Consciousness and quantum theory

[Canute]

Originally posted by onycho
Your apology accepted and please accepts my own contrition for assaulting your own beliefs in Buddhism.

yeah, let's start again. But please note, I'm not talking about my beliefs. I'm talking about what Buddhism is. (You can assault my beliefs as much as you like. I like to test them to the limit.).

I had no conscious intent to annoy anyone in writing 'nonsense' as actually I intentionally plagiarized a small portion of a Buddhist site which laid out some of its religious tenets as proof text.

Sorry but they are not religious tenets. Buddhism has no religious tenets. It has teachings designed to help people understand. I suppose some people might treat them as tenets, perhaps many novice Budddhist do, especially those who think it's a lifestyle thing. But in fact they are derivations from an underlying understanding of the basis of reality, (which may or may not be correct, that's for you to decide).

Probably we all are guilty to some extent of bias towards our own personal beliefs. In an earlier post to which nobody responded, I was espousing my own beliefs in a debate about the accuracy of statistical probabilities in the Hebrew text of the five books of Moses.

Was that the stuff about codes? Interesting idea, but I must say I thought it was flawed mathematics.

Hope we can continue our discussions without animosity. [/B]

Absolutely.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Canute Sorry but they are not religious tenets. Buddhism has no religious tenets. It has teachings designed to help people understand. I suppose some people might treat them as tenets, perhaps many novice Budddhist do, especially those who think it's a lifestyle thing. But in fact they are derivations from an underlying understanding of the basis of reality, (which may or may not be correct, that's for you to decide).

That's well said.

Onycho,
Many Buddhist teachers are clear about telling their students to avoid belief in what they (the teachers) are saying. Their words are only guide posts to help the student make their own discoveries, via meditation.

A phrase used by teachers of old to let their students know that beliefs and love of religion were dangerous and often misleading - If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him. There are other implications contained in that phrase, but that should suffice for here.

Trying to take anything said in Buddhism as some a form of fact/dogma/doctrine or even teaching, should be done with great care. Buddhism makes use of analogy and metaphor to an extent I've only seen, within other religions, in Taoism.

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by radagast
That's well said.

Onycho,
Many Buddhist teachers are clear about telling their students to avoid belief in what they (the teachers) are saying. Their words are only guide posts to help the student make their own discoveries, via meditation.

A phrase used by teachers of old to let their students know that beliefs and love of religion were dangerous and often misleading - If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him. There are other implications contained in that phrase, but that should suffice for here.

Correct.

 

[phoenixthoth]

there's a relevant article on be-ness and consciousness to be found at the website http://www.duerden.com . the except I'm referring to can be found as the entry posted here:
http://207.70.190.98/scgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=15;t=38
on Oct. 22 2003,9:05. the post just before that from "the eye of the I" by david hawkins may also be relevant.

 

[onycho]

Definition of Religion

Originally posted by radagast
That's well said.

Onycho,
Many Buddhist teachers are clear about telling their students to avoid belief in what they (the teachers) are saying. Their words are only guide posts to help the student make their own discoveries, via meditation.

A phrase used by teachers of old to let their students know that beliefs and love of religion were dangerous and often misleading - If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him. There are other implications contained in that phrase, but that should suffice for here.

I think it is best to stay away from beliefs no matter what form or variation they may take. It is very easy to make good people uneasy or take offense when our beliefs are challenged. The following is one of the best definitions of religion that I have found around the net.

Definition of religion:

http://www.tearsofllorona.com/jungdefs.html

Religion: a subjective relationship to certain metaphysical, extramundane factors. A kind of experience accorded the highest value, regardless of its contents. The essence is the person's relationship to God or salvation. Jung called them psychotherapeutic systems and believed they contained, offered a gradiant for, and transformed instinctual (hence asceticism), nonpersonal energies, giving people a cultural counterpole to blind instinct, help through difficult transitional stages, and a sense of meaning. They also help separate the growing person from his parents. For Jung, the unconscious had a religious function, and religion rests on an instinctive basis. Different from creeds, which are codified and dogmatized versions of a religious experience. Creeds usually say they have THE truth and are a collective belief. For Jung, no contradiction existed between faith and knowledge because science has nothing to say about metaphysical events, and beliefs are psychological facts that need no proof.[/quote]

The following site gives 'one' example of Buddhism as a religion but that is only the author's ideation.

http://www.zianet.com/kahlua/kahluawebsite/timeline/BUDDHISM.htm

BUDDHISM. 563 BC: the birth of Buddhism. The religion of about one eighth of the world's people, Buddhism is the name for a complex system of beliefs developed around the teachings of a single man. The Buddha, whose name was Siddhartha Gautama, lived 2,500 years ago in India.

Trying to take anything said in Buddhism as some a form of fact/dogma/doctrine or even teaching, should be done with great care. Buddhism makes use of analogy and metaphor to an extent I've only seen, within other religions, in Taoism.

Actually what you are talking about is two simple factors to any form of fact/dogma/doctrine or teaching.

Many people take religions or beliefs as either

1) Literal
vs.
2) Metaphorical

In fact, the religion of Judaism, except for some groups, see this religion as really nothing more than lessons with which to lead a life of morality and ethics. Judaism does not teach reaching a pie-in-the-sky or paradise after life but a religion of deed where one is given the free choice to lead a life or morality, ethics and charity while we are aware of this earthly existence.

Reaching some level of conscious awareness or meditation to improve one's personal health or wealth is meaningless in this religion.

I should know...

 

[phoenixthoth]

the classical religions take the approach of salvation in the sense that God is "up there" somewhere in a distant heaven. the transcendence of God.

buddhism take the approach of enlightenment. while a higher power isn't specifically mentioned, it is my view that this treats God as an immanent entity; not "up there" but within as well. the immanence of God. actually, there are quotes in the bible that support this. one of them says that if you seek the kingdom of God, righteousness will be added to you and another states that the kingdom of God is within you.

my personal view is a synthesis of the two. God is immanent and transcendent.

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by onycho
I think it is best to stay away from beliefs no matter what form or variation they may take. It is very easy to make good people uneasy or take offense when our beliefs are challenged. The following is one of the best definitions of religion that I have found around the net.

Definition of religion:

http://www.tearsofllorona.com/jungdefs.html

Religion: a subjective relationship to certain metaphysical, extramundane factors. A kind of experience accorded the highest value, regardless of its contents. The essence is the person's relationship to God or salvation. Jung called them psychotherapeutic systems and believed they contained, offered a gradiant for, and transformed instinctual (hence asceticism), nonpersonal energies, giving people a cultural counterpole to blind instinct, help through difficult transitional stages, and a sense of meaning. They also help separate the growing person from his parents. For Jung, the unconscious had a religious function, and religion rests on an instinctive basis. Different from creeds, which are codified and dogmatized versions of a religious experience. Creeds usually say they have THE truth and are a collective belief. For Jung, no contradiction existed between faith and knowledge because science has nothing to say about metaphysical events, and beliefs are psychological facts that need no proof.

The following site gives 'one' example of Buddhism as a religion but that is only the author's ideation.

http://www.zianet.com/kahlua/kahluawebsite/timeline/BUDDHISM.htm

BUDDHISM. 563 BC: the birth of Buddhism. The religion of about one eighth of the world's people, Buddhism is the name for a complex system of beliefs developed around the teachings of a single man. The Buddha, whose name was Siddhartha Gautama, lived 2,500 years ago in India.



Actually what you are talking about is two simple factors to any form of fact/dogma/doctrine or teaching.

Many people take religions or beliefs as either

1) Literal
vs.
2) Metaphorical

In fact, the religion of Judaism, except for some groups, see this religion as really nothing more than lessons with which to lead a life of morality and ethics. Judaism does not teach reaching a pie-in-the-sky or paradise after life but a religion of deed where one is given the free choice to lead a life or morality, ethics and charity while we are aware of this earthly existence.

Reaching some level of conscious awareness or meditation to improve one's personal health or wealth is meaningless in this religion.

I should know... [/QUOTE]
Does Kabbala is part of Judaism? I don't know. But I know Kabbala, it's a psychotherapeutic system (i.e. following introspective paths, passing Daath, etc.). Also the valueing of letters is also a kind of believe. Maybe this is part of some of the groups you referred to.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by pelastration

[B}

Does Kabbala is part of Judaism? I don't know. But I know Kabbala, it's a psychotherapeutic system (i.e. following introspective paths, passing Daath, etc.). Also the valueing of letters is also a kind of believe. Maybe this is part of some of the groups you referred to. [/B]

Kabalah is a late mysticism that is not a part of the religion of Judaism.

"Kabbalah - Also spelled Cabala. It refers to the mystical interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures. It has two principal written sources. Sefer Yezira is a third century work which purports to present a series of monologues given by the patriarch Abraham. The second, Zohar is a mystical commentary on the Torah written by Moses de León in the 13th century. As a religious movement, it appears to have started in 11th century France, and then spread to Spain and elsewhere. It influenced the development of Hasidism in the 18th century."

Classical Judaism is not concerned with the mystical or metaphysical aspects of existence. Kabbalah arose by a group of men (above) who saw the underlying mystical universe in orbs or lights each with a meaning. There is no more validity in this construct than there is to any of our musing about consciousness and externalizing multiple dimensions with a String Theory of Things.

Judaism's basic tenets or beliefs are that the truth of 'things' is known only by an unseen omnipotent Hand that created 'everything' in timelessness. That mankind has a reason for 'being' and that meaning is the ability to assist in some way the continuing creation process that occurs from nano-second to nano-second. Science believes that matter and energy constantly evolve and change which makes up our assumed universe.

No one has died and come back to tell us if and what reality is and no near-death experience has occurred. With such knowledge, there would be no questions remaining, ergo no freewill choice necessary.

Kabballah is to Judaism as Mormonism is to Christianity.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Canute
yeah, let's start again. But please note, I'm not talking about my beliefs. I'm talking about what Buddhism is. (You can assault my beliefs as much as you like. I like to test them to the limit.).

Great... Testing Buddhism to the limit is fantastic but like abstractions and consciousness, in my limited opinion, there is no known ways to perform double-blind studies or experiments to verify what we feel is 'the truth.'

Sorry but they are not religious tenets. Buddhism has no religious tenets. It has teachings designed to help people understand. I suppose some people might treat them as tenets, perhaps many novice Budddhist do, especially those who think it's a lifestyle thing. But in fact they are derivations from an underlying understanding of the basis of reality, (which may or may not be correct, that's for you to decide).

Again, I do not wish to question your understanding that Buddhism is in some way an underlying understanding of the basis of reality. The only problem I can see is in the substantiation and not in the fact that Buddhism has persisted for so many centuries. Like the codes, the ultimate truth of all will eventually in time be known without any doubt.

Was that the stuff about codes? Interesting idea, but I must say I thought it was flawed mathematics.

Yes that 'stuff; was about the codes which remains under intensive debate by those who may have stumbled on something that exists or as the opponents’ state, has no encryption or meaning whatsoever.

Time seems to pass before any new constructs of the physical universe is accepted and the truth of one side or the other will eventually be known. The mathematics and the statistical program have been verified by many but there are many others who use their own math in an attempt to debunk the probabilities that the codes exist.

Time will tell...

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by onycho
I think it is best to stay away from beliefs no matter what form or variation they may take. It is very easy to make good people uneasy or take offense when our beliefs are challenged.

If people take offense when their beliefs are challenged that's their problem. Beliefs should challenged regularly imo, like changing the oil on your car.

The following is one of the best definitions of religion that I have found around the net.

Definition of religion:

http://www.tearsofllorona.com/jungdefs.html

Religion: a subjective relationship to certain metaphysical, extramundane factors. A kind of experience accorded the highest value, regardless of its contents. The essence is the person's relationship to God or salvation. Jung called them psychotherapeutic systems and believed they contained, offered a gradiant for, and transformed instinctual (hence asceticism), nonpersonal energies, giving people a cultural counterpole to blind instinct, help through difficult transitional stages, and a sense of meaning. They also help separate the growing person from his parents. For Jung, the unconscious had a religious function, and religion rests on an instinctive basis. Different from creeds, which are codified and dogmatized versions of a religious experience. Creeds usually say they have THE truth and are a collective belief. For Jung, no contradiction existed between faith and knowledge because science has nothing to say about metaphysical events, and beliefs are psychological facts that need no proof.

This definition is why Buddhism is not a religion.

The following site gives 'one' example of Buddhism as a religion but that is only the author's ideation.

For goodness sake, how can one have a religion with no God in it? I'm getting bored saying this over and over again to you. There's no harm in calling it a religion most of the time, (as most people do) since it is in some ways very like a religion. However when when you start knocking religion you have to leave Buddhism out and knock it separately. It is not a religion by any normal definition, if it strictly applied.

BUDDHISM. 563 BC: the birth of Buddhism. The religion of about one eighth of the world's people, Buddhism is the name for a complex system of beliefs developed around the teachings of a single man. The Buddha, whose name was Siddhartha Gautama, lived 2,500 years ago in India.

This is a very misleading definition, but not actually incorrect I suppose.

Many people take religions or beliefs as either

1) Literal
vs.
2) Metaphorical

How can a religion be literal, or a belief be metaphorical? What do you mean.

In fact, the religion of Judaism, except for some groups, see this religion as really nothing more than lessons with which to lead a life of morality and ethics. Judaism does not teach reaching a pie-in-the-sky or paradise after life but a religion of deed where one is given the free choice to lead a life or morality, ethics and charity while we are aware of this earthly existence.

Reaching some level of conscious awareness or meditation to improve one's personal health or wealth is meaningless in this religion.

I should know... [/B]

I'll take your word for it, although I thought Judaism had a mystical tradition.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
the classical religions take the approach of salvation in the sense that God is "up there" somewhere in a distant heaven. the transcendence of God.

buddhism take the approach of enlightenment. while a higher power isn't specifically mentioned, it is my view that this treats God as an immanent entity;

Then, sorry, but your view will be wrong, formed before you have done your research. There is no fundamental God in Buddhism, immanent or otherwise.

my personal view is a synthesis of the two. God is immanent and transcendent. [/B]

Hmm. Isn't there a contradiction in believing both at the same time?

 

[radagast]

Canute,
While I don't care if Buddhism is consider/defined a religion or not, by your own statement [the definition of a word is dictated by it's use], Buddhism is a religion. Most people consider it a religion, as they do Taoism, and use it that way in speech.

Neither Taoism or Buddhism qualify as religions by certain definitions, but that's at least as much a function of how people associate religions with dieties, because that is the religions they are used to.

To consider Buddhism/Taoism not a religion, then you have other things that are discordant in the definition of things - the fact that Buddhism/Taoism have priests, temples, nuns, monks, and many of the trappings that are usually strictly associated with religion.

Some definitions of religion encompass Buddhism as a religion, some don't, but in the same dictionaries, Buddhism is virtually always defined as a religion. How can you reconcile that one definition says no, but a more specific one says yes? Could it be that the generalization of the former definition was imperfect or incomplete?

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by radagast
Canute,
While I don't care if Buddhism is consider/defined a religion or not, by your own statement [the definition of a word is dictated by it's use], Buddhism is a religion. Most people consider it a religion, as they do Taoism, and use it that way in speech.

Neither Taoism or Buddhism qualify as religions by certain definitions, but that's at least as much a function of how people associate religions with dieties, because that is the religions they are used to.

To consider Buddhism/Taoism not a religion, then you have other things that are discordant in the definition of things - the fact that Buddhism/Taoism have priests, temples, nuns, monks, and many of the trappings that are usually strictly associated with religion.

Some definitions of religion encompass Buddhism as a religion, some don't, but in the same dictionaries, Buddhism is virtually always defined as a religion. How can you reconcile that one definition says no, but a more specific one says yes? Could it be that the generalization of the former definition was imperfect or incomplete?

I agree with everything you say here. This is a balanced view, based on the fact that Buddhism has many of the trappings of a religion. However I have never seen a definition of 'religion' that includes Buddhism if that defintion is applied strictly.

Calling it a religion doesn't matter too much for most of the time. But occasionally atheists criticize Buddhism on the grounds that it is a religion, so they've heard, and therefore it must be theistic. Then all the definitions need to be clarified a bit.

 

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by Canute
Then, sorry, but your view will be wrong, formed before you have done your research. There is no fundamental God in Buddhism, immanent or otherwise.

right. i know there is no God in buddhism. that's why i said it was my view, though it's not just mine.

[/quote]
Originally posted by Canute Hmm. Isn't there a contradiction in believing both at the same time? [/QUOTE]

no, there isn't though one could call it a duality not unlike the dual nature of certain things in quantum mechanics. the unity is that God is everywhere, including here and including "up there."

 

[onycho]

Questions about Buddhism... (I am not being factious or trying to be disrespectful)

If Buddhism is not atheistic as described below then from where does the Buddha say that the creation of universe and everything originate?

Is Buddhism basically concerned with escapism from all 'worldly ills' in order to eventually get to Nirvana or the world to come as stated below?

What does Buddhism say about the need for 'being here' or is there some greater purpose to living on earth. Does Buddhism give any reason of why we just couldn't have stayed in Nirvana while being pure intellect in the highest place as espoused by Buddha?

Does Buddha say anything about relationship to helping our fellow beings or just about self realization in a higher state where we can get away from the pain, hunger, lust and all the other experiences of life on this planet.

http://www.buddhistinformation.com/buddhist_attitude_to_god.htm

However Buddhism is not atheistic in the sense that modern secularism, rationalism, humanism, etc. could be regarded to be atheistic (although it has much in common with them). Buddhism is not concerned primarily with refuting the notion of God (as some atheistic writers have done). It is principally concerned with developing a method of escape from the worldly ills...He was more interested in expounding a way to personal salvation, and to improve the weal of mankind both in this world and in the worlds to come. It is this task that informs most of the discourses of the Buddha which later came to be compiled into the various Canons of Buddhism.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by onycho
Questions about Buddhism... (I am not being factious or trying to be disrespectful)

If Buddhism is not atheistic as described below then from where does the Buddha say that the creation of universe and everything originate?

Buddhism is atheistic the way Chemistry is atheistic. Non-theistic is a better description. As far as I know, Buddha didn't make statements about the creation of the universe. That's not what Buddhism is about. It's about commoning to know, at the absolute most basic level, who you are.

Is Buddhism basically concerned with escapism from all 'worldly ills' in order to eventually get to Nirvana or the world to come as stated below?

My teacher has said, on more than one occasion, that if you are doing this (our Buddhist practice) to escape [the world, your troubles, etc.] then your better off doing drugs. Buddhism isn't an escape. Nothing that engenders the pain that Buddhist retreats do, could ever be confused with escape, anymore than considering Marine boot camp 'escaping from reality'. The only thing Buddism could be said to teach you to escape is suffering.

Enlightenment and Nirvana, have been misinterpreted by Westerners, early on, as some form of heaven or mindless escape. Humans are constantly conflicted by disparate goals of different parts of the mind. You know you shouldn't smoke, but want another cigarette; you know a juicy cheeseburger will raise your cholesterol, but your mouth waters; you want to be faithful to your spouse, but are attracted to your neighbor's spouse...

Enlightenment, or self-realization, among other things is having the disparate parts of your mind come to an understanding. There is a Buddhist book out by the title 'Nothing Special'. It refers to enlightenment. And old Zen saying is: "Before enlightment, you chop wood and fetch water, after enlightenment, you chop wood and fetch water". Westerners, and most anyone that's not familiar with it, have a very skewed view of it.

It is a very profound experience, don't get me wrong, just not in the way you think. I've had a kensho experience (sort of a glimpse of enlightenment), while everything is quite ordinary at the same time it's like finding out you've been extremely tense all your life and all of a sudden you're completely, utterly relaxed.

What does Buddhism say about the need for 'being here' or is there some greater purpose to living on earth. Does Buddhism give any reason of why we just couldn't have stayed in Nirvana while being pure intellect in the highest place as espoused by Buddha?

See explanation above. Nirvana isn't another place.

Does Buddha say anything about relationship to helping our fellow beings or just about self realization in a higher state where we can get away from the pain, hunger, lust and all the other experiences of life on this planet.

You aren't escaping pain, hunger, etc. What you come to realize is that pain doesn't equal suffering. Pain is inescapable in life, suffering is optional. Attachment to desire is what generates suffering, attachment to desire for freedom from pain, attachment to the desire to have new Red Rider BB gun on Christmas morning and only getting a bicycle. Sitting in a doctors office a long time, a minor headache could cause a lot of suffering, yet the same person may barely notice the pain of getting burned while trying to save their child from a burning building.

You learn you do not have to suffer. You learn that you are not part of the whole, but are the whole. You don't harm others anymore than you harm yourself. You have compassion for others, just as you care for your own body parts. This isn't learned from something someone tells you, but from what you discover during your practice of meditation.

Part of the Mahayana vow is to save (lead to enlightenment) all sentient beings.

Unlike other religions, there is no concept of sin or hard, fast rules. The behaviour falls out of the practice. There are rules set up to follow until you get to the place where practice shows you how to behave. Usually these are called precepts and are considered a type of vow - an intention to adhere to them.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by radagast

Buddhism is atheistic the way Chemistry is atheistic. Non-theistic is a better description. As far as I know, Buddha didn't make statements about the creation of the universe. That's not what Buddhism is about. It's about commoning to know, at the absolute most basic level, who you are.

Questions:

1) If the Budda didn't make statements or concerns about creation, then how can one (the indvidual) know who they are without having knowledge of being created?

2) If Buddhism is non-theistic by definition, why did the Buddhist Mahayanists as apposed to Theravada Buddists believe in Buddha as a trinity of gods?

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/BUDDHISM/MAHAYANA.HTM

The Mahayanists developed a theology of Buddha called the doctrine of "The Three Bodies," or Trikaya. The Buddha was not a human being, as he was in Theravada Buddhism, but the manifestation of a universal, spiritual being. This being had three bodies. When it occupied the Earth in the form of Siddhartha Gautama, it took on the Body of Magical Transformation (nirmanakaya ). This Body of Magical Transformation was an emanation of the Body of Bliss (sambhogakaya ), which occupies the heavens in the form of a ruling and governing god of the universe.

My teacher has said, on more than one occasion, that if you are doing this (our Buddhist practice) to escape [the world, your troubles, etc.] then your better off doing drugs. Buddhism isn't an escape. Nothing that engenders the pain that Buddhist retreats do, could ever be confused with escape, anymore than considering Marine boot camp 'escaping from reality'. The only thing Buddism could be said to teach you to escape is suffering.

Questions:

1) Is suffering innate in the Buddhist belief of reality that must necessarily be a part of each earthly existence?

2) Is Buddhist 'escaping from suffering' comparable to those who escape their own world of suffering by joining the French Foreign Legion?

Enlightenment and Nirvana, have been misinterpreted by Westerners, early on, as some form of heaven or mindless escape. Humans are constantly conflicted by disparate goals of different parts of the mind. You know you shouldn't smoke, but want another cigarette; you know a juicy cheeseburger will raise your cholesterol, but your mouth waters; you want to be faithful to your spouse, but are attracted to your neighbor's spouse...

Do the Tantric Buddhists believe in using drugs, eating dung, etc to escape suffering as apposed to Theravada Buddhism?

The Tantric Buddhists, on the other hand, developed a different methodology from this insight that the world is unreal. Just because the physical world doesn't exist doesn't mean that one should reject it. On the one hand, if the physical world doesn't exist, that means that one cannot commit right or wrong. As a way of proving that one is enlightened, all sorts of forbidden acts should be engaged in: fornication, thieving, eating dung, and so forth.

Enlightenment, or self-realization, among other things is having the disparate parts of your mind come to an understanding. There is a Buddhist book out by the title 'Nothing Special'. It refers to enlightenment. And old Zen saying is: "Before enlightment, you chop wood and fetch water, after enlightenment, you chop wood and fetch water". Westerners, and most anyone that's not familiar with it, have a very skewed view of it.

Is 'Enlightenment' or self-realization attained by intuition or by intellectualization?

How does Zen Buddhism compare with Tantric or Theravada Buddhism in obtaining an escape from 'suffering?'

As a Westerner, the concepts of Buddhism are very difficult to understand or intellectualize as stated in the following.

To comprehend one must first have discipline and restrain the mind through meditation and introspection, without the use of logical thinking, avoiding the pitfalls of verbalization. The ultimate aim is to obtain an entirely new view of all experience. And the key word is Satori (enlightenment). This is the experience the Buddha sought in lonely and quiet meditation, and this is the mystic "enlightenment" that every person can find.

It is a very profound experience, don't get me wrong, just not in the way you think. I've had a kensho experience (sort of a glimpse of enlightenment), while everything is quite ordinary at the same time it's like finding out you've been extremely tense all your life and all of a sudden you're completely, utterly relaxed.

Is the ultimate enlightnment of Buddhism the equivalent of being under general anesthesia of surgery where a level of consciousness is acheieved with a total loss of 'suffering' and while reaching a true level of understanding or Kensho?

Having had a Kensho experience doesn’t mean you are Enlightened any more than sinking a one-time jump shot means you are ready for the NBA. The difference is years of practice, practice, practice. The scholar Robert Thurman says that the classical Indian texts give a description of complete Enlightenment as being something akin to what we might describe in modern terms as "cleaning out our unconscious." The process is long and difficult; the Indian texts describe it as taking many lifetimes to accomplish.

You aren't escaping pain, hunger, etc. What you come to realize is that pain doesn't equal suffering. Pain is inescapable in life, suffering is optional. Attachment to desire is what generates suffering, attachment to desire for freedom from pain, attachment to the desire to have new Red Rider BB gun on Christmas morning and only getting a bicycle. Sitting in a doctors office a long time, a minor headache could cause a lot of suffering, yet the same person may barely notice the pain of getting burned while trying to save their child from a burning building.

Do you not experience pain or suffering immediately after being shot or as I am told when one is blown to smithereens by a bomb blast? A level of true enlightenment is achieved so to speak without meditation.

You learn you do not have to suffer. You learn that you are not part of the whole, but are the whole. You don't harm others anymore than you harm yourself. You have compassion for others, just as you care for your own body parts. This isn't learned from something someone tells you, but from what you discover during your practice of meditation.

A thought just came to me in a moment of meditation. As an example, the millions of innocent men, women and children in the Nazi concentration camps suffered mightly but according to Buddhism could simply have escaped this suffering by simply meditating with an understanding that they were a part of the whole. I guess that they didn't discover this fact in time as their suffering was based on their beliefs in a G-d. I guess they weren't enlightened.

"Part of the Mahayana vow is to save (lead to enlightenment) all sentient beings."

If you are a Mahayana Buddhist, do you vow to save all sentient beings? Is meditation enough to do this or must you actually do something active in this world to act on your vow?

If you are a Mahanyana Buddhist, are you a trinitarian (Trikaya)?

Unlike other religions, there is no concept of sin or hard, fast rules. The behaviour falls out of the practice. There are rules set up to follow until you get to the place where practice shows you how to behave. Usually these are called precepts and are considered a type of vow - an intention to adhere to them.

You say there are no hard or fast rules but there are precepts or vow to attempt to adhere to. Since there is no G-d, why should you obtain enlightenment since it ultimately serves no purpose? These precepts (commandments) seem to maintain the appearance of a true religion even if denied.

The Four Noble Truths (4)
1. There is suffering
2. Caused by craving
3. Relief is possible
4. via 8-fold path:6
a. Right view
b. Right resolve
c. Right speech
d. Right conduct
e. Right livelihood
f. Right effort
g. Right awareness
h. Right meditation

 

[phoenixthoth]

i would say, not knowing anything, that the reasons to follow the eightfold path are worlds different from the reasons to follow the ten commandments.

radagast:

Nothing that engenders the pain that Buddhist retreats do, could ever be confused with escape, anymore than considering Marine boot camp 'escaping from reality'.

is that the ego death or sublation of the ego that's painful?

 

[Rader]

Gloria in Excelsis Deo

Human consciousness seems to be aware and know, by its expression through all religions and philosophies', that there is one commandment, that incluids all commandments. It is expressed in different ways. The expressions are as different as the races and cultures. The expression, awareness and knowing, is also different on the individual level of consciousness. Thou shalt love they neigbor as thyself. The problem is putting it into practice. In my humble opinion, once put in practice, enlightnment should come there after.

Gloria in Excelsis Deo

 

[phoenixthoth]

hence my current signature:
love the world as yourself for, in truth, It Is.

this also relates to a couple of poems I've written with the words "It Is" in it.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Rader
Human consciousness seems to be aware and know, by its expression through all religions and philosophies', that there is one commandment, that incluids all commandments. It is expressed in different ways. The expressions are as different as the races and cultures. The expression, awareness and knowing, is also different on the individual level of consciousness. Thou shalt love they neigbor as thyself. The problem is putting it into practice. In my humble opinion, once put in practice, enlightnment should come there after. Gloria in Excelsis Deo

Human consciousness 'seems' to be aware and know about one commandment?

There were human consciousness' before any commandments were ever conceived by mankind and not one human knew of the precept you quoted erroneously.

The commandment actually says: Do Unto Your Neighbor As You Would Do Unto Yourself!There is no law that says you should love your neighbor as yourself. It is not the intent to love but the deed to understand that if you want to be treated properly and kindly, that you have to DO the same to your neighbor.

There is no problem putting this Commandment into practice, as all it takes is Free Choice (Freewill) to make any and all decisions to follow the path for good or the path for evil.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by onycho
Buddhism is atheistic the way Chemistry is atheistic. Non-theistic is a better description. As far as I know, Buddha didn't make statements about the creation of the universe. That's not what Buddhism is about. It's about commoning to know, at the absolute most basic level, who you are.

Questions:

1) If the Budda didn't make statements or concerns about creation, then how can one (the individual) know who they are without having knowledge of being created?

Since when does who you are have anything to do with the origin of the universe? Even if Buddha had said it, why would that dictate me believing it. He was a teacher. A great teacher, but still just a teacher. Do you believe everything your teachers tell you?

2) If Buddhism is non-theistic by definition, why did the Buddhist Mahayanists as apposed to Theravada Buddists believe in Buddha as a trinity of gods?

I am a Mahayana Buddhist [Zen/Rinzai sect]. The reference you have isn't from a Mahayana Buddhist school. Do you get most of your information about Christianity from Jewish Scholars?

My teacher has said, on more than one occasion, that if you are doing this (our Buddhist practice) to escape [the world, your troubles, etc.] then your better off doing drugs. Buddhism isn't an escape. Nothing that engenders the pain that Buddhist retreats do, could ever be confused with escape, anymore than considering Marine boot camp 'escaping from reality'. The only thing Buddism could be said to teach you to escape is suffering.

Questions:

1) Is suffering innate in the Buddhist belief of reality that must necessarily be a part of each earthly existence?

Didn't you read anything I said? Pain is part of life, suffering is optional.

2) Is Buddhist 'escaping from suffering' comparable to those who escape their own world of suffering by joining the French Foreign Legion?

No, again, you didn't even read what I wrote. If these questions are to learn something, or to understand what I'm saying, then perhaps you should actually read them.

Enlightenment and Nirvana, have been misinterpreted by Westerners, early on, as some form of heaven or mindless escape. Humans are constantly conflicted by disparate goals of different parts of the mind. You know you shouldn't smoke, but want another cigarette; you know a juicy cheeseburger will raise your cholesterol, but your mouth waters; you want to be faithful to your spouse, but are attracted to your neighbor's spouse...

Do the Tantric Buddhists believe in using drugs, eating dung, etc to escape suffering as opposed to Theravada Buddhism?

I've never studied tantra. I am not the best authority to answer questions on Tantric Buddhism, so I'll leave that to someone who is.

Enlightenment, or self-realization, among other things is having the disparate parts of your mind come to an understanding. There is a Buddhist book out by the title 'Nothing Special'. It refers to enlightenment. And old Zen saying is: "Before enlightment, you chop wood and fetch water, after enlightenment, you chop wood and fetch water". Westerners, and most anyone that's not familiar with it, have a very skewed view of it.

Is 'Enlightenment' or self-realization attained by intuition or by intellectualization?

Meditation, [hopefully] leading to an experience of self-realization. Intuition could be considered a very strong part of it, in my school. Intellectualization would be an extremely hazardous path to enlightenment.

How does Zen Buddhism compare with Tantric or Theravada Buddhism in obtaining an escape from 'suffering?'

All seek an escape of suffering. Not of the pain that is thought to cause the suffering. The methods are different, the goal is the same.

It is a very profound experience, don't get me wrong, just not in the way you think. I've had a kensho experience (sort of a glimpse of enlightenment), while everything is quite ordinary at the same time it's like finding out you've been extremely tense all your life and all of a sudden you're completely, utterly relaxed.

Is the ultimate enlightnment of Buddhism the equivalent of being under general anesthesia of surgery where a level of consciousness is acheieved with a total loss of 'suffering' and while reaching a true level of understanding or Kensho?

Not in my understanding of what your asking.

Some terminally ill people have been introduced to LSD. Some, after the experience, find the pain of their illness, no longer matters. It's still there, it just doesn't control their lives any longer. This is analogous, though the cause is different.

You aren't escaping pain, hunger, etc. What you come to realize is that pain doesn't equal suffering. Pain is inescapable in life, suffering is optional. Attachment to desire is what generates suffering, attachment to desire for freedom from pain, attachment to the desire to have new Red Rider BB gun on Christmas morning and only getting a bicycle. Sitting in a doctors office a long time, a minor headache could cause a lot of suffering, yet the same person may barely notice the pain of getting burned while trying to save their child from a burning building.

Do you not experience pain or suffering immediately after being shot or as I am told when one is blown to smithereens by a bomb blast? A level of true enlightenment is achieved so to speak without meditation.

You haven't even read the paragraph - pain yes, suffering no. The two aren't equivalent.
Enlightenment can be reach via paths that don't include meditation. But as I understand, they have an extremely low percentage of folks that can attain it, via that path. I know of one that attained it by being poisoned and almost killed. Not a path I'd opt for first.

You learn you do not have to suffer. You learn that you are not part of the whole, but are the whole. You don't harm others anymore than you harm yourself. You have compassion for others, just as you care for your own body parts. This isn't learned from something someone tells you, but from what you discover during your practice of meditation.

A thought just came to me in a moment of meditation. As an example, the millions of innocent men, women and children in the Nazi concentration camps suffered mightly but according to Buddhism could simply have escaped this suffering by simply meditating with an understanding that they were a part of the whole. I guess that they didn't discover this fact in time as their suffering was based on their beliefs in a G-d. I guess they weren't enlightened.

Ah, is this a little abuse? Does your creed say it's ok to try to verbally antagonize someone, simply because they believe differently? I guess it's an easier path than logical discussion.

There are so many argument flaws in your paragraph, I'm not sure where I'd start to list them. Straw-man, to be sure, Ad-hominem, obviously, non-sequituir and Red-herring, yep, they are their too. Appeal to the masses, yes. Appeal to the weak, yep. I didn't think anyone could fit that many flaws in that small a paragraph, you should be proud.

"Part of the Mahayana vow is to save (lead to enlightenment) all sentient beings."

If you are a Mahayana Buddhist, do you vow to save all sentient beings? Is meditation enough to do this or must you actually do something active in this world to act on your vow?

Action and meditation.

By the way, meditation is an active process. It's active and fairly difficult to do well. If you think it's easy, try sitting without any thoughts coming into your head for five minutes. If one does, start the five minute timer over. Repeat until you go the entire five minutes without a thought.

If you are a Mahanyana Buddhist, are you a trinitarian (Trikaya)?

Yes and no, respectively. In fact I know of no one that would answer yes to the latter. It sounds like a Theravaden misinterpretation of something in a Mayahana sutra.

Unlike other religions, there is no concept of sin or hard, fast rules. The behaviour falls out of the practice. There are rules set up to follow until you get to the place where practice shows you how to behave. Usually these are called precepts and are considered a type of vow - an intention to adhere to them.

You say there are no hard or fast rules but there are precepts or vow to attempt to adhere to. Since there is no G-d, why should you obtain enlightenment since it ultimately serves no purpose?

Well, if you start with the assumption that any action serves no purpose, without serving god, then I can see how you would believe that. However, your premise since it ultimately serves no purpose is flawed.

These precepts (commandments) seem to maintain the appearance of a true religion even if denied.

I never said it wasn't a religion. Just that some in the west may not consider it so.

Breaking commandments is punishable by a deity. Who, but oneself, punishes you if a precept is broken? Certainly not god. Not your priest. Who?

The four noble truths aren't commandments or vows. Just what is believed to be so.

The eightfold path are ways toward enlightenment. To not follow them means, only, that you have a harder, if not impossible journey to enlightenment. I don't see these as sins. Do you?

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by onycho
Human consciousness 'seems' to be aware and know about one commandment?

There were human consciousness' before any commandments were ever conceived by mankind and not one human knew of the precept you quoted erroneously.

I was referring to the present, but since you mention also the past. Does something have to be written down to be known? Is not humaness that commandment? Did free will just leap into reality or was it a lesser thing that evolved into human free will? Is anything erroneous or is it just the interpretation of it?


Read this quote from scripture.
http://www.topical-bible-studies.org/24-0003.htm

The commandment actually says: Do Unto Your Neighbor As You Would Do Unto Yourself!There is no law that says you should love your neighbor as yourself. It is not the intent to love but the deed to understand that if you want to be treated properly and kindly, that you have to DO the same to your neighbor.

Translation from language to language the words may change some, but not a meaning, only the interepretion. Someone who understands something does not always put it into practice, through love and compassion good can be practiced. For me what you write means the same. To me the word commandment pertains more to the moral or spirtual side of things and laws are manmade.

There is no problem putting this Commandment into practice, as all it takes is Free Choice (Freewill) to make any and all decisions to follow the path for good or the path for evil.

Yes but if all us humans have free will, then the question could be asked, if we are all conscious aware humans why do some practice good and others evil? Do all humans have the same awareness? Is there more good done in the world than evil?

To answer all these questions, it could be said that thoughts and meanings have an undivided fied of movement. All eventualities have a previous choice and ordination of synchronous events. Clear ideas have there roots in a caotic state but that is only the perspective of the present.

 

[wahoo q]

consciousness does not equal perception

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by onycho

1) If the Budda didn't make statements or concerns about creation,

He did. Cfr. the Tathagata Womb in the Lankavatara Sutra.
About that sutra: http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lankavatara_Sutra
The text: http://www.buddhistinformation.com/lankavatara_sutra.htm

The essence: "Emptiness is the word, really, which is better to use than God, because with God we start feeling there is some person. So Buddha never uses God, he always uses shunyata ? emptiness, nothingness. In the center you are a non-being, nothingness, just a vast space, eternally cool, silent, blissful." http://www.purifymind.com/EmptyCup.htm

The essence of the Universal Womb as explained in the Anuradha Sutta
To Anuradha: STRESS.
Buddha: "Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn22-086.html

If you take the time to understand my multi-layered spacetime membrane you will find out that Prior-Geometry (Das "Feld" of Einstein) is the empty Tathagata Womb with is ruled by 'stress' , and by this stress-dynamic can create and start the Karmatic wheel of matter, energy and life.
That Tathagata Womb is omnipresent in all, since it is the gravity-membrane that is the essence of everything: interconnective stress.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by onycho
Questions about Buddhism... (I am not being factious or trying to be disrespectful)

If Buddhism is not atheistic as described below then from where does the Buddha say that the creation of universe and everything originate?

From emptiness.

Is Buddhism basically concerned with escapism from all 'worldly ills' in order to eventually get to Nirvana or the world to come as stated below?

Sort of. Nirvana is not really a world to come. It is the rest state, the limit case, of consciousness, in which 'self' ceases to be and there is just being/non-being (emptiness/fullness etc).

What does Buddhism say about the need for 'being here' or is there some greater purpose to living on earth.

There is if you give it a greater purpose.

Does Buddhism give any reason of why we just couldn't have stayed in Nirvana while being pure intellect in the highest place as espoused by Buddha?

I'd say a state of Nirvana is an absence of intellect. We depart from it as a result of desire and confusion. (I'm not a Buddhist but this is how I see it).

Does Buddha say anything about relationship to helping our fellow beings or just about self realization in a higher state where we can get away from the pain, hunger, lust and all the other experiences of life on this planet.

Buddhist ethics, lifestyle, behaviour etc., derive from their ontology. In other words the practice of compassion, detachment etc. follow logically from an understanding of the fundamental emptiness that underlies existence. On the one hand the practice of these things helps one achieve a state of eternal bliss (emptiness), and on the other the experience of emptiness (bliss) leads one to practice them. As I understand it to a Buddhist nothing exists but consciousness in the final analysis. This is how Buddhism escapes the endless regressions of substances entailed by physicalist ontologies.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by radagast
Buddhism is atheistic the way Chemistry is atheistic. Non-theistic is a better description. As far as I know, Buddha didn't make statements about the creation of the universe. That's not what Buddhism is about. It's about commoning to know, at the absolute most basic level, who you are.

I'm not sure that this is right. As I understand it Buddha talked of little else but the creation of the universe. But it was by implication rather than explicitly.

My teacher has said, on more than one occasion, that if you are doing this (our Buddhist practice) to escape [the world, your troubles, etc.] then your better off doing drugs.

I find that too black and white. Perhaps escapism is not a good reason for doing it but it's an ok reason for making a start.

Buddhism isn't an escape. Nothing that engenders the pain that Buddhist retreats do, could ever be confused with escape, anymore than considering Marine boot camp 'escaping from reality'. The only thing Buddism could be said to teach you to escape is suffering.

What pain of Buddhist retreats? What do you do on your retreats that causes pain?

Surely Buddhism is in very much about escaping the eternal cycle of death and rebirth?

Enlightenment and Nirvana, have been misinterpreted by Westerners, early on, as some form of heaven or mindless escape. Humans are constantly conflicted by disparate goals of different parts of the mind. You know you shouldn't smoke, but want another cigarette; you know a juicy cheeseburger will raise your cholesterol, but your mouth waters; you want to be faithful to your spouse, but are attracted to your neighbor's spouse...

Enlightenment, or self-realization, among other things is having the disparate parts of your mind come to an understanding. There is a Buddhist book out by the title 'Nothing Special'. It refers to enlightenment. And old Zen saying is: "Before enlightment, you chop wood and fetch water, after enlightenment, you chop wood and fetch water". Westerners, and most anyone that's not familiar with it, have a very skewed view of it.

It is a very profound experience, don't get me wrong, just not in the way you think. I've had a kensho experience (sort of a glimpse of enlightenment), while everything is quite ordinary at the same time it's like finding out you've been extremely tense all your life and all of a sudden you're completely, utterly relaxed.

It goes without saying that enlightment cannot be explained. However it's definitely a lot more than this.

(Agree with the rest of what you said)

 

[Canute]

Sorry to post so much but I feel radagast's reply to this was misleading. (Probably this will be as well).

Originally posted by onycho
Buddhism is atheistic the way Chemistry is atheistic. Non-theistic is a better description. As far as I know, Buddha didn't make statements about the creation of the universe. That's not what Buddhism is about. It's about commoning to know, at the absolute most basic level, who you are.

The Buddha's teachings are all about the creation of the universe. They explain its existence, or at least they explain how to understand its existence.

Questions:

1) If the Budda didn't make statements or concerns about creation, then how can one (the indvidual) know who they are without having knowledge of being created?

Very good question. In fact the Buddha did discuss how existence arises from emptiness at length, and the practice of Buddhism is very much about understanding this natural and inevitable creative process.

2) If Buddhism is non-theistic by definition, why did the Buddhist Mahayanists as apposed to Theravada Buddists believe in Buddha as a trinity of gods?

The reference to Gods in Buddhism is a bit confusing. I think the answer is partly that Gods in a Buddhist view of reality are not fundamental, in other words they are not Gods in a Christian sense. I suspect that they are best seen as explanatory metaphors for natural forces, or didactic tools. I'm not too clear about this. Certainly Buddhist ontology does not ultimately rest on Gods of any kind.

1) Is suffering innate in the Buddhist belief of reality that must necessarily be a part of each earthly existence?

Yes. But by suffering they do not necessarily mean great pain or tragedy. It is simply that if one exists as a 'self' in time then suffering is inevitable, since all things are impermanent, including any state of non-suffering. Whatever you value that is impermanent you must lose, whatever pleasure you have must cease, all good things come to end etc.

2) Is Buddhist 'escaping from suffering' comparable to those who escape their own world of suffering by joining the French Foreign Legion?

No, not at all. Ultimately one seeks to escape suffering by transcending the cycle of death and rebirth. In the meantime one practices detachment and desireless enjoyment. Buddhists seek permanent escape, an eternal lack of suffering, not a brief period of military service.

Do the Tantric Buddhists believe in using drugs, eating dung, etc to escape suffering as apposed to Theravada Buddhism?

Not as far as I know. Drugs are usually frowned upon, and eating dung is unnecessary.

Is 'Enlightenment' or self-realization attained by intuition or by intellectualization?

I think 'intuition' is the wrong word. Experience is the thing. Buddhism is not irrational so it helps to think about it, and thinking is encouraged. However non-thinking is also encouraged. Ultimately enlightenment comes from experience and cannot be achieved by reason alone. In the same way no amount of thinking about the colour red would allow you to know what red is, the experience of red it is what 'red' is.

Is the ultimate enlightnment of Buddhism the equivalent of being under general anesthesia of surgery where a level of consciousness is acheieved with a total loss of 'suffering' and while reaching a true level of understanding or Kensho?

No. Emptiness is not exactly unconsciousness.

Do you not experience pain or suffering immediately after being shot or as I am told when one is blown to smithereens by a bomb blast? A level of true enlightenment is achieved so to speak without meditation.

Escape from suffering is a side affect of enlightenment, not the definition of it.

If you are a Mahayana Buddhist, do you vow to save all sentient beings? Is meditation enough to do this or must you actually do something active in this world to act on your vow?

Only the most skilled reach a point where they might make such a vow, and I suspect only the very skilled fully understand the meaning of it.

If you are a Mahanyana Buddhist, are you a trinitarian (Trikaya)?

I would say no. The reference to Gods in some schools of Buddhism is very self-contradictory. I feel they are there as a way a helping people to make progress and see beyond them to the truth, but I'm not sure.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Canute
I'm not sure that this is right. As I understand it Buddha talked of little else but the creation of the universe. But it was by implication rather than explicitly.

Can you specify. As I understand it, it wasn't the creation of the universe, but self-realization that he talked about. What would the creation of the universe, whether the big bang arose from a singularity or the universe was breathed out by a turkey while standing the back of a turtle, have to do with enlightenment?

I find that too black and white. Perhaps escapism is not a good reason for doing it but it's an ok reason for making a start.

It's doomed to failure. The problem is that if you are trying to escape the pain of reality, most Buddhist practice simply rubs your face in reality - rather painfully, especially once you start attending retreats.

What pain of Buddhist retreats? What do you do on your retreats that causes pain?

LOL, no offense intended but that's spoken like someone that's never attended one.

Try sitting with your legs crossed for about ten hours a day. Even though it's not all at one time, after a few days your legs become convinced your trying to kill them, and the rest of your body is very sore. In our retreats, movement during meditation is prohibited (given it's often a method the mind uses to escape the boredom that your mind initially experiences, it also distracts others trying to meditate). One of the people I sit with mentioned that sitting in a 'Lazy Boy' recliner for 10 hours, without moving would also make you very sore.

Why do you think I have the tagline I do?

I believe it was Steven Batchelor (Author of Buddhism without Beliefs) who stated that the closest thing, in American experience, to a Zen Buddhist retreat, was Marine Boot camp.

Surely Buddhism is in very much about escaping the eternal cycle of death and rebirth?

Some consider this literal, some metaphorical. If you take it to be literal, then fine - it's escaping the literal death of the body, then rebirth in another life. But Buddhism doesn't have dogma, as you yourself mentioned (if memory serves), so this is a personal belief. It's common among some Buddhists, it arose from beliefs of the Ancient Indians, and is very strong in certain schools. But it's still a belief.

Another interpretation is a little harder to explain in this type of forum. I'll only say that the birth and death it refers to have more to do with the birth/death of simple experiences, and the marks they make on your psyche [karma]. It's touched on, peripherally, in one of the last chapters of Novice to Master.

It goes without saying that enlightment cannot be explained. However it's definitely a lot more than this.

Agreed. No matter what is said about it, it would be incomplete, and easily open to misinterpretation.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Canute Very good question. In fact the Buddha did discuss how existence arises from emptiness at length, and the practice of Buddhism is very much about understanding this natural and inevitable creative process.

I think if you examine the teachings, they discuss how form IS emptiness. That's not the same as existense arising from emptiness. The latter has only to do with the origination of the universe, which affects people in their everydays lives, very little. The nature of form being emptiness, and emptiness being form is the very crux of our own existence. Perhaps we are trying to say the same things, but I do have to say that trying to explain emptiness to someone that's never experienced it is doomed to misunderstanding.

The reference to Gods in Buddhism is a bit confusing. I think the answer is partly that Gods in a Buddhist view of reality are not fundamental, in other words they are not Gods in a Christian sense. I suspect that they are best seen as explanatory metaphors for natural forces, or didactic tools. I'm not too clear about this. Certainly Buddhist ontology does not ultimately rest on Gods of any kind.

I would agree.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by radagast
Can you specify. As I understand it, it wasn't the creation of the universe, but self-realization that he talked about. What would the creation of the universe, whether the big bang arose from a singularity or the universe was breathed out by a turkey while standing the back of a turtle, have to do with enlightenment?

It has everything to do with it. Self-realisation leads to an understanding of reality, including how it comes to exist. In a way one could say (I'll stick my neck out on this) that enlightenment is this understanding. But enlightenment is not an all or nothing thing, so it would be better to say that enlightenment eventually includes this understanding, but can be less than this and more.

It's doomed to failure. The problem is that if you are trying to escape the pain of reality, most Buddhist practice simply rubs your face in reality - rather painfully, especially once you start attending retreats.
LOL, no offense intended but that's spoken like someone that's never attended one.

Try sitting with your legs crossed for about ten hours a day. Even though it's not all at one time, after a few days your legs become convinced your trying to kill them, and the rest of your body is very sore. In our retreats, movement during meditation is prohibited (given it's often a method the mind uses to escape the boredom that your mind initially experiences, it also distracts others trying to meditate). One of the people I sit with mentioned that sitting in a 'Lazy Boy' recliner for 10 hours, without moving would also make you very sore.

Well, no offense, but if you think sitting still for a while is like being in boot camp then you also haven't attended one of them, and may qualify as a bit of a softy.

I believe it was Steven Batchelor (Author of Buddhism without Beliefs) who stated that the closest thing, in American experience, to a Zen Buddhist retreat, was Marine Boot camp.

Assuming you can sit still then what else is painful?

Some consider this literal, some metaphorical. If you take it to be literal, then fine - it's escaping the literal death of the body, then rebirth in another life. But Buddhism doesn't have dogma, as you yourself mentioned (if memory serves), so this is a personal belief. It's common among some Buddhists, it arose from beliefs of the Ancient Indians, and is very strong in certain schools. But it's still a belief.

All skilled Buddhists 'believe' in the possibility of escape from the eternal cycle of life and death. An understanding of this, a direct knowledge of this possibility, is an inevitable consequence of becoming enlightened. There is nothing metaphorical about the assertion that samsara can be swapped for eternal bliss.

There is no dogma because having dogma would contradict the very essence of Buddhist practice, which is about finding the truth out for yourself. Thus the term 'Buddhist dogma' is an oxymoron. However all Buddhists agree on the basic nature of reality, (quite a coincidence really), and what they agree on they regard as the truth. They can be quite dogmatic about asserting this truth, but it is not a dogma.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by radagast
I think if you examine the teachings, they discuss how form IS emptiness. That's not the same as existense arising from emptiness. The latter has only to do with the origination of the universe, which affects people in their everydays lives, very little. The nature of form being emptiness, and emptiness being form is the very crux of our own existence. Perhaps we are trying to say the same things, but I do have to say that trying to explain emptiness to someone that's never experienced it is doomed to misunderstanding.

Quite agree. Emptiness is not a concept, but a state of being.

It is what solves the old 'problem of attributes' from western philosophy, which seems to suggest that physical objects have no core substance. This bothers western philosophers but is not a problem in Buddhism, it's taken for granted that substance is inherently empty in the final analysis.

I'm not sure what you mean by the rest. I would say that that an understanding of emptiness entails an understanding of how existence arises. Not all the details of course, but the principles. It explains how something can come from nothing, and thus solves the physicalist paradox of the 'creation'.

The issue arose because someone said the Buddha did not discuss ontology and cosmic origins. But all discussion of 'emptiness' (bliss ,nirvanah, fullness, etc) in Buddhism is about ontology and origins.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Canute
Quite agree. Emptiness is not a concept, but a state of being.

It is what solves the old 'problem of attributes' from western philosophy, which seems to suggest that physical objects have no core substance. This bothers western philosophers but is not a problem in Buddhism, it's taken for granted that substance is inherently empty in the final analysis.

I'm not sure what you mean by the rest. I would say that that an understanding of emptiness entails an understanding of how existence arises. Not all the details of course, but the principles. It explains how something can come from nothing, and thus solves the physicalist paradox of the 'creation'.

The issue arose because someone said the Buddha did not discuss ontology and cosmic origins. But all discussion of 'emptiness' (bliss ,nirvanah, fullness, etc) in Buddhism is about ontology and origins.

Understanding of emptiness comes from experiencing it. Ontology and cosmic origins that arise from such experiences are interpretations of such experiences, all such interpretations are based on prior experiences, ideas, and prejudices.

I am firmly of the opinion that some Christians, Jews, and Muslims experience a form of Kensho, but interpret it within the context they understand - calling it the experience of God. Their experience is no less valid than a Buddhists, but their interpretation is different. It's the interpretations that are on shaky ground. Rather than come up with a ornate description of something, based on the experiences we have, just sticking to what we know is the experience of the beginners mind. IMO, all else starts to wander into the realm of belief.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Canute
It has everything to do with it. Self-realisation leads to an understanding of reality, including how it comes to exist. In a way one could say (I'll stick my neck out on this) that enlightenment is this understanding. But enlightenment is not an all or nothing thing, so it would be better to say that enlightenment eventually includes this understanding, but can be less than this and more.

I can only say that we disagree on this point. I've studied Buddhism for thirty years and been sitting regularly for close to ten. My study hasn't shown me what your's has shown you.

Well, no offense, but if you think sitting still for a while is like being in boot camp then you also haven't attended one of them, and may qualify as a bit of a softy.

I guess it's a little more than that. We are held in a monastary like setting - no chairs, no leaning against the walls, no rest for our legs, no lying down until lights out (midnight). Our schedule starts at 4AM and runs until Midnight. All sitting, whether meditation, eating, or free periods are on the floor. Given most are like me, in that we live most of our lives with chairs, sitting on the floor is hard on the knee and hip joints, at least by the second full day. I find it worse than most, given my knees are quite inflexible and a lotus position is something I can barely imagine. Attempting it would likely result in a call for ambulance services, with a high probability of power tool involvement.

Have you ever attended a multi-day retreat?

Assuming you can sit still then what else is painful?

This isn't the forum for me to go into this. If you are curious, read Ambivalent Zen. I will say that on my first retreat - only a short three day affair. By the afternoon of the first full day, being I was my instructors first student to attend (and my walking out would be an embarrassment to her), plus the fact I had non-refundable tickets and thought I'd be spending the next few days in the airport if I left, I felt extremely trapped. I even contemplated 'accidentally' tripping down the stairs, in hopes that I would break something and have an honorable way out. At the end of that retreat I was more certain I'd never come back to one of them, than I have been of anything else in my life.

I came back to the next one, six months later. I haven't missed but one since, and that was for surgery.

All skilled Buddhists 'believe' in the possibility of escape from the eternal cycle of life and death. An understanding of this, a direct knowledge of this possibility, is an inevitable consequence of becoming enlightened. There is nothing metaphorical about the assertion that samsara can be swapped for eternal bliss.

All, hmmm, don't tell my teacher. I'm hoping to be ordained in the coming year and I'd hate for him to find out I'm not skilled.

I do not know what sect you belong. It doesn't sound as if you've read much outside your sect, though. Zen literature is replete with many who would disagree with you. Batchlor's Buddhism without Beliefs is an obvious one. I believe it was Suzuki that said, when asked what happened after death - "I wouldn't know, I am not a dead zen master".

Some sects, such as Tibetan and Theravaden, are strong believers in the life/rebirth cycle, but this isn't universal.

There is no dogma because having dogma would contradict the very essence of Buddhist practice, which is about finding the truth out for yourself. Thus the term 'Buddhist dogma' is an oxymoron. However all Buddhists agree on the basic nature of reality, (quite a coincidence really), and what they agree on they regard as the truth. They can be quite dogmatic about asserting this truth, but it is not a dogma.

I'd be real careful about saying 'anything' about all Buddhists. For almost anything you can say there is, at least, one sect or school that will disagree. Shinsho, Pure Land, Theravaden, Chan, the Zen schools of Viet Nam, Korea, Japan, Okinawa, Nicherin, Tibetan, Indian - they all have some quite diverse views on virtually all aspects of Buddhism. Virtually all have concepts of enlightenment, emptiness, overcoming samsara, some idea concerning karma, but each has a distinct view on all of these. The Tibetans views on rebirth are almost the same as the reincarnation views of the Hindu while the Japanese the ideas of Karmic transfer after death to be much more along the lines of simple cause and effect - that your life actions affect others. Believe what you wish, but in my reading, I've found that there are a couple of core threads that connect all Buddhists, but to make carte blanc statements about them is almost a guarantee of being incorrect.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by radagast
Understanding of emptiness comes from experiencing it. Ontology and cosmic origins that arise from such experiences are interpretations of such experiences, all such interpretations are based on prior experiences, ideas, and prejudices.

I am firmly of the opinion that some Christians, Jews, and Muslims experience a form of Kensho, but interpret it within the context they understand - calling it the experience of God. Their experience is no less valid than a Buddhists, but their interpretation is different. It's the interpretations that are on shaky ground. Rather than come up with a ornate description of something, based on the experiences we have, just sticking to what we know is the experience of the beginners mind. IMO, all else starts to wander into the realm of belief.

There's certainly a lot of truth in what you say. But I'd argue that our ability to experience directly is sufficient to ultimately transcend differences of interpretation. A Buddhist would assert this from experience. I can't do that unfortunately, but I believe it's true. However I also agree that it's very easy to mistake an interpretation for the thing itself. As you know Buddhists avoid this problem by never asking or answering direct questions about it.