Beginner's question

[pryzm]

Although I esteem this book as one of the best I've ever read, I admit that don't understand the Buddha's reply to Gautama in chapter 3, when Siddartha points out what I understand is essentially an observation that Nirvana is far beyond the world of objects and the principle of causality (perhaps I should say dependent arising) that links those objects together.

In the book, the Buddha replies to Siddartha's question by saying "You've found a gap in it, an error."

His reply has caused me to consider several possibilities but I would like to know what others think.

Surely the fact that Nirvana transcends the world is no error. Did the Buddha mean that Siddartha had found an error or flaw within himself?

Thank you for considering my question.

[Heller47]

I just happened onto the book a few weeks ago. In regards to the passage you mentioned, I think I first read it as a koan. Sid summarizes the Buddha's teaching and indicates an apparent contradiction in that Nirvana is both part of the world of links and yet beyond it. Buddha's analogy for the world purports to be all inclusive, yet there is a way of trancending it. A gap.

To me Buddha's response is to the point that yes, the model has holes in it, as any model must. All models are wrong, some are useful. He points out that his objective is to bring salvation and not knowledge. He advises Sid to think on the error he has found. I would agree that there is an error in Sid in confusing the model with the world, without this confusion there is no contradiciton. Of course he does learn from the encounter and follows his heart to seek knowledge elsewhere, eventually finding a teacher that doesn't use words, a model that he can immerse himself in.

Of course that is just my opinion
I could be wrong

Lron

[pryzm]

Lron,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. It was very nice to get back from vacation and see some feedback.

And I feel that I should take a note from the Buddha's advice to Siddartha to think deeply on it! I think there is a lot of truth your words.

Thanks,
Pryzm

[one_raven]

Sid summarizes the Buddha's teaching and indicates an apparent contradiction in that Nirvana is both part of the world of links and yet beyond it. Buddha's analogy for the world purports to be all inclusive, yet there is a way of trancending it. A gap.

I disagree.

"kill your parents, kill your god, kill your teacher"

I think he was referring to the necessarily inherent contradiction in the fact that Buddha was teaching people to not learn from teachers.
He was teaching his followers to not follow anyone.

If there is one recuurent theme in all the Dhamma it was that you should not believe what people tell you.

How do you tell people to not listen to what people tell you?

What Buddha was teaching his diciples was that no one can teach you wisdom, not words can show you the way, there is no single or correct path to enlightenment.
I think what Hesse was trying to show with this story was exactly that.
The only path to wisdom is to experience it yourself, not have someone show it to you.

[dnorton618]

I have a different translation of the book you read. Mine is translated by Hilda Rosner and the passage you referenced reads slightly different but the meaning is the same. It reads: "You have listened well to the teachings, O Brahmin's son, and it is a credit to you that you have thought so deeply about them. You have found a flaw. Think well about it again". The "error" reference is missing. But in any case I have lately been thinking of my life in this way. I read this book in my early 20's but it failed to strike a chord with me then. I am in a different place now. This book is really answering some questions I have had recently. Mostly in that I don't take any author's words or philosophy as gospel. They are a point of view. Each person must find their own path to illumination and not hope to find all the answers in a book. Anyone can quote authors but do they truly understand those words? We must have faith that our own path is the correct path for us and not follow someone else's way. I always felt that since I hadn't read or understood all the great works that it somehow meant I was missing meaning in my life. But after thinking on this and having it reinforced by this book I relaize that no one can show me the way. It is my path and mine alone. This is a good thing to always remember. Our experiences shape who we are, not words in a book or words from a teacher.

[oroboros]

I remember formulating this argument after reading Siddhartha.

If Hinduism relies on the thesis that all sensory experiences are illusory, why doesn't this affect the experience of "enlightenment," where the realization that experiences are merely illusory? At least one experience should not be an illusion in order to determine that all other experiences are illusory. The polemic forces the Hindu on either horns of a dilemma. Either the thesis of illusion is false or enlightenment is impossible - or the Hindu can admit that he is inconsistent. The only way to defeat the argument is to admit that the experience of enlightenment is itself not an experience. Regrettably that defeater is little more than 'moving the goalposts...' Of course the Hindu may assert that the only way is to "experience" it yourself. Then my experience is not necessarily illusory. If all my experience are illusory then I cannot look forward to experiencing enlightenment on my own to determine that my experiences are illusory. By the by, dialectic operates on either/or reasoning, while other methods work differently (dialogic involves Both/And).

[pryzm]

oroboros,

Nice name, and thanks for your post. I've returned to this forum after years away, and I have no assurance you'll ever read this reply. But here goes!

Are you familiar with (mostly Kant's) distinction between the phenomenal and the noumenal? I won't try to explain it in this brief post. But Jung said that whereas sensory impressions are of the phenomenal world, there is one noumenal experience we do have, which is the experience of our own existence here and now.

This I would say, would be a Hindu's answer; that this noumenal experience of enlightenment is not sensory in nature. I even wonder if they might add that all sensory experiences, and even the phenomenal world itself, arise from that which we experience when we transcend the pairs of polar opposites.

Does this idea make any sense to you? I apologize if I'm trying to put too much in a small post.

Thanks,
Pryzm