire him for that, even if his Christian beliefs were totally beyond belief. DL does say meditation gets him through the heavy political day, but Obama & Mandela get though their heavy days without it. So is it necessary?

I don't need to practice. I'm not suffering all that much, and I'm happy being a playful ape, I don't want to be a God, which I think is what most Buddhists are seeking, at root, if they look closely at their motives. Life has denied them their apeish demands, so they think they will be a God instead, but this is as possible as clicking your heals and ending up in OZ. Better to be a playful ape and demand something else apeish. Can't beat up the silverback, go look for a banana instead...

Alan Watts said he sat like a cat, so maybe I'll do that practice, which is also a non-practice. Doesn't "practice" smack of "doing", another Buddhist no-no, so in my non-practice will I not be the perfect practitioner? I'll go beyond Wallace and be a non-buddhist with a non-practice! His practice:

http://glennwallis.com/meditation-group/

Aside - Watts was a drunk as well, and Kerouac,... does Buddhism lead to drink?

Because you can't do this you keep on buying Buddhist books and repeatedly going on meditation courses, it's a great way to money and power for Buddhist monks and lay teachers.... just as being gatekeepers for the impossible ideas of "heaven" and "God" are great ways to money & power for Christian monks and bishops.

This is very unfair to the sincere efforts of teachers to teach the Dharma.

Maybe some are sincere, but brain washed.

In fact, you could buy lots of Buddhist books, but texts are freely available on the internet...

A subtle marketing ploy. There's a famous computer programming book that was given away freely, but people found it difficult, and paid to go on courses.

Though I guess blatant marketing practices are largely based in the West. In traditional countries the monks have brainwashed the populace to give them free food, and build them nice monasteries. Nice work if you can get it! Sit around all day, like a cat, and then go and miaow for free food. Heck, maybe they are playful cat-apes after all!

[mal4mac]

My main motivation for meditation is quelling psychological turmoil. But I also do it to come to a deep intuitional realization of the truths of certain principles of Eastern religions. Buddha is number one for me, but I am also interested in the philosophies of Laozi and Patanjali.

There is hard science to back the benefits of meditation up.

Hard science? It's psychology... see what Feynman ( a real hard scientist) thought about psychology... and that was mainstream psychology, not the fringe Buddhist/brainscan stuff (check out the spec-no-bud site for their cogitations on that "science"... they looked at actual papers, not pop-science, and found that real brain scanners think the Buddhist brain scan stuff isn't up to scratch.

Anger is quite refreshing. I let myself feel it after my latest bout with x-Buddhism and if felt g-o-o-o-d. No more trying to love my soddish former colleagues, no more trying to love Hitler, or the dodgy bankers. Be angry at the the %$$£&££! All internal of course, apart from a bit of fist waving, and a bit of hanging Hitler, perhaps. I'm not suggesting you hurt anyone, of course, except Hitler. But what's wrong with "Jesus against the money lenders in the temple" kind of anger? Cats get angry, steal their food and see what happens. Eat when hungry, sleep when tired, sit when you feel like it, get angry when someone steals your food. Isn't that Zen?

[JuniperWoolf]

Hard science? It's psychology... see what Feynman ( a real hard scientist) thought about psychology... and that was mainstream psychology, not the fringe Buddhist/brainscan stuff (check out the spec-no-bud site for their cogitations on that "science"... they looked at actual papers, not pop-science, and found that real brain scanners think the Buddhist brain scan stuff isn't up to scratch.

What exactly is your scientific background? Any undergraduate student who has taken a course on scientific methodology should be able to pick up a copy of the American Journal of Psychology and recognize empirical method when they see it. Although psychologists study difficult-to-grasp concepts like memory or personality the subject of inquiry has nothing to do with whether something is "scientific." Science is a method, and the method of psychological experimentation is the same as that used in any field. You're trying to say that you don't consider behaviourist studies of the 1950's science, in an extremely (and actually deliberately) overt way? Today's cognitive psychology has added innovation to that scientific rigour displayed by behaviourists and has impacted society in ways that you probably can't imagine.

Also, who do you propose should study the effects of meditation on stress levels, or how easily the average person bends to authority, or how to treat someone with a psychological disorder? Should we leave it up to quantum physicists like Feynman? Should we just not bother pursuing those lines of inquiry?

[Paulclem]

That isn't fundamental surely, if so it's a pretty unattractive thing! Surely the important thing is to end suffering

I don't mean a western psychology - but an understanding of the mind. Yes, the important thing is to end suffering, but where do you start with that? Your own mind as the basis of dealing with the things that engender that suffering - the most fundamental being our delusion related to an existing self which leads to egoism, anger, jealousy etc etc. Recognising that your own mind causes much of the suffering is where you start.

Aren't these all fundamentally the same? Don't you focus on anger to see the Three Characteristsics: "suffering, impermanence, no-self"? Don't you sit in wait, in Zazen, for mental events so you can gain insight into their nature? Don't all methods, really, reduce to Vipassana, which means Insight in Pali?

They do not all reduce to vipassana. In the Gelug tradition one set of meditations I done in a sequence of 21, which can be over 21 mediations, 21 weeks or 21 months depending upon advice. These have specific objectives such as meditating upon the Precious human Life and use analytical and placement meditation. These Lam Rim meditations were developed by Lama Tsonkhapa.

I don't get your "ordinary" practitioner distinction, who are the extraordinary practitoners? Chogyma Trungpa? He was an alcoholic who crashed a car into a joke shop - now that's an extraordinary practice ! (Either that or he's just a common criminal...)

Monks studying the path are ordinary practitioners Mal - so what does that make us? Ordinary too if we have a sustained practice. I think it's clear who advanced practitioners would be. As for Chgyam Trungpa, drinking while driving makes him a criminal. I can't recall how many references I've answered concerning Chogyam Trungpa. It is a bit tedious, especially considering that there have been Harold Shipmans, a murderous nurse, bent coppers, paedofile Priests, and abusive social workers etc etc none of which degrade what they appeared to represent, but just went to prove that where humans are involved, then human frailty will be too. Yes - lets wheel out Chogyam Trungpa again. There are other supposedly Buddhist sects that operate that are also in it for the prestige and money. there is a list of these groups and individuals - some of which are self proclaimedly enlightened - who do not represent Buddhism, but who masquerade as such. Fortunately Buddhism is bigger than any of these.


DL does say meditation gets him through the heavy political day, but Obama & Mandela get though their heavy days without it. So is it necessary?

One of the things HH The dalai lama says is that he is a simple Buddhist Monk. That being the case, he has a meditation practice to maintain and associated vows to fulfil. Other political leaders will have none of this. His objectives are different to politicians, as that is only part of his job. He's first and foremost a monk, then the representative of the Tibetan people and all those who have come to rely upon him, and he's an international politician. I'm not saying he works harder. I'm saying his objectives are different.

I don't need to practice. I'm not suffering all that much, and I'm happy being a playful ape, I don't want to be a God, which I think is what most Buddhists are seeking, at root, if they look closely at their motives. Life has denied them their apeish demands, so they think they will be a God instead, but this is as possible as clicking your heals and ending up in OZ. Better to be a playful ape and demand something else apeish. Can't beat up the silverback, go look for a banana instead...

The four noble truths on suffering is clear that our happiness also leads to suffering. You are neglecting this fact. We in the west are generally much more fortunate than poorer countries. We live, relatively, like princes and it may be very difficult to see through that. Anyway, it's your path to follow Mal. Who can tell you what to do?

Doesn't "practice" smack of "doing",

Toying with words is not an answer. practice merely refers to what meditation a person engages in. Practice requires effort so there's no real get out if a person wants to try.

Aside - Watts was a drunk as well, and Kerouac,... does Buddhism lead to drink?

Nope

Maybe some are sincere, but brain washed

Brain washing has been discredited. I think you're clutching at straws.

monks have brainwashed the populace to give them free food, and build them nice monasteries. Nice work if you can get it! Sit around all day

You surely know that the culture of giving alms pre-dates Buddhism and is a cultural phenomenon in India. It doesn't happen in the west, japan or China due to cultural attitudes to work. The brainwashing failed there then.

Joking aside, I think I can see that there are some major assumptions you have there Mal, particularly about the relationship between a practice, and the ultimate aims of Buddhism. A practitioner has to start with themselves and understand their own mind first. How else can they gain control of those factors which cause suffering? - (in the four noble truths this mainly refers to mental suffering rather than gross suffering). Anyway, good luck.