Consciousness and quantum theory

[Canute]

Originally posted by radagast
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.

Hmm, I didn't expect a practitioner to disagree. Do you really not agree that Buddhist practice is about understanding reality? Or have I misunderstood?

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.

I see what you mean. I'd call that unnecessary cruelty, except for those used to doing it. I'd go somewhere else. As far as I know the Buddha did not advocate pain as means to enlightenment, merely self-discipline.

Have you ever attended a multi-day retreat?

No. I know those who do however. Not quite the same but I don't know anyone who finds it this bad.

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.

Interesting. Why did you go back?

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'm still confused about this. Are you saying that you think Nirvana has only a metaphorical existence?

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".

Not a member of any sect I'm afraid. But I thought all sects of Buddhism held to the same non-dual affirmation, even if they differed in the details. Is this not true?

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. [/B]

Very true, and thanks for pointing it out so politely.

I'm not a budhhist scholar so must be wary of arrogant blanket statements like the one I made. All the same, I thought, correctly or not, that I was talking about what all Buddhist sects had in common, what makes them Buddhist as opposed to non-Buddhist. But perhaps I'm wrong about even that.

I have some trouble understanding why there should be any fundamental difference between Buddhist sects.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Canute
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.

Dismissing origins, I would agree that many who've attained sufficient self-realization would be less 'argumentative' than those of use lower down on the path.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Canute
Hmm, I didn't expect a practitioner to disagree. Do you really not agree that Buddhist practice is about understanding reality? Or have I misunderstood?

This is from what I've read and experienced, so you have to take it with that large grain of salt. Much of what I've come to understand is that the ultimate reality we learn about, as Buddhist, concerns the reality that starts at our senses and proceeds through our consciousness. When it really boils down, that is the only reality we can truly experience. We all have to make certain agreements as to what we believe each other is experiencing, but there's little or no way of knowing that for certain. IMO, this is the reality and most important understandings we strive to know.

I see what you mean. I'd call that unnecessary cruelty, except for those used to doing it. I'd go somewhere else. As far as I know the Buddha did not advocate pain as means to enlightenment, merely self-discipline.

Our's isn't for everyone. That said, until you've attended a multiday retreat, do not expect them to be all easy and etheric affairs.

As for the pain: We learn as Buddhists that pain isn't suffering. You know this as an intellectual idea. Have you experienced it. This is an important function, IMO, of the pain of sesshin [retreat]. Having gotten deep enough into the meditation [indeed, the pain is a good motivator], so that the pain isn't an important factor, I've experienced this first hand. This can teach you a lot about dealing with the things which cannot be avoided in life.

[answering about attending retreats] No. I know those who do however. Not quite the same but I don't know anyone who finds it this bad.

I don't usually speak of it, myself. Not in many years. Because the pain is no longer suffering, at retreats.

Everyone will view the 'discomforts' of retreats differently. If it's part of a strongly spiritual pursuit, it's less likely you'll view it as important or that notably either. Considering that I started this after I was forty, that my limbs had all the flexibility of uncooked linguini, and that I was a little apprehensive, it hit me much harder than most. Still, I've attended retreats with other zen groups [those not near as ascetic as ours], and the discomfort is still there. I still left with a soreness as if I had dug ditches for three days, after years of physical inactivity.

Interesting. Why did you go back?

The million dollar question. I, and many I've known that attend these things, can tell you all the ghastly reason you wouldn't want to go, yet we have little way of putting into words the spiritual benefits we get from sesshin.

I've noted many changes in my habits and reaction patterns over the years. Some due to my daily sitting, some more easily attributed to the deep affects of sesshin. This isn't something I could tell you. If you have a chance to attend one, please do. You won't regret it (at least not after the fact ).

I'm still confused about this. Are you saying that you think Nirvana has only a metaphorical existence?

Most Zen schools would not interpret Nirvana as a place or existence outside of our everyday lives. Your school may interpret it differently. Until I die, I certainly couldn't answer anything about what happens after my life.

Not a member of any sect I'm afraid. But I thought all sects of Buddhism held to the same non-dual affirmation, even if they differed in the details. Is this not true?

Yes.

I view each school as being a different path toward enlightenment. Some are more suited to one type of person, other schools suited to other types of people.

I'm not a budhhist scholar so must be wary of arrogant blanket statements like the one I made. All the same, I thought, correctly or not, that I was talking about what all Buddhist sects had in common, what makes them Buddhist as opposed to non-Buddhist. But perhaps I'm wrong about even that.

I have to be careful myself. I've been known to make blanket statements about Buddhism being non-theistic, and others that are more reflective of my experiences. We all do this.

I suspect that most Buddhist teachers would find that all Buddhism is alike. Not necessarily in it's method, but in it's goals. I have seen much difference in a lot of the details that would almost form a cosmology or view of reality. I don't know if this is all metaphorical in nature, or they all accept basically different things. I'm just not that knowledgeable. I tend to think that many of the scholars are even more deluded on these points, in that it's often easy to take metaphor as real.

I have some trouble understanding why there should be any fundamental difference between Buddhist sects.

I think, on the points that really count (as viewed by someone enlightened), they probably don't. Not having arrived at such a place, I can only compare what I experience, read, and see. I tend to think of the different sects much as I would view the differences between karate and aikido - they don't look alike, they have different philosophies (some almost diametrically opposed), and have different methods, yet they are both valid arts of self-defense and both can be spiritual paths (if practiced correctly). Not a great analogy, but hopefully it get's my point across.

I don't want you to take anything I've said as gospel. practice with some groups and see which harmonizes with you. As my teacher tells me, believe what you experience, not what's been said here.

 

[Canute]

Radagast

You say that all Buddhist schools assert non-duality. This is what I understood to be the case.

To be clear this is how I see it. Non-duality is an assertion about the nature of reality, not metaphorical in any way, and knowable with certainty through practice (albeit supported by reason). It is not a belief but direct knowledge, hence it is usually called an 'affirmation' rather than a philosophy or theory. It has been asserted over thousands of years by everyone from Lao Tsu to Wu Wu Wei, and is the source of the 'middle way', the transcendence of polarities.

While there is some disagreement about the details of cosmogeny etc in Buddhism I did not think that there was any disagremeent about this basic ontological assertion. The non-dual nature of underlying reality makes it impossible to conceive or discuss properly, but I see all references to brahman, bliss, emptiness, fullness, nirvana etc., as being to the ultimate non-dual substrate of existence. It has recently been christened the 'zero ontology' by some philsopher or other whose name I've forgotten.

I take this for granted but perhaps, if as a Buddhist you don't agree, I'm wrong to do this. I'm going to do a bit of checking around just in case, but nothing I've ever read or experienced so far has contradicted this view (until this conversation).

 

[phoenixthoth]

avalokiteschvara

is avalokiteschvara (avalokiteshvara?) a buddhist concept? what is avalokiteschvara all about?

can it be defined or would defining (not to mention naming something) represent a contradiction of nonduality? is it an entity, a state, a being, an aspect in the "field" of consciousness, all of the above, none of the above?

what is the relationship between avalokiteshvara and existence?

reincarnation question. upon "reaching" a state of nonduality (nirvana?), does the reincarnation cycle end?

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
is avalokiteschvara (avalokiteshvara?) a buddhist concept? what is avalokiteschvara all about?

As far as I know Avalokiteshvara was a lord who achieved enlightenment.

 

[pelastration]

In Tibetan Buddhism the Avalokiteshvara is also called Tschenresi. It incarnates in Bodhisattva's. The Dalai Lama is also considered such re-incarnation.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by radagast

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?

Then you are saying that you do not believe Buddha the great teacher? The origin of the universe is directly on point when you have no idea of who you are in relationship to the particles from the beginning of it all.

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?

Really? It may be that it is you who do not know the basic teachings of Buddha. You may have been given understandings of Buddhism by your teacher who is not aware of the Buddha and his actual beliefs. You understanding of Buddha may be taught by an atheist and not a Mahayana Buddhist.


Questions:

1) Is suffering innate in the Buddhist belief of reality that must necessarily be a part of each earthly existence? [/quote]
Didn't you read anything I said? Pain is part of life, suffering is optional.

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.

Maybe it is you who do not read what you write. The statement that 'pain is part of life' while 'suffering is optional' is like the Buddha being either a great teacher or he cleared his mind of all intellect and became the emptiness in his head.

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.

It appears that bringing on your own Mahayana emptiness of both thought and intellect has left you unable to think about the three trinity bodies of the Buddha which consist of Dharma-kaya (Truth body), Sambhoga-kaya (Enjoyment body), and Nirmana-kaya(Manifestation body).

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.

Yep it certainly appears you are correct on this point.

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.

So you feel 'pain' but by meditation and emptying your head of all thought you escape the suffering? This sounds like the ole biofeedback therapy of ridding oneself of pain and the resuliting suffering. Is this Buddha's secret?

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

Not in my understanding of what your asking.

Maybe there are other ways of achieving Kensho without working and working and working on it during many reincarnations. It is my contention that humanity is nothing more than consciousness in a super holograph where all humans assume that we exist in this place called reality. Perhaps there is actually rhyme and reason to SUFFERING and not something to be avoided.

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.

So you admit that there might be drug induced enlightenment to avoid that old problem of SUFFERING!

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.

Then please enlighten the rest of us about the differentiation between suffering and pain. There are many people who would disagree with you and Buddha. They have significant pain in their bodies which causes suffering beyond most people's experience.

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.

Actually there is a method by which the highest level of enlightenment and loss of suffering can be reached without meditation and emptying one's head of intellect. The human brain when exposed during neurosurgery, can be electrically stimulated in an area of the motor cortex which releases neural hormones giving each individual a form of leaving one's body and moving into a total peaceful light and Nirvana.
----
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.

Why do you perceive any abuse in my statement? When you say that others 'believe differently' are you intimating that Buddhist belief is a form of faith in the teachings of Buddha.

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.

You have used the ultimate prosyllogism when you feel that your Mahayana beliefs are threatened.

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. 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.

How can Buddhist action sound like anything when you sit around actively without any thoughts in your head for five minutes or sixty-years? Your statement sounds like a total misunderstanding of the Buddha's lack of thoughts.

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.

Explain how my no purpose statement is flawed. Simply stating flaws exist requires some logical coherent proof.

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

Then what are you saying? Is Buddhism a religion or how do the people of Western civilizations interpret your equivocation?

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

Who said that breaking precepts or commandments are punished by oneself? The fear of punishment was used for centuries by certain religions to hold believers from losing their faith. Who punishes Buddhists from not achieving enlightenment? Who?

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

By whom and for what reasons?

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?

Yes of course as ultimately all consciousness has no difficulty in their end-journey to enlightenment no matter how many times one empties one's head of thought or how many reincarnatons one has to reach for a return to the flow of the ultimate truth.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Canute
Radagast

You say that all Buddhist schools assert non-duality. This is what I understood to be the case.

To be clear this is how I see it. Non-duality is an assertion about the nature of reality, not metaphorical in any way, and knowable with certainty through practice (albeit supported by reason). It is not a belief but direct knowledge, hence it is usually called an 'affirmation' rather than a philosophy or theory. It has been asserted over thousands of years by everyone from Lao Tsu to Wu Wu Wei, and is the source of the 'middle way', the transcendence of polarities.

Duality itself is a product of the mind. A mental construct to make dealing with reality easier. Science and Buddhism are in complete agreement when it comes to non-duality, since there's no way to demonstrate one thing as being completely distinct from another, via science.

Non-duality is more a recognition of the way the mind is deluding us when we assume everything is separate. Buddhism demonstrates that duality a the product of the mind, not inherently real.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by radagast

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?

Then you are saying that you do not believe Buddha the great teacher? The origin of the universe is directly on point when you have no idea of who you are in relationship to the particles from the beginning of it all.

Believe, hell no! I don't Believe, as in faith type belief, anything.

I accept many things that Gautama Sidhartha taught, but I certainly wouldn't accept what he says about the beginnings of the universe, anymore than I'd accept Genesis's version. Why the hell should I?!? He didn't have a lot of information about the early universe, nor much accurate information about the present one to logically induce early conditions.

As far as the part about origins of the particles and who I am - what do those have to do with each other.

Please explain the direct relationship between the early origins of the particles of the universe and what this has to do with my striving for self-realization?

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by radagast

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?

Really? It may be that it is you who do not know the basic teachings of Buddha. You may have been given understandings of Buddhism by your teacher who is not aware of the Buddha and his actual beliefs. You understanding of Buddha may be taught by an atheist and not a Mahayana Buddhist.

An atheist, as defined as one who has no belief in a god, isn't inconsistent with most Buddhist schools and is almost required (by
some peoples views) within the Zen school of Mahayana Buddhism.

I do not know if my teacher is atheist or not - it's not come up. My intellectual understandings of the Buddhism have come thru thirty some odd years of reading books on it, plus the ten years of intense practice of it. Just some of the books that would back up the things I've said are Buddhism without Beliefs, The Three Pillars of Zen, Novice to Master, Instructions to the Cook, Nothing Special, The Wisdom of No Escape,A Flower Does Not Speak, One Arrow, One Life, Zen Mind, Beginners Mind, and Fudochi Shimmyo Roku. There are others, but these were off the top of my head.

Do you follow any practice of Buddhism, if so what kind? Otherwise, what is your source of information?

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.

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.

Maybe it is you who do not read what you write. The statement that 'pain is part of life' while 'suffering is optional' is like the Buddha being either a great teacher or he cleared his mind of all intellect and became the emptiness in his head.

Suffering and pain are related - hence my statements. In the west, most don't know the difference in the two.

Buddha being a great teacher or a empty headed person is both a bifurcation flaw (being their are infinitely more possibilities than those) and a flawed analogy - since it doesn't relate to what I've been trying to say.

If you are contesting that pain is part of life and suffering is optional, then state this clearly, plus why you disagree - otherwise I have no idea what you're trying to say.

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.[

It appears that bringing on your own Mahayana emptiness of both thought and intellect has left you unable to think about the three trinity bodies of the Buddha which consist of Dharma-kaya (Truth body), Sambhoga-kaya (Enjoyment body), and Nirmana-kaya(Manifestation body).

This doesn't address my answer. I stated I'm not qualified to answer questions on Tantra and you run off on a perpendicular path.

You're thoughts are not clear - certainly not in relation to the argument at hand.

Insults are non-productive to this discussion.

As to the trinity of bodies - these are fine ways of conceptualizing three types of existence. To assume that they have to infer a three-part 'diety' is incorrect. In zen, these would be see as types of existence we all experience, at some time or another. This is certainly my interpretation of Buddhist intellectualism. Either they refer to dogma, something antithetic to every Buddhist school I've read much on, or it refers to someones belief, and can be taken or left by the practitioner.

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.

So you feel 'pain' but by meditation and emptying your head of all thought you escape the suffering? This sounds like the ole biofeedback therapy of ridding oneself of pain and the resuliting suffering. Is this Buddha's secret?

It isn't a cause and effect type of thing. Meditation doesn't cause you not to feel pain or not to suffer.

When a mother enters a burning house to save her child, she barely notices the pain from the serious burns she receives. I assume you've heard of this type of occurence. When the child is safe, even though know the pain would be less (because the injury isn't as fresh), the suffering would typically come upon her full force.

This is an unconscious and natural way in which the typical suffering reaction is overriden.

The more I've meditated, the more I've understood how to make sure the pain I've felt isn't turned into suffering by my mind. Having passed some 30 kidney stones, this has come in handy.

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

Not in my understanding of what your asking.

Maybe there are other ways of achieving Kensho without working and working and working on it during many reincarnations. It is my contention that humanity is nothing more than consciousness in a super holograph where all humans assume that we exist in this place called reality. Perhaps there is actually rhyme and reason to SUFFERING and not something to be avoided.

Then don't let me stop you.

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.

So you admit that there might be drug induced enlightenment to avoid that old problem of SUFFERING!

I would hardly consider that enlightenment, but certainly there are cases where enlightenment has occurred thru other than meditative means, possibly including drugs, and a least one case, poison. Buddhism is but one path, not the only path.

Then please enlighten the rest of us about the differentiation between suffering and pain. There are many people who would disagree with you and Buddha. They have significant pain in their bodies which causes suffering beyond most people's experience.

It doesn't seem that it's the rest of you, just you questioning me, but I'll answer just the same. Why is it that some times you have a small pain and it bothers the hell out of you, yet other times (say playing a sport) a much greater pain is ignored?

This is the difference between suffering and pain. Pain is the physical sensation, suffering is when it effects you negatively.

I saw a great example when I took my cat to the vet. He needed to get a shot, which the vet gave him. He was highly unnerved by all the sounds and smells of other animals (dogs specifically), so barely noticed the shot. Had I tried to give him the same shot, at home, when he wasn't worrying about being eaten by large dogs, he would have screamed bloody murder and tryed to remove the arm giving him the shot. This is a small difference between pain and suffering.

Have you ever been in a fight when you were angry? You barely notice the pain when you're fighting, but it hurts like hell afterwards.

Are you old enough to remember the Buddhist monks that set themselves on fire, in Viet Nam, protesting the war. These monks were able to overcome the suffering of being emolated, until they died.

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.

Actually there is a method by which the highest level of enlightenment and loss of suffering can be reached without meditation and emptying one's head of intellect. The human brain when exposed during neurosurgery, can be electrically stimulated in an area of the motor cortex which releases neural hormones giving each individual a form of leaving one's body and moving into a total peaceful light and Nirvana.

Emptying one's head of intellect?? Where the hell did you get that? The use of intellect to attain enlightenment is doomed to failure, but it's hardly the same thing as emptying ones head. I get the feeling you haven't a clue what we've been talking about. The experience of Emptiness isn't emptiness in your head. Christ! Where the hell have you been getting your information about Buddhism, the back of a Cheerio's box?

I'm certain that the experiences that are felt by someone enlightened can be duplicated by artificial means - I am under no delusion that enlightenment is some magical or metaphysical condition. Just because the feelings can be duplicated, doesn't yield the more important aspects of self-realization. The deep down, true understanding of your mind and how it works - why you feel certain ways, act certain ways, and and the ability to overcome the knee-jerk mental reactions that occur when someone acts a certain way (antagonistic or otherwise) toward you.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by radagast

----
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.

Why do you perceive any abuse in my statement?

You are attempting to use a straw man argument, misrepresenting what I've said, to riducule my arguments - without directly addressing them, then using the horrid events in history to sway the audience (via pity), even though this had nothing to do with the argument.

Had it been a simple statement or question, then that would have been different.

Had all those people who entered the concentration camps been highly skilled at meditation and had learned to overcome suffering, to a great degree, then yes they would not have suffered as much. They would still have felt the pain and would still have died - just not had to deal with the suffering as much.

When you say that others 'believe differently' are you intimating that Buddhist belief is a form of faith in the teachings of Buddha.

No, are you going to use this as a forum to debate the ideas I've presented, or use semantics to try and win a verbal victory?

If I have no beliefs, and you do, then we believe differently. Does that satisfy you question?

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.

You have used the ultimate prosyllogism when you feel that your Mahayana beliefs are threatened.

My beliefs haven't been presented - since I have none. What I've experienced, and what I've read I've used to counter certain unsupported statements made by you.

How can Buddhist action sound like anything when you sit around actively without any thoughts in your head for five minutes or sixty-years? Your statement sounds like a total misunderstanding of the Buddha's lack of thoughts.

And yours a straw man argument. I've never said meditation was sitting around without thoughts in your head - this is your claim.

Most will say that meditation is the process of calming your thoughts and observing how they arise. Understanding how they arise, understanding the gap between trigger and reaction [within the mind], and understanding the relationship between the cortical and the emotional is critical to self-realization.

The more I read from you the more I get the feeling you're on some form of crusade, against what exactly I'm not sure, only that you've designated me to be on the other side.

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.

Explain how my no purpose statement is flawed. Simply stating flaws exist requires some logical coherent proof.

If you need me to.

• 1) you say

  Since there is no G-d, why should you obtain enlightenment since it ultimately serves no purpose?

  
  2) This implies that god is required for a purpose, and the without god there is, ultimately, no purpose served.
  
  3) Implied, but not stated, is that purpose must come from without (apparently from god).
  
  4) Performing an action, to get a benefit, can be seen as a purpose for said action.

If you are assuming that attaining enlightement serves no purpose beyond death, then I take this to be a misunderstanding and withdraw my response.

Otherwise the assumption (3) is unstated, and is unsupported from what I can tell. This means it has to be accepted as true by all parties, supported by other evidence, or it cannot be used to derive the conclusion. Same with (2).

Since many, myself included, consider the benefits of enlightenment to be the purpose of working toward it, it has a purpose. If you mean, as in a purpose in life, this is what a person designates it to be. My purposes in life are my own, they may mean nothing to you, but they are still valid purposes to me.

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

Then what are you saying? Is Buddhism a religion or how do the people of Western civilizations interpret your equivocation?

This is a point of semantics. I consider Buddhism a religion because of the definitions I choose.

If you consider religions to require (a) diety(s) and strong beliefs, then Buddhism would not be considered a religion. If you consider a religion to be a strongly spiritual practice, having many of the typical trappings associated with religions (temples/churches, priests/pastors, monks, nuns, et. al.) then it is.

If you choose definition one, you don't consider it a religion, definition two, you do. I would have thought this was fairly obvious.

The most commonly accepted usage, even in the west, is the Buddhism is a religion. I believe it was Canute that was saying it wasn't a religion (for reasons of definition 1).

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

Who said that breaking precepts or commandments are punished by oneself? The fear of punishment was used for centuries by certain religions to hold believers from losing their faith. Who punishes Buddhists from not achieving enlightenment? Who?

No one, aside from yourself, possibly. I would have thought that was self-evident.

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

By whom and for what reasons?

Certainly by most Buddhists. I am aware of many others that accept it as true or at least highly probably.

Why? Because they make sense to those that accept them.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by onycho
...[/B]

In the debate/dialogue we've engaged in, I cannot see any coherent rhyme or reason your posts.

You've presented many things about Buddhism that don't seem to be reflective of what I've seen as common to most Buddhism.

Where do you get your information?

You seem to have something against either, Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism, or me in particular. If so, perhaps it's best to articulate these specifically, rather than tangentially in responses to my posts.

You seem to believe I am lying, with respect to relating certain things I've experienced. If you consider my words or me to be dishonest, why continue to debate?

I guess it boils down to this, you seem to have some particular axe to grind, it's just not clear what.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by radagast
Duality itself is a product of the mind. A mental construct to make dealing with reality easier. Science and Buddhism are in complete agreement when it comes to non-duality, since there's no way to demonstrate one thing as being completely distinct from another, via science.

Non-duality is more a recognition of the way the mind is deluding us when we assume everything is separate. Buddhism demonstrates that duality a the product of the mind, not inherently real. [/B]

I'm sorry but there's almost no truth at all in any of that, and it's very misleading indeed. This is not a Buddhist view, or even a non-dual one. I say this bluntly because you are making a lot of assertions here which you have no right to make.

If you're going to keep going please back your words up with some references. I doubt that you'll find any to support what you've said here.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by radagast
Believe, hell no! I don't Believe, as in faith type belief, anything.

I accept many things that Gautama Sidhartha taught, but I certainly wouldn't accept what he says about the beginnings of the universe, anymore than I'd accept Genesis's version. Why the hell should I?!?

You have not understood Buddhism then.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Canute
I'm sorry but there's almost no truth at all in any of that, and it's very misleading indeed. This is not a Buddhist view, or even a non-dual one. I say this bluntly because you are making a lot of assertions here which you have no right to make.

If you're going to keep going please back your words up with some references. I doubt that you'll find any to support what you've said here.

Do you consider Buddhism to accept that Dualism is reality?

What exactly are you saying, that non-dualism isn't something discovered from within Buddhist practice - because that was what I was saying.

Please clarify.

 

[Canute]

Onycho

I think you've asked skeptical but reasonable questions. Don't believe the answers you've been given above. I'm not a Buddhist so I don't usually get drawn on its specifics, but this is at least closer to the truth.

Suffering is partly to do with pain, but more generally, and more deeply, it is to do with impermanence. However wonderful our existence it is impermanent. This impermanence, if one is overly attached, is a fundamental cause of suffering. This suffering we usually accept fairly unthinkingly. We live, we die, our friends die, our loved ones die etc. All is change, as science asserts. We accept this as inevitable, but it is nonetheless suferring in the Buddhist sense.

The transcendence of suffering is achieved to some extent by practicing detachment, compassion and so forth. However ultimately it involves becoming one with the emptiness that underlies existence and thus becoming beyond impermanence. This is an ontological claim about reality. It asserts that a non-dual 'substance' underlies physical existence, and that this is (something akin to) consciousness in what might be called its ultimate rest state. (aka bliss, Brahman etc), and that sufficient self-realisation leads to the recognition of this.

This claim is supported by Plato's assertion that we cannot know reality, Colin McGinns 'mysterianism', which suggests that consciousness predates spacetime, Penrose's work on Goedel and much else besides. It is an ontological (and epistemelogical)claim and it was made by the Buddha, and by thousands of other people as well, Buddhist and non-Buddhist.

Buddhists have a rational metaphysic which deals with origins as well as epistemology, behaviour, life style and so on. There are disgreements between schools of Buddhism as to the details, although these are usually just different ways of looking at the same thing on analysis, but there is no disagreement on basic ontology, on the origins of existence. Whether this Buddhist metaphysic is true or false is a matter of debate, but that Buddhism has a complete metaphysic is not debatable. To paraphrase Alfred North White Buddhism is a metaphysic giving rise to a religion, whereas Christianity is a religion in search of a metaphysic.

Buddhism makes great use of metaphors, it has to. But the metaphors are used to point towards what is actually true about reality. It is not just a self-contained system of symbols.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Canute
You have not understood Buddhism then.

Canute,
You can accept what you wish.

You have stated that you don't
adhere to a specific sect or school, nor, if memory serves
have attended intensive retreats.

I've been Buddhist for 30 years, the last 10 practicing fairly
seriously with a specific school, within a specific lineage, and working toward ordination.

I've heard/read/experienced nothing that supports your beliefs, concerning the origins of the universe in Zen. Few, if any, in other lineages and schools.

I hope you don't mind, but this is a point I will disagree with
you on.

Buddhism Without Beliefs, by Stephan Batchelor. It's a reference I will use in this case.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Canute
Onycho

Suffering is partly to do with pain, but more generally, and more deeply, it is to do with impermanence. However wonderful our existence it is impermanent. This impermanence, if one is overly attached, is a fundamental cause of suffering. This suffering we usually accept fairly unthinkingly. We live, we die, our friends die, our loved ones die etc. All is change, as science asserts. We accept this as inevitable, but it is nonetheless suferring in the Buddhist sense.

The transcendence of suffering is achieved to some extent by practicing detachment, compassion and so forth. However ultimately it involves becoming one with the emptiness that underlies existence and thus becoming beyond impermanence.

If anything I've said seems to disagree with the above, then I apologize. This does agree with my experiences.

This is an ontological claim about reality. It asserts that a non-dual 'substance' underlies physical existence, and that this is (something akin to) consciousness in what might be called its ultimate rest state. (aka bliss, Brahman etc), and that sufficient self-realisation leads to the recognition of this.

This is not universally accepted in Buddhism. Specifically, in Zen, this is often viewed as a way the mind can relate to the outside world, but not, of necessity, reality. To claim it has to be reality implies that it's either dogma, or directly experienced. Any direct experience of this would be impossible to distinguish external objective reality from internal subjective reality of the above state.
So either you believe it as fact/dogma, don't accept it, or accept it as irrelavent because it's subjectively real.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by radagast

Believe, hell no! I don't Believe, as in faith type belief, anything.

Then you don't have any faith or belief in the emptyness of mind in which you meditate to receive enlightnment?

I accept many things that Gautama Sidhartha taught, but I certainly wouldn't accept what he says about the beginnings of the universe, anymore than I'd accept Genesis's version. Why the hell should I?!? He didn't have a lot of information about the early universe, nor much accurate information about the present one to logically induce early conditions.

Then why do you follow the Mahayana Buddhist [Zen/Rinzai sect]if you choose or accept what you personally believe and eliminate some of the significant teachings of Buddha?

As far as the part about origins of the particles and who I am - what do those have to do with each other.

Only the enlightenment at the ultimate level of understanding instead of simply escaping suffering! We all are the particles of the origin and also the particles of the Buddha himself.

Please explain the direct relationship between the early origins of the particles of the universe and what this has to do with my striving for self-realization?

What has self-realization to do with emptying your mind of all thought? To know the origin of 'things' accomplishes a level of self-knowledge on the plane of total inner-peace with the universe.

Self-realization and knowledge are indistinguishable.

I am not the Buddha but many call me the 'Blessed Reverend.'

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by radagast

Believe, hell no! I don't Believe, as in faith type belief, anything.

Then you don't have any faith or belief in the emptyness of mind in which you meditate to receive enlightnment?

Faith and belief - in the sense of acceptance without evidence, no. I've seen many who I respect attain some level of enlightenment, therefore it's not faith. Though enlightenment is a good goal, it really is an abstract concept (to me), so isn't a great motivator. I started meditation to live life more in the present. Since, I've gotten other benefits (some related to being present in the here and now). These have helped motivate me to keep practicing.

Emptiness of mind isn't the Emptiness of which I've spoken.

I accept many things that Gautama Sidhartha taught, but I certainly wouldn't accept what he says about the beginnings of the universe, anymore than I'd accept Genesis's version. Why the hell should I?!? He didn't have a lot of information about the early universe, nor much accurate information about the present one to logically induce early conditions.

Then why do you follow the Mahayana Buddhist [Zen/Rinzai sect]if you choose or accept what you personally believe and eliminate some of the significant teachings of Buddha?[/quote]
Why would someone take Aikido, yet not believe the religion of the founder. It's a question of authority. Gautama Buddha was an authority on enlightenment, not what happened 10 billion years earlier.

As far as the part about origins of the particles and who I am - what do those have to do with each other.

Only the enlightenment at the ultimate level of understanding instead of simply escaping suffering! We all are the particles of the origin and also the particles of the Buddha himself.

Either your terms are different than I'm using (physics ideas of particles), in which case we are not communicating, or you are making some strange connection between the quarks, protons, electrons, of the big bang, and my striving for self-realization, in which case it seems to be a non-sequitur.

Please explain the direct relationship between the early origins of the particles of the universe and what this has to do with my striving for self-realization?

What has self-realization to do with emptying your mind of all thought?

Nothing, but you haven't been listening when I've said such.

To know the origin of 'things' accomplishes a level of self-knowledge on the plane of total inner-peace with the universe.

This is a statement. Since it's not from any Buddhist source I know of, nor (more importantly) my experience, it requires some documentation as a reference - otherwise is subject to being dismissed as something you believe and I don't see any reason to accept.

Self-realization and knowledge are indistinguishable.

Self-realization is a type of knowledge, not all knowledge is self-realization.

I am not the Buddha but many call me the 'Blessed Reverend.'

Why, are you ordained? What faith/religion?

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by radagast

Faith and belief - in the sense of acceptance without evidence, no. I've seen many who I respect attain some level of enlightenment, therefore it's not faith. Though enlightenment is a good goal, it really is an abstract concept (to me), so isn't a great motivator. I started meditation to live life more in the present. Since, I've gotten other benefits (some related to being present in the here and now). These have helped motivate me to keep practicing.

I'm certainly glad for you that you have obtained positive benefits in the here and now through meditation. I too have seen some who have obtained peace and enlightenment thru the process in learning and discovery of existence.

"Emptiness of mind isn't the Emptiness of which I've spoken."

Oh but I seem to remember in a previous post this is exactly what you enunciated when referring to Buddhism. I choose not to look back to earlier posts with which to quote your own words.

Why would someone take Aikido, yet not believe the religion of the founder. It's a question of authority. Gautama Buddha was an authority on enlightenment, not what happened 10 billion years earlier.

Who or what made Gautama Buddha an authority on enlightenment? Where is the empircal proof?

Either your terms are different than I'm using (physics ideas of particles), in which case we are not communicating, or you are making some strange connection between the quarks, protons, electrons, of the big bang, and my striving for self-realization, in which case it seems to be a non-sequitur.

Your terms are not different from what I am trying to communicate. Striving for self-realization is basic to the ultimate understanding of the infinite self. You are using sophistry in your attempt at intuitive self-realization.

Nothing, but you haven't been listening when I've said such.

But I have... that is the point..

This is a statement. Since it's not from any Buddhist source I know of, nor (more importantly) my experience, it requires some documentation as a reference - otherwise is subject to being dismissed as something you believe and I don't see any reason to accept.

You might say the same thing for your own construct of Buddhism. It also needs some documentation or reference for validity, otherwise it can be dismissed with all other belief systems.

Self-realization is a type of knowledge, not all knowledge is self-realization.

Knowledge as said in previous posts is a dichotomy to Buddhism. As nothingness and emptyness are apparently necessary for eliminating suffering.

Why, are you ordained? What faith/religion?

I was being facetious and am not ordained. The 'Blessed Reverend' was used in the black comedy 'The Loved Ones.' The title or authority bestowed seems to be the equivalent of stating that the Buddha title was the singular "authority" on enligtenment.

Sorry for my poor attempt at sarcasism..

 

[Canute]

Radagast - This is weird. I can't understand your views at all given that you've practiced Buddhism for so long. They are not recognisably Buddhist. Onycho, who believes (incorrectly of course ) that Buddhism is just another belief system (I think), seems to have a better understanding of what those 'beliefs' are. It's quite confusing.

 

[radagast]

Canute, I too am confused. Often what you say is as perceptive and descriptive as to what I've experienced.

Then there are statements that seem to contradict everything I've ever read or experienced (such as the statement that non-dualism didn't have anything to do with Buddhism).

Or perhaps more oddly the statements that Buddhism isn't a belief system (which I agree with), then only to turn around and claim that the beliefs you have are the only ones valid for a Buddhist. Very confusing.

Personally, I dislike discussing the intricacies of Buddhism in an open forum, simply because the vocabulary is extremely overloaded. Terms that Buddhist often use (such as emptiness) are not understood by others, who assume the more mundane meanings. I have no doubt that you understand emptiness at a deep, experiential level - from hearing what you've said - yet Onycho and others either have no clue what we are speaking of, or worse misinterpret it as Onycho has.

We both know the much of Buddhism is described using metaphor and other mechanisms to describe the experiential, which others have no referents for. This always leads to their confusion, or worse, their conviction that they understand.

I can only say that it seems you are familiar with types of Buddhism very different from Zen. This doesn't mean that the essentials are the not the same, but the differing vocabularies form a subtle minefield, which, I believe, are giving us problems at levels removed from where we believe.

Perhaps, if you wish to discuss these differences further, PM would be better setting. I have little doubt your experiences are genuine, but this type communication is difficult at best, doubly difficult in a public forum. If not, then we should simply agree that we disagree.

I wish you well in your spiritual pursuits.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by radagast "Emptiness of mind isn't the Emptiness of which I've spoken."

Oh but I seem to remember in a previous post this is exactly what you enunciated when referring to Buddhism. I choose not to look back to earlier posts with which to quote your own words.

Then you have misunderstood or I misspoke. There is a quieting of the mind that's important in meditation, but this isn't the end all and be all of meditation.

Why would someone take Aikido, yet not believe the religion of the founder. It's a question of authority. Gautama Buddha was an authority on enlightenment, not what happened 10 billion years earlier.

Who or what made Gautama Buddha an authority on enlightenment? Where is the empircal proof?

First, you are avoiding the point being made. That I accept Gautama as an authority on enlightenment, but not Cosmology.

The descendents of his teaching have impressed me that the teaching is valid concerning enlightenment. If you feel differently, then by all means don't accept his ideas - I'm, in no way, trying to force them on anyone. I was only trying to explain and clarify my views on them.

If Gautama was an invalid teacher, yet his students managed to gain the skills and knowledge in the interveneing 2500 years, then it's the same to me. I'm not being taught by Guatama, my teacher is a little be more recent.

Either your terms are different than I'm using (physics ideas of particles), in which case we are not communicating, or you are making some strange connection between the quarks, protons, electrons, of the big bang, and my striving for self-realization, in which case it seems to be a non-sequitur.

Your terms are not different from what I am trying to communicate. Striving for self-realization is basic to the ultimate understanding of the infinite self. You are using sophistry in your attempt at intuitive self-realization.

You have no clue as to the mechanisms and means of my practice, yet you are knowledgeable enough about them to claim I am intentionally decieving either myself or you? If you detected a bit of incredulity in my tone, you heard correctly.

I chose to ignore the insult.

I cannot tell whether you are extremely offbase, in terms of what you believe I accept as true (regarding what it means to become self-realized), or that you have an extremely different view of what self-realization means and are just implying that I am extremely wrong. The former is likely to never be rectified, given the poverty of this medium, and the latter is a difference of view that I have not and do not intend to debate.

Nothing, but you haven't been listening when I've said such.

But I have... that is the point..

Well then, your attempts to communicate your point have failed.

This is a statement. Since it's not from any Buddhist source I know of, nor (more importantly) my experience, it requires some documentation as a reference - otherwise is subject to being dismissed as something you believe and I don't see any reason to accept.

You might say the same thing for your own construct of Buddhism. It also needs some documentation or reference for validity, otherwise it can be dismissed with all other belief systems.

If we are talking about what Buddhism is defined as via layman oriented descriptions, then the dozen or so books I listed earlier should suffice.

If you mean as to what Buddhism is, in terms of a being a belief system, I find that interesting: You are told of a system that is experiential, by core nature. It is said to advocate that it's practitioners accept what they experience as true, with it's only point of faith in that the practice will lead some place worthwhile.

You both claim it's a belief system, then require proof that it isn't in terms of references and documentation - which would imply a belief system. The only way you can get the proof you ask for is by experiencing it, which you apparently are refusing to do, then claiming it's a belief system because there's no evidence you can be shown.

Do you see the circularity of this line of reasoning.

Buddhism is, at it's very core, experiential. Enlightenment cannot be shown to you anymore than someone else can go to the rest room for you. When we talk about Buddhist teachings, what we are talking about is the pointers to the path, that each person must walk alone. There is no proof/evidence for or against the effects and claims, other than what one experiences for himself. All the books, words, letters, histories, et. al. are meaningless without the experience. No matter how long you are described what the color purple is, if you've been blind from birth, the words are just words - yeilding nothing. Buddhism is about learning ones own mind. How can that be told to you by someone else. How can proof of this, or evidence of this, be given in books or any place, other than in your own mind.

That the practice will lead somewhere is a point that is either accepted as probable/possible by a potential practitioner, or not. Seeing the effects it has on others, is a type of evidence, so it's not the blind faith of theistic religions, but it's still a type of belief. If you call this a belief system, then we definitely have a difference of opinion on definitions. One belief doesn't form a system. This is the type of belief I had when I started learning Chemistry. I had no guarantee that it would be worth anything or be reproducible by me.

Self-realization is a type of knowledge, not all knowledge is self-realization.

Knowledge as said in previous posts is a dichotomy to Buddhism. As nothingness and emptyness are apparently necessary for eliminating suffering.

OK, and your point is?

The dichotomy, I feel certain, doesn't make sense to you. Having not experienced what is meant by emptiness, the only meanings you have will give you an extremely different view of what that means - an erroneous view, IMO. The fact you use the terms nothingness and emptiness together give me the strong impression you are completely off-track, in terms of any clue as to what that means.

I was being facetious and am not ordained. The 'Blessed Reverend' was used in the black comedy 'The Loved Ones.' The title or authority bestowed seems to be the equivalent of stating that the Buddha title was the singular "authority" on enligtenment.

Well, there are many many Buddhas. It is only a title that means enlightened one. So, it does tend to re-enforce the idea that a Buddha is an authority of becoming enlightened. But only because of the semantics of the word. If you meant Gautama, then that would pretty well screw all of us born after his death, since he wouldn't be around to teach, judge, and be the authority on enlightenment. His teachings are only of value to me, in what is reflected thru my teacher.

There are certainly some sects, schools, and definitely some practitioners that would definitely fall into the category of a belief system, I only speak to the commonality the runs thru Buddhist teachings/practice (as I see them), with a stronger, than is fair, shading from the Zen sect (given it's what I've studied the most).

It seems, from our discussions, that it's important for you to somehow show that Buddhism is a belief system.

Why?

 

[onycho]

Nirvana or Out of Existence

From the outset I wish to state that I am not apposed to any person's beliefs or strivings for ultimate release from suffering. The following paragraph seems to answer some of my questions about the many faceted beliefs and sects of Buddhism.

"Buddhist, nirvana is simply an escape from the world of suffering. It is like a candle that had been burning with a hot flame (representing our suffering in the cycle of reincarnation) being suddenly extinguished. Once a flame is out, there is no point in questioning where it went. To the classical Buddhist, to attain nirvana is simply to be out of existence."

I choose to believe that nothing ever ceases to exist and there is some meaning to life in this plane or dimension. Also that self-interest, greed, or sin does not necessarily result in suffering as a consequence. My concept is that there is an ultimate Wisdom which is the causitive factor for all existence and man's finite mind attempt to comprehend the meaning is fruitless.

The Buddha seeking something outside of the suffering of others reportedly had after long meditation a 'flash of sudden insight' leading him to his conclusions about fleeing 'suffering' as a result of selfishness and egotism. That man goes through a continuous reincarnation state until achieving the highest level resulting in the 'self' going out of existence is no more valid than my construct.

In my ignorance of Buddhism, I see that the Buddha found no necessity for existence except to seek the state of nirvana perfection. That in Buddhism a state of non-existence is the ultimate level of attainment.

Then let me live in my ignorance and believe there is an ultimate reason for it all.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by onycho
"Buddhist, nirvana is simply an escape from the world of suffering. It is like a candle that had been burning with a hot flame (representing our suffering in the cycle of reincarnation) being suddenly extinguished. Once a flame is out, there is no point in questioning where it went. To the classical Buddhist, to attain nirvana is simply to be out of existence."

That's seems about right. But note that 'out of existence' may not mean what you think it does. It fact it almost certainly doesn't.

I choose to believe that nothing ever ceases to exist and there is some meaning to life in this plane or dimension. Also the fact that self-interest, greed, or sin does not necessarily result in suffering as a consequence.

I go along with that.

My concept is that there is ultimate Wisdom which is the causitive factor for all existence and man's finite mind to attempt to comprehend is fruitless.

I don't see how wisdom can cause existence. It seems to be a mismatch of categories.

I also strongly disagree with the idea that our potential knowledge is so limited.

The Buddha seeking something outside of the suffering of others apparently had a 'flash of sudden insight' leading him to his conclusions about fleeing 'suffering' or selfishness and egotism.

That's like saying that Einstein is famous for having had a good thought on the way to work one morning. You may find it better to forget about suffering for a while and approach Buddhism from another angle.

That man goes through a continuous reincarnation state until achieving the highest state resulting in the self going out of existence is no more valid than my construct.

What is your construct?

In my ignorance of Buddhism, I see that the Buddha found no reason for existence except to seek Nirvana perfection. That in Buddhism a state of non-existence is the ultimate level of attainment.

In a way yes. But there is far more to it than that, and in way this is quite wrong.

Then let me live in ignorance and believe there is a reason for it all. [/B]

Ok. Although I'm not sure why you believe that in order to believe that there is a reason for it all you have to be ignorant.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Canute

That's seems about right. But note that 'out of existence' may not mean what you think it does. It fact it almost certainly doesn't.

Then I would greatly appreciate an explanation of Buda’s nirvana if not the ending of conscious existence.

I don't see how wisdom can cause existence. It seems to be a mismatch of categories.

Please note that I capitalized the first letter in Wisdom. Perhaps I should have used a different word and simply stated that in my concept, Wisdom is actually another name for the Designer of all things. The irreducible complexity of the universe we inhabit presumes such an unknown entity. Statistical probability for the chaotic formation of even the simplest structure, i.e., a human skin cell, is less than 0.

Unfortunately creationism has little to do with Buddhist philosophy.

I also strongly disagree with the idea that our potential knowledge is so limited.

Then the question becomes how finite is the intellect of man? Your word 'knowledge' implies that the conscious mind is ultimately able to comprehend or know infinite Wisdom. Of course the answer to that conundrum cannot be validated.

That's like saying that Einstein is famous for having had a good thought on the way to work one morning. You may find it better to forget about suffering for a while and approach Buddhism from another angle.

Okay, I'll go along with your analogy. But by what methodology did the Buddha find his teachings and search for an escape from Suffering? Apparently the word suffering is not an exact translation for the Buda’s self-realization process.

What is your construct?

The possibility that our assumed reality is in actuality a giant hologram in a timeless dimension. That consciousness is on a continuum which never changes but for a short span of perceived time is able to choose a path for good or evil.

In a way yes. But there is far more to it than that, and in way this is quite wrong.

Then please enlighten me as to the Buda’s search for nirvana.

Ok. Although I'm not sure why you believe that in order to believe that there is a reason for it all you have to be ignorant.

Human ignorance is a shared reality...

 

[olde drunk]

suffering?

why does any view of our experience need to include suffering?

needless to say, if you believe that suffering is to be admired or necessary, then you will have suffering.

if you believe that the conciousness(ours) continues to grow and expand, then at some point you will accept the idea that suffering is nothing more or less than another experience. THEN without a belief in suffering, you will stop suffering.

ignorance is simply being denied the necesary information to make a better decision. it is not the basis for the human reality.

our reality is a framework wherein our conciousness can be focused intensely through a brain, body, emotions, etc so we can learn to manipulate our overall energy potential.

yahoo, nirvana is our next level of development. actually, some might choose to visit the life of prehistoric man as a view of nirvana. or was that the garden of eden??

 

[phoenixthoth]

is nirvana the realization of unity, aka nonduality, and by that I'm trying to capture in words, quite poorly as you can see, something like "achievement" of unity though achievement is a terrible word. or maybe the being in unity. or being at one (ah! still dual!). or being one. or being. being.

is it possible to be "in" nirvana and believe you are not thus resulting in experiences "like" not being "in" nirvana? is that the state of most people for i have heard that everyone is already "at one" they just don't realize it.

from "meditation in action" by chogyan trungpa in the chapter "the manure of experience"

it may be a great kind of violence, oor great laziness, but one has just to take that particular quality and not regard it necessarily as a fault or blockage, for that is[/is] the bodhi which is in him; it is the seed, or rather the full potentiality for giving birth--he is already impregnated by bodhi. as one particular scripture says, "since buddha-nature pervades all beings there is no such thing as an unsuitable candidate."

thus, is there any truth to the statement, "we are all enlightened but we just don't know it," or "we are all enlightened but we just aren't aware of it?"

or am i way off the mark in suggesting that nirvana, bodhi, and budda-nature are related?? as you can tell, i know nothing of buddhism and I'm just guessing. a rather long treatise I'm sure can be written about the relationship between the following that i'd like to know more about: samadhi, bodhi, budda-nature, bodhisatva, satori, nirvana, enlightenment, and Awakening.

i want to reemphasize a point i made earlier for the casual passerby wondering why "consiousness?" has turned to a discussion of buddhism. when you study consciousness or psychology, i think the error of scientists is to not reasearch completely. by golly, every individual has a psyche and a consciousness and the examination of one's own psyche and consciousness plays an important role in the study of consciousness and psychology in addition to studying others' psyches and consciousnesses. two exercises for examining your own psyche and consciousness that seem to work well are journalling and meditation. the right way to journal is to just journal and not editorialize yourself. no one has to see it. there's often a strong urge to not journal and it's not just laziness. i think it's also partly a fear of knowing what's inside.

 

[olde drunk]

nirvana, heaven et al

to me, these terms are best viewed as the end of the 'human experience'.

if we really think about it, there can not be a heaven, hell, purgatory, nirvana, limbo etc. the best way for me to remember this was to picture myself in heaven with any and every thing at my beck and call. how many lobsters can i eat?? how long can i continually have sex?? how many lotteries can i win? how beautiful is beautiful? gawd, BOOOOOOOOOORRRING!

as for hell, etc, if there ain't no heaven, then its corollary needn't exist either!

i know, i know, this is overly simplistic! unfortunately, all the esoteric ideas and convoluted theories do not hold up to deep examination and experiential proof. i can only 'experience truth', MY truth. not believing in a mythical afterlife is my truth. i am eternal, i just don't go to heaven or hell.

again, these terms are used by religious organizations to romanticize an idea from Buddha, Christ, Mohamed, Sidartha, etc etc. isn't it funny that we can read and appreciate Ghandi's words without getting caught up in a debate about their meaning? his words were recent, in our language and they have not been given a devine lable. no time or need for someone to translate and embellish.

thank you,

 

[phoenixthoth]

i'm starting to wonder if heaven, hell, purgatory, the garden of eden, and Earth are the same place. one thinks about such things as "heaven on earth" or "hell on earth". one will then "be" in a "place" one is "aligned" with and one's "alignment" depends on one's consciousness and disposition. i think one's person change change the way the environment is perceived thus resulting in feelings that this is hell on Earth or this is heaven on earth.

matthew 6:33
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

luke 17:21
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

genesis 3:24
So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

now how can a sword turn every way? imagine you are the one holding that sword and it is pointed at yourself. no matter where you turn, it is always pointed at yourself; it turns every way. drop the sword and enter the garden.

thomas 18
The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us, how will our end come?"
Jesus said, "Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is.
Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death."

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Canute

Then I would greatly appreciate an explanation of Buda’s nirvana if not the ending of conscious existence.

Tentative answer coming up. Nirvana is inexplicable ex hypothesis in Buddhism. However that doesn't mean it cannot be alluded to, pointed to if you like.

Words are used by different people in different ways, but roughly speaking Nirvana is synonymous with emptiness, Brahman, oneness, fullness, is-ness and other terms. It cannot be referred to directly because, like Spinoza's God, it is an entity (non-entity) that has no external attributes. It is non-dual, and thus cannot be perceived, conceived, described, named etc, since all these was of knowing it are dual. 'Dual' in this sense is tricky to explain and I've never managed to do it well. (But Irish philosopher Wu Wu Wei and Chuang Tsu do it pretty well and would show up in a search).

There is nothing mystical about the idea but it can be very hard to grasp intellectually since all thinking is dual, and thus we are trying to think about something that cannot be properly thought about. (Told you I was no good at explaining).

One reason it can't be talked about properly is that it is an experience, not a thing, and experiences are impossible to communicate ('incommensurate' is the usual term). But there are deeper reasons. Any assertion about this experience (state of being) is wrong, because any assertion will inevitably assign properties to this state that it does not have. Thus it is wrong to say it exists, yet wrong to say it doesn't. There are two ways of looking at it, two aspects, and the correct way is to synthesise these into a unity. (A bit like saying that we can conceive of a wave, and we can conceive of a particle, but we can't conceive of something that could be both, yet such a thing must exist). In non-dual philosophy there are no 'antimonies' (or little else, depending on, yes, your point of view). (Existence is absolutely entirely dual, but emptiness, which underlies existence, is not).

Hmm. Got lost there. The main point is that Nirvana exists yet it doesn't, depending on which way you choose to look at it. We are forced to adopt a viewpoint in which these properties are either true or false, but all such viewpoints are untrue views. (It may help to relate this to Galilean relativity and motion).

This sounds as if Nirvana is out of reach of human knowledge. But this is not the case. Rather it is out of reach of human reasoning.

That's a rubbish explanation, sorry. If you try a search on 'non-dual', 'Advaita', sunyata etc. you'll do better.

Basically the epistemilogical logic follows Aristotle and Popper in that it asserts that certain knowledge is achieved only when the knower is identical with the known.

This is difficult to grasp, which may be why Plato asserted that we were chained to our perception of the world as shadows, not just that we preferred that point of view.

It is important to note that adherents of the non-dual world-view call it an 'affirmation' rather than a philosophy, theory or belief. This is because they claim to know it is true, as opposed to just speculating that it is. Considering the arrogance and boldness of this claim it is interesting that nobody has ever been able to successfully refute it.

Please note that I capitalized the first letter in Wisdom. Perhaps I should have used a different word and simply stated that in my concept, Wisdom is actually another name for the Designer of all things. The irreducible complexity of the universe we inhabit presumes such an unknown entity. Statistical probability for the chaotic formation of even the simplest structure, i.e., a human skin cell, is less than 0.

Your Wisdom sounds a lot like Plato's Ideas, and is not all that far from a Buddhist view of things. But in Buddhism there is no designer. Rather there is just the interaction of conscious beings, each of whom does a little of the design work, usually unintentionally. Thus humans create maize or, say, a general desire to stand on two legs creates the conditions under which a gene for standing upright can bestow fitness etc).

Unfortunately creationism has little to do with Buddhist philosophy.

In Buddhism creation is all there is. Everything is always beginning.

Then the question becomes how finite is the intellect of man?

Partly that is the question, but knowledge is not always dependent on intellect. This is where Goedel becomes relevant. Providing the answers to undecidable questions, as we know we can do, is a good example of how our knowledge can outstrip our reasoned proofs, under all circumstances.

Your word 'knowledge' implies that the conscious mind is ultimately able to comprehend or know infinite Wisdom. Of course the answer to that conundrum cannot be validated.

Not in third-person terms. But many claim that it can in first-person terms. Emptiness is not even name-able in third-person terms. (This is both an epistemilogical and ontological claim).

Okay, I'll go along with your analogy. But by what methodology did the Buddha find his teachings and search for an escape from Suffering? Apparently the word suffering is not an exact translation for the Buda’s self-realization process.

The concept of suffering is a quite sophisticted one, and central to Buddhism. But it is not the be all and end all of Buddhism. Suffering is in a sense a symptom, the cure for which lies in achieving a true understanding of reality, which in turn requires self-realisation. In other words Buddhism does not suggest tackling suffering head on any more than a doctor would deal with symptoms and forget their cause. It teaches how to achieve sufficient self-realisation to understand the truth about existence and by so doing to understand the nature of suffering and the means of transcending it.

It's a very practical approach (Buddhism has been called 'the serious pursuit of happiness') but not an easy one. Buddhists talk of progress towards bliss in terms of zillions of lifetimes. (In my own case I suspect even this might not be long enough). However they also talk about it in terms of being just one small step. Apparent contradictions are endemic to non-dual desriptions of things, if it wasn't then those descriptions wouldn't be non-dual).

The possibility that our assumed reality is in actuality a giant hologram in a timeless dimension.

Do you mean like this: (not my capitals)

FAR AWAY IN THE HEAVENLY ABODE OF THE GREAT GOD INDRA, THERE IS A WONDERFUL NET WHICH HAS BEEN HUNG BY SOME CUNNING ARTIFICER IN SUCH A MANNER THAT IT STRETCHES OUT INDEFINITELY IN ALL DIRECTIONS. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXTRAVAGANT TASTES OF DEITIES, THE ARTIFICER HAS HUNG A SINGLE GLITTERING JEWEL AT THE NET'S EVERY NODE, AND SINCE THE NET ITSELF IS INFINITE IN DIMENSION, THE JEWELS ARE INFINITE IN NUMBER. THERE HANG THE JEWELS, GLITTERING LIKE STARS OF THE FIRST MAGNITUDE, A WONDERFUL SIGHT TO BEHOLD. IF WE NOW ARBITRARILY SELECT ONE OF THESE JEWELS FOR INSPECTION AND LOOK CLOSELY AT IT, WE WILL DISCOVER THAT IN ITS POLISHED SURFACE THERE ARE REFLECTED ALL THE OTHER JEWELS IN THE NET, INFINITE IN NUMBER. NOT ONLY THAT, BUT EACH OF THE JEWELS REFLECTED IN THIS ONE JEWEL IS ALSO REFLECTING ALL THE OTHER JEWELS, SO THAT THE PROCESS OF REFLECTION IS INFINITE

THE AVATAMSAKA SUTRA
FRANCIS H. COOK: HUA-YEN BUDDHISM : THE JEWEL NET OF INDRA 1977

That consciousness is on a continuum which never changes but for a short span of perceived time is able to choose a path for good or evil.

Roughly the Buddhist view.

Then please enlighten me as to the Buda’s search for nirvana.

As I understand it the Buddha set out to understand suffering and ended up understanding existence. He concluded that consciousness is fundamental and that in its limit state it is a non-dual experience that is eternally blissful. He asserts that 'we' all can achieve this state, but not without effort, introspection and the banishing of all our day to day assumptions in favour of certainties.

Human ignorance is a shared reality... [/B]

I suppose it is really. Buddhists call it confusion rather than ignorance, for it is possible to be very knowledgeable about that reality, but just be confused about how to put all that knowledge together in a way that makes sense.

Thus Buddhism has no disagreements with science over scientific matters, and considers physicalists confused rather than ignorant. In fact in certain respects Buddhists have great regard for ignorance.

In a lot of ways Theosophy agrees with Buddhism, so you might like this:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/homepage.htm

 

[phoenixthoth]

despite your humble opinions to the contrary, i think you did a more than adequte job of explaining it. one has but to read it enough times to understand it. the minimum times one must read it to understand it is 0, of course. it is also 1000 and one.

i love the jewel quote.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
one has but to read it enough times to understand it. the minimum times one must read it to understand it is 0, of course.

Lol. Brilliant. (And thanks).