Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
Invisibler72rock
Maybe so. Maybe not.
Male


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/06/09
Posts: 1,327
Loc: Chicago Flag
Speculative Non-Buddhism
    #22424108 - 10/23/15 06:11 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Hey it's been a while. I hope everyone's doing well.

I've been reading a lot of these guys called the Speculative Non-Buddhists (SNB). It's fascinating, and they cover quite a range of topics. I'd totally encourage people to check out their website:

http://speculativenonbuddhism.com/

It's in archive mode, and you can't post there anymore, but the articles are fantastic and the comment sections are essentially essays in themselves. I can't recommend it enough.

However, I wanted to see what you guys thought of their stuff. Some of it gets a bit technical, which is one of my issues with the whole SNB thing, but I'll try to sum up their position as best as I can.

Speculative Non-Buddhism claims that Buddhism was kind of just thrown into the Western world without taking into consideration our own previously held traditions. Since it's come into the western world, it's been just accepted uncritically and it's formed into another religion (A western one at that -- it redefines transcendence from heaven and calls it enlightenment). To point out that it's another religion in all its forms, they've coined the term "x-buddhism". The 'x' is like an algebraic expression: you can fill x in for Zen, Tibetan, Secular, etc... The point is to show that, despite whatever form Buddhism takes, it still reinforces what the founder (Glenn Wallis) calls "ventriloquism". Ventriloquism is the idea that X-Buddhists just mimic what their teachers taught them from what their teachers taught them, and so on, without really thinking through what the implications of their position was.

Buddhism in the west has become, inherently, anti-intellectual. This is reflected in the idea that many teachers just encourage people to sit down, shut up, and meditate. Most questions are usually sidestepped with ridiculous answers that don't make much sense. There is no serious intellectual dialogue going on in western buddhism.

Here are some views that the Speculative Non-Buddhists hold:

1. They take the concept of non-Buddhism from François Laruelle's (A living French Philosopher)idea of non-philosophy. Laruelle states that philosophy is bound by its own assumptions and is afraid of losing these assumptions. So what non-philosophy is, is a way to stand far back enough from a philosophy where the material is intimately known, without fear of losing anything from it (we don't care if we have to abandon some of these assumptions). In terms of SNB, they state that non-Buddhism is a way for us to stand far enough back from Buddhism and know it intimately, without fear of losing aspects of the religion. They're interested in what we can understand from Buddhism while abandoning the religion. Hence they aren't explicitly Buddhist, but they know different forms of Buddhism very well and find value in it. (Glenn Wallis holds a PhD in Buddhist Studies from Harvard.)

2. They hate the appeal to authority that comes through in through Buddhism. X-Buddhists talk from an authoritative stance. If you have a question about Buddhism, a lot of the times (from my experience as well), teachers will usually say "Well, you just need to meditate more." Or "You just don't understand the dharma yet." Teachers commonly will just regurgitate what their teachers taught them without critically thinking about it. And in other cases, they'll just refer to a sutra as if that's a "higher form" of authority.

3. They believe in a mind-independent reality that can be known. So they believe that reality takes precedence over the mind, and the mind is bound to natural laws. What this means is that the mind/consciousness isn't special in any way, and we can now explore the material world without this illusion that consciousness is somehow special.

4. They want to rid all this talk about transcendence. They hold that we know enough now to know that nihilism is true, and that there is no saving grace. Buddha's first noble truth (life is suffering) is a spot on diagnosis, and if we hold that there is a mind-independent reality, we can then fully explore the implications of it. Meditation therefore, isn't a means to help us transcend anything, but instead is to help us understand the ideologies that are imposed upon us. They take from another philosopher, Ray Brassier, who also holds that truth can be known outside of us, and thus (now using my paraphrasing of Brassier), we should carry on a new enlightenment project (One of pushing science, philosophies, and thinking to the limits).

4.1. This kind of leads into another major point that they constantly reinforce, which is the Buddha's teaching of anatman (no-self). If we really want to take the Buddha's teaching to heart, then that means that there literally is no-self, and that means there is no self to be saved from meditation or anything. Buddhist teachers often talk about this in one sense ("There is no self. Watch the self drop away."), but they then quickly turn around and reinforce the idea of a self ("What's left after all has dropped away? That's the real you."). If we're gonna accept the Buddha's teaching that there is no such thing as a self, then that means there is No Self -Full stop-.

4.2. This also implies that they think that the Buddha was up to more than just getting us to "sit around and enjoy the tea and flowers". There is no self to sit around and enjoy the tea and flowers necessarily. They argue that the Buddha was after something much more ambitious. He wanted us to see how our ideologies form our consciousness and thinking. We can't not think or conceptualize -- brains do that, there's no way around. So Buddhism isn't about just learning to enjoy the moment and love life, but instead, it's learning about the processes of the mind and how the world around us influences it. It's a constant process of understanding our minds and the ideologies that shapes our world.
This goes against the modern idea of meditation that's promoted here in the west (as mindfulness meditation) and meditation that's promoted in Buddhism. As they hold, it's thinking all the way down. There is no such thing as "mindfulness" in the sense that we can stand back and watch our thoughts go by -- that in itself is another form of thinking. It's a conceptualization of thoughts, and you can't escape thinking. And Western Buddhism seems to think that thinking is evil or inherently bad.


In short, what they're interested in is, taken out of its religious context, what does Buddhism offer us in the 21st century with all our knowledge about physics, the mind, and philosophy?

I personally have some issues with their views, but overall, I think that this is the best critique of Buddhism that I've read to date. I kind of left a Buddhist tradition due to #2.

I'm really curious what people think about it around here. They attack Buddhism from a lot of angles and I feel that it's really helpful to understand what Buddhism is about and what it's trying to accomplish in the first place. They make a lot of points, so there are plenty of places where people can agree and disagree with it. I know this has been a wall of text, but it raises questions such as, what are we looking for in Buddhism? Why study Buddhism?

I have quite a bit of personal thoughts on this, but I'm interested where people agree/disagree with this critique. :cheers:


--------------------
Current favorite candy: Peanut Butter Kisses


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: Speculative Non-Buddhism [Re: r72rock]
    #22424279 - 10/23/15 07:00 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

That's very interesting, r72rock.  In reality, the (non-Western) Buddhists don't fuck around.

From saenchai's Forced Reincarnation thread:

As far as Buddhism is concerned, they disbelieve in a soul or really any type of unchanging self.  This was a principal insight of the Buddha -- total impermanence of everything.  Essentially, Nirvana is a kind of pure nothingness, certainly not bliss -- dissolved into pure consciousness.  Reincarnation and rebirth is considered to be a wholly involuntary process.  The only time voluntarism enters in is when a Bodhisattva deliberately chooses to reincarnate out of compassion.  In a way, to me, there is indeed a nihilistic flair to the nothingness espoused by Buddhism.  It is not typically represented that way in the West, but just think:  Buddhism denies everything about you, it denies any lasting essence to everything you are, and if you're pure, you'll dissolve into nothingness.  "Nirvana," after all, means extinction.  The other reason I feel it seems nihilistic is that life is considered essentially abysmal -- something to escape from at all costs.  I dunno, just some personal reactions.  Here is a pretty good rundown of the Buddhist beliefs:  http://www.near-death.com/religion/buddhism/afterlife-beliefs.html

from the article:

Quote:

From the perspective of present-day, world-affirming Western society, the Buddhist vision cannot but appear distinctly unappealing: Not only is this life portrayed as unattractive, the prospect of nirvana, in which one dissolves into nothingness, seems even less desirable. A modern-day Buddha might respond, however, that our reaction to being confronted with the dark side of life merely shows how insulated we are from the pain and suffering that is so fundamental to human existence.




--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibler72rock
Maybe so. Maybe not.
Male


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/06/09
Posts: 1,327
Loc: Chicago Flag
Re: Speculative Non-Buddhism [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #22424458 - 10/23/15 07:50 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Thanks for the response. I think one thing that Wallis from SNB wants to point out is that, as Buddhism came here from the East, it was kind of just handed down as "this has been the same tradition from 2500 years ago. It hasn't changed, so learn it." But that's simply just not true. Buddhism in the east has had its fair share of arguments on what knowledge is, what meditation accomplishes, what the Buddha really said, etc. (Deep philosophical issues that have been debated)

Even what's promoted today as Buddhism in the West (such as Mindfulness meditation) was hotly debated in the East. At the time, Sati (What is known as mindfulness meditation here) was heavily criticized as a form of meditation that was trying to promote Buddhism for lay people without them having to really study or engage in this rich philosophical tradition of Buddhism. So I agree with you. Those Non-Western Buddhist don't fuck around. They're serious about this.

Another thing too that I keep thinking about his how nihilism is a western issue. Buddhism never had a God, so they never faced the 'death of God' and meaning like we did in the West. Nihilism is a western problem, and when Buddhism was introduced in the west, it was given that category of nihilistic.

Quote:

Essentially, Nirvana is a kind of pure nothingness, certainly not bliss -- dissolved into pure consciousness.




Right. It's promoting this idea of nothing, void, emptiness. That seems really off putting to westerns (I know it's off putting to me).

Nirvana in the west is advertised as this "pure bliss free from suffering." But as you pointed out, it's the extinction of everything -- including bliss.

So is Nirvana something that people actually want?

That was Nietzsche's critique of Buddhism, which was that, it was too life denying. Deny suffering, deny desire, deny life. Of course, many Buddhist disagree that Buddhism is life denying or pessimistic, and I'm sympathetic to that defense. The way I see it, by following the four noble truths, it's saying that these are inherent characteristics of life, that it's suffering and suffering is caused by desire, but that there's a more wholesome way to live. That if we follow some ethical principles, we can reduce that suffering in others and in ourselves.


--------------------
Current favorite candy: Peanut Butter Kisses


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibler72rock
Maybe so. Maybe not.
Male


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/06/09
Posts: 1,327
Loc: Chicago Flag
Re: Speculative Non-Buddhism [Re: r72rock]
    #22424474 - 10/23/15 07:52 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

A modern-day Buddha might respond, however, that our reaction to being confronted with the dark side of life merely shows how insulated we are from the pain and suffering that is so fundamental to human existence.




I keep reading this over again. I think this is fascinating. That the fact we're so adverse to facing nihilism and nothingness is just another facet of the fact of existence.

I feel that I have to think over this bit for a while.


--------------------
Current favorite candy: Peanut Butter Kisses


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: Speculative Non-Buddhism [Re: r72rock]
    #22424924 - 10/23/15 09:44 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

That was Nietzsche's critique of Buddhism, which was that, it was too life denying. Deny suffering, deny desire, deny life. Of course, many Buddhist disagree that Buddhism is life denying or pessimistic, and I'm sympathetic to that defense. The way I see it, by following the four noble truths, it's saying that these are inherent characteristics of life, that it's suffering and suffering is caused by desire, but that there's a more wholesome way to live. That if we follow some ethical principles, we can reduce that suffering in others and in ourselves.





And I think that's totally fair.  Although, most people are under the strong misapprehension that the Buddha's core philosophy was something other than that which I described in the previous post, which it wasn't.

Quote:


Quote:

A modern-day Buddha might respond, however, that our reaction to being confronted with the dark side of life merely shows how insulated we are from the pain and suffering that is so fundamental to human existence.




I keep reading this over again. I think this is fascinating. That the fact we're so adverse to facing nihilism and nothingness is just another facet of the fact of existence.

I feel that I have to think over this bit for a while.




Yes I thought that was particularly interesting.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: Speculative Non-Buddhism [Re: r72rock]
    #22425256 - 10/23/15 11:13 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Bravo to the Speculative Non-Buddhists!

I've been arguing this stuff for years now. Nothing's mystic but that which we imagine. This isn't to suggest materialism. Life is spiritual enough. There need be no esoteric truth to enjoy a laugh, appreciate a smile, to strive and enjoy whatever success we experience, and perceive the biased and sometimes painful relationship we have with living, to move beyond those sticking points. Is the fact that we are here at all not mystic enough? that we must make up stories that require we compromise our logical integrity? Is the shame of ignorance so great?


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesoldatheero
lastirishman
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc: Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Speculative Non-Buddhism [Re: DividedQuantum] * 1
    #22425291 - 10/23/15 11:24 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

As far as Buddhism is concerned, they disbelieve in a soul or really any type of unchanging self.  This was a principal insight of the Buddha -- total impermanence of everything




This is a tricky semantic issue but I would be careful saying the Buddha said there was "no unchanging self". He did not teach no-self but he taught not-self and he was dispelling the erroneous perception people have of what their self is.. the personality, the body, desires, etc is what people identify with and cling to as themselves. This in my view is the self or soul he was dispelling, the false self.

So there is still room for some "self" but it does not have any attributes because the attributes are phenomenon they are changing and impermanent. The attributes exist because of the self or as a byproduct of the self but they cannot said to BE the self. It would not make much sense to say that one does not exist and yet also teach that one must make an effort to overcome samsara or be bound to it for an eternity.

I agree with what you say that according to many buddhist nirvana is thought to be a dissolution into nothingness and that it is a sort of dire outlook. I remember hearing a buddhist "master" speak of this years ago and was quite taken back..

Meher Baba had a specific explanation for this,

Quote:

Fana has two states. The first state of fana is absolute vacuum, where the mind, body, energy, universes, even I vanish — nothing is there. Only Consciousness remains in that state. Until fana, you have consciousness of yourselves, mind, energy and body. In the first or vacuum state of fana, everything disappears except the Consciousness. But the very next moment, the vacuum state is followed by the second state of fana, where mind and body don't come back. Even if the body seems to be there, the I comes back, the I of the I-Am-God state. It is the goal.

Very few, however, come down to the normal state of consciousness — to the state of baqa, that is, abiding in God. In that state, the life of God is lived. In baqa, mind comes back as the Universal Mind, energy comes back as infinite power, body comes back as Mahakaran, the Universal Body. This Universal Body remains because it has to be on the level of every consciousness — gross, subtle and mental.

So fana has two states. After the first, the second must invariably follow. For example, compare fana with our sound sleep state. In sound sleep, mind, energy, body all vanish: that is, you are not conscious of them. But as soon as you wake up, you first become conscious of yourself and assert your I. Similarly, in fana you become conscious of the "Real I," or "I-Am-God." Fana is spontaneously followed by baqa. The gross baqa means becoming conscious of your living in this world.

Nirvan is where God is not. That is the only state where God is not and consciousness is. It is the first state of fana, which Buddha had emphasized but which later on was misinterpreted as Buddha having said that there is no God! Reality is that God IS; but in that absolute, vacuum state — nirvan — only consciousness remains and, as soon as the I-Am-God state is experienced, baqa is realized; that is, abiding and living in God is experienced, which is the state of the Qutubs [Sadgurus, Perfect Masters].




Quote:

Before the soul loses its human state and gains the divine state of nirvikalpa, it has to experience the vacuum state of nirvana. Nirvana is the infinite vacuum, a state in which the soul is fully conscious of real Nothing, and if in the state of nirvana the human body is dropped, one passes into a state of the infinite bliss of God. In some cases nirvana is immediately and inevitably followed by nirvikalpa or fana-fillah, where the soul is fully conscious of real Everything. Nirvana and nirvikalpa are so closely linked that each can be said to be the divine goal..




The thing about intellectualizing enlightenment or trying to conceptualize what that state is like is that it is simply impossible. So it is understandable that some confusion would arise over time as to what it is really like. Even if it is said by buddhist that it is an experience of a void or a vacuum than it still implies that there is experience - just of a void or nothingness. Consciousness of nothingness or consciossness alone as Meher said.

Quote:

As it can never happen for God not to exist, in the state of nirvana God plays the part of consciousness itself, which consciousness is sometimes termed super-consciousness or mahachaitanya.




--------------------
..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.


Edited by soldatheero (10/23/15 11:39 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibler72rock
Maybe so. Maybe not.
Male


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/06/09
Posts: 1,327
Loc: Chicago Flag
Re: Speculative Non-Buddhism [Re: soldatheero]
    #22426934 - 10/24/15 12:01 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Rahz said:
Bravo to the Speculative Non-Buddhists!

I've been arguing this stuff for years now. Nothing's mystic but that which we imagine. This isn't to suggest materialism. Life is spiritual enough. There need be no esoteric truth to enjoy a laugh, appreciate a smile, to strive and enjoy whatever success we experience, and perceive the biased and sometimes painful relationship we have with living, to move beyond those sticking points. Is the fact that we are here at all not mystic enough? that we must make up stories that require we compromise our logical integrity? Is the shame of ignorance so great?





Right, I agree. No need to mystify what's already miraculous. Their stuff is interesting, I'd recommend just kind of skimming the site.


Quote:

soldatheero said:
Quote:

As far as Buddhism is concerned, they disbelieve in a soul or really any type of unchanging self.  This was a principal insight of the Buddha -- total impermanence of everything




This is a tricky semantic issue but I would be careful saying the Buddha said there was "no unchanging self". He did not teach no-self but he taught not-self and he was dispelling the erroneous perception people have of what their self is.. the personality, the body, desires, etc is what people identify with and cling to as themselves. This in my view is the self or soul he was dispelling, the false self.

So there is still room for some "self" but it does not have any attributes because the attributes are phenomenon they are changing and impermanent. The attributes exist because of the self or as a byproduct of the self but they cannot said to BE the self. It would not make much sense to say that one does not exist and yet also teach that one must make an effort to overcome samsara or be bound to it for an eternity.

I agree with what you say that according to many buddhist nirvana is thought to be a dissolution into nothingness and that it is a sort of dire outlook. I remember hearing a buddhist "master" speak of this years ago and was quite taken back..





This can be tricky. I disagree that there was any room for a self. I think that in the Heart Sutra, it was made clear that there is Anatman (No self) and Sunyata (emptiness). All things are without an inherent self. There is no one thing or soul that makes up a person, it's just a bunch of aggregates put together.

Mahayana Buddhist took this and developed it as well, through Nargarjuna, and Shantideva in his book, Bodhicaryāvatāra (The Bodhisattva's way of life). I think this idea of No-Self is very clear.

Quote:


The thing about intellectualizing enlightenment or trying to conceptualize what that state is like is that it is simply impossible. So it is understandable that some confusion would arise over time as to what it is really like. Even if it is said by buddhist that it is an experience of a void or a vacuum than it still implies that there is experience - just of a void or nothingness. Consciousness of nothingness or consciossness alone as Meher said.




I agree it's hard to conceptualize enlightenment (I take enlightenment to be what we said earlier in this thread. As a state of pure nothingness) being that we're alive and can't really fully understand what it means to be in nothingness.

As far as consciousness goes, I guess it may be possible. It's speculation at this point. I tend to lean towards the idea that consciousness itself is an illusion -- it's another aggregate that makes us feel like a person.


--------------------
Current favorite candy: Peanut Butter Kisses


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesoldatheero
lastirishman
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc: Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Speculative Non-Buddhism [Re: r72rock] * 1
    #22429587 - 10/24/15 09:31 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Anātman in Sanskrit means not spiritual, corporeal, unreal, something different from spirit or soul, not self, another. In Advaita Vedanta this word is used to indicate saṃsāra - existence, which is the unreal projected by ignorance on the real, that is, on Brahman who is the Absolute.[1] In Buddhism, anātman or anattā means non-self. Nāgārjuna expounded the Mahayana Buddhist theory of non-self (anātman) or śūnyatā (emptiness) and Adi Shankara explained the concept of anātman in the light of the Upanishads; the exact time when these two philosophers lived is still debated.




Quote:

This can be tricky. I disagree that there was any room for a self. I think that in the Heart Sutra, it was made clear that there is Anatman (No self) and Sunyata (emptiness). All things are without an inherent self. There is no one thing or soul that makes up a person, it's just a bunch of aggregates put together




The heart Sutra is referring to the things of the world, phenomenon, objects of the senses. The things that are within the illusionary world of samsara, a persons so called self is his products of his mind; emotions and desires, his body, personality etc these are all things of which are phenomenon and they are NON-self or not self they belong to samsara or maya. This is not a teaching on there being no self it is a teaching on not to identify with the phenomenal world of which everything is empty of it's own existence, transitory and perishable.

Nirvana is the reality beyond samsara and therefore beyond all these things of which belong to the phenomenal world.

Here is a post of mine on this topic,

Quote:

Many people are confused as to whether or not the self exists because most can never accept the self to be self existing.

The self always has to be something besides self, whether energy or mind or consciousness or a synergy or outcome of them all.

Through the lense created by our materialist society, we see reality with the self in the back seat, the self has to be a by-product of reality instead of being reality itself.

So I see many seeking the self in the external reality, looking at all the phenomenon in reality and searching for the self in literally everything that is not the self itself.

They then of course find no self to be found and have a sort of AH-HAH moment. This AH-HAH moment comes from the realization that there is no self to be found out there.

Problem is they then conclude therefore there is no self because they still have the idea that the self must be something other then the self. They then conclude the self to be a transient illusion.

The self is nothing besides the self. The self is self-existing.




Form is emptiness and emptiness is form. Still there is a reality or substance in which this emptiness is occurring within, the cause of the effect. The formless medium in which these illusory things occur upon, the page to the picture, the projector to the screen it is projected on. Perhaps you can deny a "self" but you cannot deny existence and you are one with existence.

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/14693610


--------------------
..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.


Edited by soldatheero (10/24/15 11:39 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblequinn
some kinda love
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/02/10
Posts: 6,799
Re: Speculative Non-Buddhism [Re: r72rock]
    #22434778 - 10/26/15 06:28 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

meditation is to understand ideology?

can u elaborate/explain? :confused2:


--------------------
dripping with fantasy


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibler72rock
Maybe so. Maybe not.
Male


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/06/09
Posts: 1,327
Loc: Chicago Flag
Re: Speculative Non-Buddhism [Re: soldatheero]
    #22437005 - 10/26/15 06:01 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Sorry for the late reply, I've been busy this past week with work/midterms. But I appreciate you taking the time to reply. :smile:

Quote:

soldatheero said:
The heart Sutra is referring to the things of the world, phenomenon, objects of the senses. The things that are within the illusionary world of samsara, a persons so called self is his products of his mind; emotions and desires, his body, personality etc these are all things of which are phenomenon and they are NON-self or not self they belong to samsara or maya. This is not a teaching on there being no self it is a teaching on not to identify with the phenomenal world of which everything is empty of it's own existence, transitory and perishable.

Nirvana is the reality beyond samsara and therefore beyond all these things of which belong to the phenomenal world.






I see how you're reading it, but I still disagree. You're saying that the Heart Sutra is talking about things of the world, phenomenon, and how they're empty. I agree. But consciousness is also illlusionary. It argues that the five aggregates are also empty (the five being form, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness). I agree that any conception that one has of themselves is a product of their mind, and that they are empty (Sunyata), but the phenomenal world includes that which perceives -- which is consciousness. Thus Sunyata means that everything is empty. There is no grounding in anything.

Quote:

The self is nothing besides the self. The self is self-existing.




This again goes back to the concept of emptiness. It isn't the independent thing that gives rise to everything else, and it can't be self existing. It's dependent on other things. It is dependent arising. In order for consciousness to exist, there must be a brain that gives rise to it. Maybe consciousness can (or does) exist outside of the brain, but I have yet to see it myself. I see the self just being another thing that arises out of the 5 aggregates.

Quote:

Form is emptiness and emptiness is form. Still there is a reality or substance in which this emptiness is occurring within, the cause of the effect. The formless medium in which these illusory things occur upon, the page to the picture, the projector to the screen it is projected on.




I think this is why the teaching of the Buddha is so radical. It is emptiness all the way down. These illusionary things occur, but there's no "fundamental reality" that it occurs over.

Quote:

Perhaps you can deny a "self" but you cannot deny existence and you are one with existence.




I hope it doesn't seem like I'm trying to deny existence. :lol: I agree that I exist currently, but I don't think that necessarily means that because I exist that I have a self.


--------------------
Current favorite candy: Peanut Butter Kisses


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibler72rock
Maybe so. Maybe not.
Male


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/06/09
Posts: 1,327
Loc: Chicago Flag
Re: Speculative Non-Buddhism [Re: quinn]
    #22437009 - 10/26/15 06:01 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

quinn said:
meditation is to understand ideology?

can u elaborate/explain? :confused2:




Sure. We can't think or operate without an ideology. You need some model to make sense of the world, otherwise it would be just a bunch of input with no way of organizing it. This idea that there is some "self" that sits back and observes our ideology is just another ideology -- it just becomes another way of making sense of all the sensory input. What the SNB want to get at is to say that we meditate not to escape ourselves or transcend anything, but to inquire into our ideology and understand it better. To see where its limits are, and to see where we're operating on assumptions that may have been influenced by past experiences. When we meditate, we can see how our actions influence others, for better or worse, and then make the healthier choice.

Let me try to exemplify this a little bit. Imagine we were to use Vipassana meditation, for this idea of finding the true self or attaining enlightenment, or whatever have you. The idea is that you would be able to sit back, and just abide in awareness and watch the thoughts pass by. Not judging thoughts, not pushing away or desiring thoughts, but just sitting with them. But that in itself is just another model for organizing all this information in your head. Ideology can't be escaped. Could you imagine actually abiding in "non-judgmental awareness?" You'd be brain dead. It's a comatose having an empty mind. If we were to non-judmentally observe a cat, what would that look like? Just observing a pile of fur with bones, and some electrical impulses? That seems not only odd, but just unhealthy. It serves us no purpose to view a cat like that -- but again, that's just another ideology. It's a way of making sense of things.

So the idea of meditation they want to promote, is one where one doesn't empty their mind, but they become aware of the ideology and maybe see if there are some faults in the ideology.


--------------------
Current favorite candy: Peanut Butter Kisses


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesoldatheero
lastirishman
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc: Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Speculative Non-Buddhism [Re: r72rock]
    #22438914 - 10/27/15 04:52 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

I think this is why the teaching of the Buddha is so radical. It is emptiness all the way down. These illusionary things occur, but there's no "fundamental reality" that it occurs over.




In order for there to be emptiness does there not have to be something there to be empty? I don't know you seem to confuse emptiness with non-existence.

Quote:

I agree it's hard to conceptualize enlightenment (I take enlightenment to be what we said earlier in this thread. As a state of pure nothingness) being that we're alive and can't really fully understand what it means to be in nothingness.




No pun intended but there would be nothing to understand, just a void and no consciousness. About consciousness being a product of the 5 aggregates I believe that refers to self-consciousness or awareness and not necessarily consciousness itself. I have read other Buddhist scripture that suggests consicousness is fundamental. I really don't think the materialist perspective that it depends upon the brain fits into Buddhism very well, for instance how do you think someone is going to attain nirvana anyway if we are just a product of the brain? What essence will exist? If you think we become absolutely nothing than how is it that something can become nothing? To me it's not very logically coherent, I mean there is a real substance to reality there is certainly something of which can be said to be real and I take it that real thing is the buddha nature or the real self. Also to not believe there is one real substance is to fall into some form of dualism since you believe all those things form, mind, etc exist but are different things and not all illusions created by one reality.

Here are some quotes from the Samadhiraja Sutra which support what I am saying. These are quotes from the Buddha, I am taking them from this book

http://www.mischievouspeeps.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Buddha-and-God.pdf

Quote:

The Dharma which the Buddhas have taught is most excellent and superlative. . . . This
authentic Dharma alone has no time or season. If it is only seen with the Dharma-eye
and not with the physical eye, no simile can serve as an analogy for it. It is unborn,
unarisen, unabiding, not perishing, without beginning, without end, unconditioned
[asamskrta] and immeasurable. It provides a dwelling for those who are homeless, a
refuge for those without a refuge, light for those without light . . . it is unimpeded
fragrance for places without fragrance, it displays what cannot be seen, it is
8
unwavering/ imperturbable, it does not change . . . it is tranquillity, the pinnacle of all
dharmas. It can utterly eradicate all the kleshas [mental and moral afflictions]; it is
totally pure; it is devoid of perceptual attributes [animitta], and it is liberated from
perceptual attributes. It is the ultimate dwelling-place of countless beings, it
extinguishes all the fires of samsara. It is the abode where the Buddhas disport
themselves. It is eternal and unchanging [aviparinama].1

Inconceivable, surpassing the sphere of thought, not oscillating between bliss and
suffering, surpassing illusory differentiation, placeless, surpassing the voice of those
aspiring to the Knowledge of the Buddha, essential, surpassing passion; indivisible,
surpassing hatred; steadfast, surpassing infatuation; explained by the indication of
emptiness, unborn, surpassing birth, eternal from the standpoint of common
experience, undifferentiated in the aspect of Nirvana . . . cool, unscorched, placeless,
unthinkable, blameless, infinite in terms of colours, born of the application of the great
supernatural faculty—thus is the Body of the Tathagata to be called


. . there is only one support . . . and this is supreme over all supports and is
supramundane. It is the true support and Refuge.
. . . the Tathagatagarbha is the support of samsara. It is with reference to the
Tathagatagarbha that the Lord teaches that there is no beginning . . . it is because the
Tathagatagarbha exists that there is such a thing as that which is called samsara. What is
called “samsara” is the cycle of grasping at [new] faculties of those who seize [are
reborn] as soon as they have passed away [lit. transferred]. . . . “Death” and “birth” are
worldly conventions. Death is the faculties ceasing, and birth is the faculties arising
anew. The Tathagatagarbha, however, is not born, does not die, does not transfer, does
not arise. It is beyond the sphere of the characteristics of the compounded; it is
permanent, stable and changeless.

It is therefore the ground, support and dwelling place of those who have the knowledge
of liberation from the sheaths [of spiritual ignorance], who are connected and not
separate from it. In this way, the Tathagatagarbha [also] is the ground, support and
dwelling place of all outer compounded dharmas [phenomena] that do not have the
knowledge of liberation and which are not connected and are separate from it. . . . The
Lord is the master, the Lord is the support.5


Mahaparinirvana Sutra, the Buddha states:
. . . all phenomena are not non-Self. The Self is real, the Self is eternal, the Self is virtue,
the Self is everlasting, the Self is immovable, and the Self is peace.






Here is a very good break down and analysis of what we have been discussing.

http://www.nirvanasutra.net/

Quote:

It is important to recognise that the Mahaparinirvana Sutra is, in its own words, an uttara-tantra (definitive explanation of the Buddha's teachings given by the Buddha himself) - indeed an uttarottara-tantra, according to the Buddha:  the most supreme explanation of his doctrines that the Buddha ever enunciated (coupled with that found in the great Lotus Sutra). Some Buddhists feel unsettled and even frightened by this sutra's cataphatic (positive) and affirmative teachings on the immortal reality of the Self or Soul (the atman) of the Buddha, present in all beings, and like to pretend that the scripture is of relatively low spiritual grade (in diametrical contradiction of the Buddha's own insistence that these teachings are definitive and final); but perhaps this unhappy resistance  to the Sutra or the attendant wish (increasingly encountered amongst those with only a shallow knowledge, and even less practice of, Tathagatagarbha Buddhism) to pervert the Sutra's clear and cataphatic meaning stems from an unfortunate clinging and grasping at pre-conceived, narrow and rigid little notions of what Buddhism "must be" and from a needless, almost neurotic  terror of certain word-labels ("Self" or "Essence" in this case), rather than issuing from any problematic nature of this great spiritual text itself. Whether one terms ultimate Truth  the "Self", the "Tathagata", "Buddha-dhatu", "Tathagatagarbha", or Mahaparinirvana (and the Buddha uses all of these terms and more), the ineffable Reality towards which these words point remains itself unchanged and ever the same. At all events, entry into the Buddha-dhatu (Buddha Principle), also called the Tathagatagarbha (Buddha Matrix), is not for those who are frightened by certain words and their transcendental referents, or by such a subtle and recondite Truth as the Buddha Nature (and who cling to the provisional, contingent, incomplete "non-Self" teaching) - it is for those Bodhisattvas who have conquered all fear. The Buddha states this explicitly, when he declares: "you should know that the Tathagata-dhatu is the refuge of Bodhisattvas who have attained fearlessness ...", ("Tathagatagarbha" chapter,  Faxian's Nirvana Sutra).  Many Mahayana Buddhists who encounter this final scripture of the Buddha's display veritable symptoms of panic and terror in the face of a term they cannot brook, let alone embrace: the 'True Self'! Such people believe that only the prajna-paramita  and sunyata (Emptiness) teachings of the Buddha have final validity and refuse to recognise that the Buddha did in fact teach an ultimate doctrine - that of the Tathagatagarbha ('Buddha Nature') - beyond those earlier forms of Mahayana Dharma. That the Buddha-dhatu doctrine is ultimate and definitive is what the Buddha himself insists upon in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra and other Tathagatagarbha sutras, and yet numerous  disappointingly blinkered and pre-conditioned Mahayana Buddhists sadly and unjustly suppress or deny this truth; whether this is out of genuine ignorance of these scriptures or out of sheer dread at what does not fit into their pre-conceived, cosy (for them) yet constricted  little world-view is not quite clear.

The plain fact, however, is that the Nirvana Sutra complements (and clarifies) the prajna-paramita doctrines. The teachings of the Nirvana Sutra represent the final elucidatory step within the sutras towards Nirvana and full Awakening: they (in alliance with the doctrines of the Lotus Sutra and the astonishingly cosmically dimensioned Avatamsaka Sutra) are definitive and full revelations by the Buddha of his ultimate Dharma. Other (earlier) teachings, such as those on prajna-paramita and Emptiness,  did not present the total picture. They lacked the revelation of the Tathagatagarbha. Yet they helped lay the ground for the revelation of a selfless (i.e. ungraspable, untouchable, unselfish, impersonal, all-compassionate, unconditioned, suffering-free, conceptually unfixable and non-dual) Self (the Eternal Buddha) that is far from being a mutating, time-bound ego or tangible entity  - but is rather the ego-free, unconditioned, everlasting Buddha as the Dharmakaya (Body of Truth) - a mystery that only a Buddha (solely real being) can fully know and comprehend. Yet all beings can become Buddha - since they contain within their very body, here and now, the Buddha Principle which makes Awakening possible. Here, in this great Mahaparinirvana Sutra, we are given the final pieces of the spiritual jigsaw puzzle of the Dharma which reveals this truth. The picture thus becomes complete, and Dharma reaches its culmination and consummation.

    This website treats with sincere respect the reiterated and emphatic assertions of the Buddha in the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra that this sutra (the "all-fulfilling conclusion" of all Mahayana scriptures) is nothing less than a definitive statement of Mahayana doctrine and that it reveals the Buddha's final explanation of his intended, ultimate meaning in the central areas of his Dharma (Buddhic Truth). It is therefore wholly inappropriate for the student and practitioner of Buddhism to say (as some, surprisingly, do), "Oh, it is true that the Buddha claims the Nirvana Sutra constitutes a statement of ultimate Truth, is definitive, and the final explanation  - but I'll choose to treat it as an elementary teaching for less advanced Buddhists, because I feel more comfortable viewing it that way"! It is manifestly unwise and wrongheaded to adopt such a stance, just as it is to try to explain (even more so "explain away" - as some attempt) these teachings solely using the yardstick of previous, provisional Buddhist doctrines. Rather, those earlier doctrines need to be understood and contextualised within the full vision of Dharma that is provided here in the noble Nirvana Sutra and the other tathagatagarbha sutras. To argue (as many misguidedly endeavour) that these teachings are for the spiritually immature is disrespectfully to ignore and discard the words of the Buddha himself, who categorically and repeatedly affirms the ultimacy of the Buddha-dhatu teachings. If one is not going to take the Buddha's own insistent words seriously and with confident trust (as is enjoined upon the student by the Buddha), then it might be wiser not to engage with his sutras at all - or at least not to pretend that one is a sincere and faithful Mahayana Buddhist (and faith in the Buddha's teachings, one should remember, is a vital part of the Buddha-Dharma)! Regrettably, some Buddhists do remain stuck in the first two phases of the Buddha's progressive, three-fold teaching trajectory (since they happen to "like" those earlier, incomplete transmissions of the Dharma) and do not advance to the final stage of the Tathagatagarbha. Such persons then arbitrarily decide to concoct their own (non-Buddha-sanctioned) gradation of ranking within the Dharma and choose to put the Tathagatagarbha revelations down as an elementary teaching - which is in shameless defiance of what the Buddha himself declares in this, his final, sutra (as well as elsewhere). In his last scripture he explains that from the early teachings there arose the prajna-paramita doctrines (radical spiritual insights into the Emptiness of all phenomena); and from the prajna-paramita doctrines there arose the culminational and clarifying Buddha-dhatu revelations, in which we hear from the Buddha's own lips what we had never directly heard before. And it is affirmed by the Buddha in this and other sutras that the Buddha "never lies".

    Nowhere in any of the prajna-paramita sutras (nor in the Tathagatagarbha sutras) does the Buddha state that the Buddha-dhatu / Tathagatagarbha teachings are provisional, or simply a more positive way of speaking about Emptiness (a baseless claim found in the writings of some commentators), or merely a ruse for the spiritually retarded, or for the ears of the under-developed neophyte. In fact, in the final Tathagatagarbha sutras, he makes it abundantly clear that these doctrines are, rather, aimed at the highest of Bodhisattvas (who are already well versed in the non-Self and Emptiness teachings) and constitute the crowning glory that comes after the prajna-paramita teachings and present the definitive meaning of the entire Dharma. The Tathagatagarbha doctrines clarify the true nature and meaning of "Emptiness" (shunyata) by delimiting its range of application and revealing that a full understanding of Emptiness needs to be balanced by knowledge of the indestructible and omni-present Buddha-dhatu, and that this mysterious Dhatu (Principle, Element or Factor) is only empty of impermanence, impurity and suffering, not of its own immeasurable virtues and blissful eternity. So when some commentators on Buddhism, eager to minimise or de-essentialise the Buddha Nature,  seek to claim that the Buddha-dhatu is simply another word for Emptiness, they should in all conscience explain to the student that 'Emptiness' has different ranges of meaning and connotation, and that when applied to the Tathagatagarbha, it means empty of imperfection and physical / ideational graspability. That is not to say that the Tathagatagarbha / Buddha-dhatu is not real and true. It is, in fact, the most real entity (although not, of course, a tangible or material 'thing') that can ever be seen or known. It is nothing less than the heart of the Buddha himself. 

    It also becomes clear as one explores the Nirvana Sutra that the Buddha speaks here (as in other Tathagatagarbha scriptures) of two kinds of "self": one is the worldly, ephemeral, composite ego, which he terms a "lie" (as it is an ever-changing bundle of impermanence, with no enduring essence of its own) and which is to be recognised as the mutating fiction that it is; the other is the True Self, which is the Buddha - Eternal, Changeless, Blissful, and Pure. Some Buddhists find this a stumbling block and are baffled by how the Buddha can on the one hand deny the self and on the other upold the reality of the Self. The answer is that the referent of the word "self" is not the same in all instances. On some occasions the illusory ego is being referred to, while on others it is the Buddha as Dharmakaya that is meant. The one is small, personal and illusory, while the other is real, impersonal  and great ("the Great Self", as the Buddha labels it). To deny the sovereign reality of that  birthless and deathless, non-individuated  Buddha-Self (which is the unbegotten and immortal Dharmakaya - the invisible and ultimate body-and-mind of the Buddha) is tantamount to turning oneself into a species of  self-immolating "moth in the flame of a lamp", as it were - so the Buddha says in the  Nirvana Sutra. It is to deny Truth and therewith to commit spiritual suicide. This Buddha-Self or Dharmakaya is present everywhere and at all times, thus making the teaching of non-duality feasible: there is only one, non-dual Truth, and all else is illusion (as it possesses no true reality, so cannot actually stand in opposition to Truth). Within this all-embracing perspective, the prajna-paramita notions find their final integration into a truly balanced Dharma, as part - rather than the whole - of a majestic edifice of spritual revelation, whose capstone is precisely the Buddha-dhatu or Tathagatagarbha - the Essence of all beings and indeed all Buddhas. It might be noted in passing that the Self of these tathagatagarbha sutras is not identical to the Self variously described in the Upanishads or Vedanta generally. For example, in one Upanishad, the Self is described as being the size of a human thumb and having its location in the heart. This type of Vedantic Self is specifically rejected by the Buddha in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra.




Notice what I had underlined there is exactly what I was trying to explain. I just found this website tonight for me it confirms what I was thinking.


--------------------
..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesoldatheero
lastirishman
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc: Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Speculative Non-Buddhism [Re: soldatheero]
    #22438919 - 10/27/15 05:00 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

I think this is why I think it is quite true that many buddhist have lost there way.

Quote:

Rejection or denigration of the Buddha-dhatu (which is termed "the Self" in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra)  thus ultimately means a rejection of Supreme Reality itself, which in turn is a rejection of the Buddha; for he is "...the definitively real and true" (Faxian Nirvana Sutra). Down-playing or denigration of the Buddha-Reality (so popular with academics these days, who do not have the spiritual insight to see the great harm they are causing both to themselves and others) constitutes a lamentable failure to recognise that there is just such an abiding, immutable, personal yet impersonal, refuge-providing, non-egoic Truth (the Buddha) which knows of no conditioning, no limitation, no dissolution, and no constraints by the processes of the ebb and flow of time, but is ineffably Beyond ...




Because of the Buddhas great psychological insights and analysis' Buddhism appeals to many materialistic thinkers and atheists that really like to cookie cut the teachings and see them through their own reality tunnel. Many people even try to argue you don't have to believe in reincarnation and still be Buddhist which I think is quite laughable.


--------------------
..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibler72rock
Maybe so. Maybe not.
Male


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/06/09
Posts: 1,327
Loc: Chicago Flag
Re: Speculative Non-Buddhism [Re: soldatheero]
    #22441378 - 10/27/15 06:27 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

soldatheero said:
Notice what I had underlined there is exactly what I was trying to explain. I just found this website tonight for me it confirms what I was thinking.




I completely understand your point. Those long quotes didn't clarify anything that wasn't clear, I'm just saying that I disagree with it. I've also gave my reasons why I disagree with it.

In the Buddha's time, the teaching of atman was wide spread. It was the idea that there is a transcendent self or soul. The Buddha's teaching was a direct negation of atman -- anatman. That there is no such thing as an eternal soul or self and that there is no such thing as an unchanging consciousness, or what have you. Now if the Buddha really was teaching atman, but just veiling it behind anatman, then I think that's a pretty lousy teaching method. But I don't think that's what he's pointing at though. If it really were the teaching of atman, then he'd just be saying that. The idea that the phenomenal self of the world is illusionary (the idea you're promoting) was nothing new in the Buddha's time. That was widespread belief and understanding. I feel that attempts to reconcile the Buddha's teaching with the Hindu tradition is doing a disservice to the original idea.

Why would the Buddha really be teaching atman if he established his position of anatman? If the Buddha was teaching atman, then I disagree with it entirely. But from my understanding of the Buddha and his teaching that I've presented, I agree with it.

Quote:

Because of the Buddhas great psychological insights and analysis' Buddhism appeals to many materialistic thinkers and atheists that really like to cookie cut the teachings and see them through their own reality tunnel. Many people even try to argue you don't have to believe in reincarnation and still be Buddhist which I think is quite laughable.




Why is that laughable? :lol:

What's wrong with taking what's useful from it? I think that love your neighbor is a great line from the bible, but I don't consider myself a Christian. To relate it more to your line about being a Buddhist but not believing in reincarnation, I know of many Christians who don't believe in heaven but still identify as Christian. I don't see anything wrong with that. I think it's good that they're shedding beliefs that they feel don't serve them anymore. I feel the same applies to Buddhism. This is part of what the SNB were getting at. What good do these old views do for us? Which ones were correct, and which ones are bad or no longer useful?

Quote:

About consciousness being a product of the 5 aggregates I believe that refers to self-consciousness or awareness and not necessarily consciousness itself.




Then I guess we disagree. But I don't see anything that suggests this reading. Why would he be saying, "the 5 aggregates are illusionary, including consciousness... but not necessarily consciousness itself!" That would be a teaching of atman, which isn't what he was teaching.

Quote:

I have read other Buddhist scripture that suggests consicousness is fundamental.




Sure, it was hotly debated in the Buddha's time. There's also plenty of scripture that suggests that consciousness isn't fundamental (like the Heart Sutra, which clearly states that it's an illusion).

Quote:

I really don't think the materialist perspective that it depends upon the brain fits into Buddhism very well, for instance how do you think someone is going to attain nirvana anyway if we are just a product of the brain? What essence will exist? If you think we become absolutely nothing than how is it that something can become nothing?




I think the model works perfectly fine. I don't personally identify as a materialist, but I don't see any thing about the Buddhist model that contradicts materialism.

And those are good questions. If nirvana means "to extinguish", what can be left? I think it's clear that nothing can be, especially if there was no-self to begin with.

Quote:

To me it's not very logically coherent, I mean there is a real substance to reality there is certainly something of which can be said to be real and I take it that real thing is the buddha nature or the real self.




How can we go from saying "existence is" to saying "there is a real self?" I don't see how that follows.


--------------------
Current favorite candy: Peanut Butter Kisses


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: Speculative Non-Buddhism [Re: r72rock]
    #22441621 - 10/27/15 07:10 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

I haven't read most of this thread too closely, but it seems soldatheero is trying to argue that Buddhism can advocate for a self or a soul.  This is wrong.  The Buddha, and Buddhism, expressly forbid the idea of an eternal soul or an independent self.  If you want to believe otherwise, it's not Buddhist, and it is in diametrical disagreement with the Buddha.  You're free to do what you choose.  Don't try to force Buddhism to conform with your own ideas when it doesn't.  You can't just call it what you want.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesoldatheero
lastirishman
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc: Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Speculative Non-Buddhism [Re: DividedQuantum] * 2
    #22442806 - 10/27/15 11:56 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

You say this but unless you actually back up your argument with more than a simple assertion than you don't really have one. I have pointed out some errors here in this thread, for instance the teaching is not "no-self"

Quote:

I think this idea of No-Self is very clear.




No, it is not clear. There is a big distinction between saying there is no self and giving a discourse on something that is not self. So anyone that continues to say "no-self" is obviously distorting the teaching. I may be wrong but I would like some further arguments instead of just a claim because all you are really doing is confirming what has been established and that is that the common view of buddhism is that the buddha taught there to be no self and I think this is a distortion of the teaching. So it is no surprise to me that you come on so strong saying oh it is so clear the buddha taught no self and act as if it cannot be disputed and yet provide no real argument. Just dogma as far as I am concerned.

Thea quotes I provided were from a genuine discourse given by the Buddha before his death and in it he specifically confronted his followers, followers which had mis-perceived his teachings and had come to the erroneous conclusion that there is no self. He specifically points this out to be an error and that they have fallen victim to extreme categorical thinking.

Quote:

Quote:

"When I have taught non-Self, fools uphold the teaching that there is no Self. The wise know that such is conventional speech [vyavahara-vat] and they are free from doubts." (Tibetan version)







Quote:

What's wrong with taking what's useful from it? I think that love your neighbor is a great line from the bible, but I don't consider myself a Christian. To relate it more to your line about being a Buddhist but not believing in reincarnation, I know of many Christians who don't believe in heaven but still identify as Christian. I don't see anything wrong with that. I think it's good that they're shedding beliefs that they feel don't serve them anymore. I feel the same applies to Buddhism. This is part of what the SNB were getting at. What good do these old views do for us? Which ones were correct, and which ones are bad or no longer useful?




It is ridiculous because reincarnation is specifically and explicitly taught by the Buddha and the truth is the whole concept of escaping samsara doesn't make any sense unless one's essence or existence goes on after death. Why would you spend so much time and effort meditating and walking the eight fold path if you are going to die anyway after a short life? you would simple be escaping samsara naturally and no effort would be required. It trivializes the whole religion and IMO it is the most superficial view one can take on the Buddhas teachings which in reality are very profound and require a higher spiritual perception and aptitude of which these people simply do not have.

Quote:

Monks, you should not pride yourselves, arrogantly and haughtily saying, ‘We have cultivated the idea of suffering, impermanence, and non-Self’. When you engage thus in those three kinds of meditative cultivation, then for you to have cultivated that threefold meditative cultivation in the context of my Dharma is a worthless cultivation. These three types of meditative cultivation of suffering and so forth are contingent, most contingent [visista].

    “To think of suffering as happiness is perverse, to think of happiness as suffering is perverse; to think of the impermanent as eternal [nitya] is perverse, to think of the eternal as impermanent is perverse; to think of the non-Self as the Self is perverse, to think of the Self as non-Self is perverse; to think of the impure as pure is perverse, to think of the pure as impure is perverse.

    “You repeatedly cultivate these objects of cultivation without properly knowing these four perversities. You engage in meditative cultivation [treating] the eternal as though it were impermanent, that which has Self as though it lacked Self, and the pure as though it were impure. [Pronouncements regarding] happiness, the Self, eternity, and purity are found both amongst mundane people and amongst supramundane people, but these are each different. The letters [ = words] are mundane designations, while the meaning is supramundane Knowing [lokottara-jnana]."

    Then the monks said this to the Blessed One, "Blessed One, since we have for a very long time repeatedly seen and repeatedly cultivated various cognitive distortions, such as these four ideas which the Tathagata has established in the correct manner, we now entreat you to tell us how we are to proceed ..."

    "Monks, you ask me how you are to cultivate the ideas of suffering, impermanence, non-Self, and impurity? Monks, as an example: at the height of summer, some people dam a stream in the woods and, each bringing their bathing things, play in the water. One of them puts a genuine beryl gem [into the water] and then, because they all want to have that beryl, everybody puts aside their bathing things and climbs into the water. Thinking that a pebble or a piece of gravel is the gem, they grab it and cry out, 'I've got the gem! I've got the gem!', each holding it aloft. But when they get to the banks of the pool, they realise that it is not the gem after all. Then the very water of that pool gleams beautifully, as though with moonlight, by the glinting light of that gem. Seeing that beautiful gleaming, they say, 'Ah! There's the real gem!', and realise how magnificent it is. Then, somebody in their midst who is skilled in means and intelligent is actually able to get that gem. In the same way, monks, you have latched onto such extremes as 'everything is suffering', 'everything is without a Self', 'everything is impermanent', everything is impure' and repeatedly cultivate that. All of that is mistaken and worthless -  just like the pebbles and gravel in the pond. Be like the person who is skilled in means! I declare that there is happiness, the Self, eternity, and purity in whatever you meditatively cultivate of all those extremes which you have latched onto; those four [extreme views] are perverse! Therefore, cultivate the idea that the reality [tattva] of the Dharma is eternal, like that gem. ...the Tathagata-Arhat-Samyaksambuddha [utter and total Buddha] ... the Supreme, the Teacher of Gods and Men, the Blessed Buddha appears in the world ... and then takes himself to all the heterodox teachers [tirthika] ... He utterly quells them all, utterly destroys them, and delights many kings. In order to curb [nigraha] the heterodox teachers, he says that there is no Self, no sattva [being], no jiva [life-essence], and no pudgala [individual]. The teachings about the Self by the heterodox teachers are like the letters bored [by chance, without understanding] by worms, and therefore I made known the teachings that all beings are devoid of a Self. Having proclaimed that the absence of Self is the word of the Buddha ... I also teach that there is a Self, after I have taught that all dharmas [phenomena] are devoid of Self, taking the occasion into consideration with regard to those who need to be trained and in order to benefit beings.

    "The Self of the worldly, which they say is the size of a thumb or a mustard seed, is not like that. The concept of the Self of the worldly is also not like that. In this instance, it is said that all dharmas [things, phenomena] are devoid of Self. [But actually] it is not true to say that all dharmas are devoid of the Self. The Self is Reality [tattva], the Self is unchanging [nitya], the Self is virtue [guna], the Self is eternal [sasvata], the Self is unshakeable/ firm [dhruva], the Self is peace [siva];  ... the Tathagata teaches what is true. Let the four divisions of the assembly strive meditatively to cultivate this." (Tibetan version)




--------------------
..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: Speculative Non-Buddhism [Re: soldatheero]
    #22443081 - 10/28/15 02:01 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

My interpretation is that Buddha was unconcerned with the idea of self being a concrete truth. If identification and attachment cause suffering, the identification should be discarded. If dissolution is causing suffering, identification is useful. The end result from an analytical viewpoint is that nothing is self. It is an idea that is manipulated by the mind and one that should eventually be put down if one is to avoid the death that precedes re-birth... something that happens in the context of a life.

Another answer is that consciousness most closely embodies the self since it is the only thing that is always present. Yet consciousness alone isn't a personal thing. To find yourself you must loose yourself. If one is lost they must find their self. Ahh, the games we play.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibler72rock
Maybe so. Maybe not.
Male


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/06/09
Posts: 1,327
Loc: Chicago Flag
Re: Speculative Non-Buddhism [Re: soldatheero]
    #22453717 - 10/30/15 02:00 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

soldatheero said:
You say this but unless you actually back up your argument with more than a simple assertion than you don't really have one. I have pointed out some errors here in this thread, for instance the teaching is not "no-self"




I don't know what you're talking about. I am backing it up. I've shown now over two posts my position. I've said how I've taken Sunyata to mean that everything is empty including any sense of a self. I'm taking a few of the premises that the Buddha put across, such as Anatman, and taking them to their conclusions. I'm still puzzled how it can still be held that the Buddha promoted an idea of atman when he clearly stated anatman.

I'm not the one making bare assertions. I've shown how my conclusion follows. I feel like you're the one making bare assertions with no arguments. All you've done is quote things that reassert your point, but I fail to see how they follow. The texts that you've quoted do the same thing. I feel that those are bare assertions without any logic to them. They say that anatman isn't REALLY anatman, and then they just assert atman. Those also misinterpret the Buddha's basic teaching of Anatman.

My position is showing that, from these basic premises of Sunyata and Anatman, there couldn't be any room for a self despite what many Buddhist have said throughout the years. I've used the heart sutra to show my position because I feel there's a clear dialectic to it without jumping through hoops to say that in the end, "There is a self despite the teaching of no-self". The core of it is saying that there's no-self and everything is empty. That's why the sanskrit word is used so often: because it's clear. Atman means self, soul, or something eternal, while anatman is the negation of it. Specifically, Atman refers to the Hindu idea of a universal brahman or self. So if the Buddha really was teaching that there is a self, then there would be no reason for him to flat out negate the self by using the term anatman. There's no subtle distinction between Self, non-self, and no-self. It's simply just the negation of any form of self.

I can pull other sutras or writers who share my position, but it's pointless because I've already shared it. The dialectic is there and just restating it from another era doesn't make it any more true or false. I'm relying on the logic of understanding the teaching, and not just referring back to people who share the point. I've presented my point. I don't know what you're looking for beyond my logic here. There are a lot of arguments in my posts that show how my conclusion follows. I fail to see how I'm just making bare assertions without anything backing them up. I'm writing out paragraphs showing how my logic follows. My point and criticism still stands to those long passages that you've quoted.

Quote:

No, it is not clear. There is a big distinction between saying there is no self and giving a discourse on something that is not self. So anyone that continues to say "no-self" is obviously distorting the teaching.




Then why call it anatman at that point if you're just asserting a self? That's why it's clear. Anatman. This question hasn't been answered. I feel those quotes that you've shared are also misinterpretations. I don't see how their logic follows in them either.

Quote:

I may be wrong but I would like some further arguments instead of just a claim because all you are really doing is confirming what has been established and that is that the common view of buddhism is that the buddha taught there to be no self and I think this is a distortion of the teaching. So it is no surprise to me that you come on so strong saying oh it is so clear the buddha taught no self and act as if it cannot be disputed and yet provide no real argument. Just dogma as far as I am concerned.




It's not the common view at all. That's part of the SNB's gripe and the start of this thread. Nearly every Buddhist teacher who I've been with has asserted that there is a self, be it consciousness or a soul. Read most Buddhist books today. They'll say that there's no such thing as a self and then turn right around and assert that there is a self in some way.

Quote:

It is ridiculous because reincarnation is specifically and explicitly taught by the Buddha and the truth is the whole concept of escaping samsara doesn't make any sense unless one's essence or existence goes on after death.




I reject the notion of reincarnation. I disagree with the Buddha here.

Quote:

Why would you spend so much time and effort meditating and walking the eight fold path if you are going to die anyway after a short life? you would simple be escaping samsara naturally and no effort would be required. It trivializes the whole religion and IMO it is the most superficial view one can take on the Buddhas teachings which in reality are very profound and require a higher spiritual perception and aptitude of which these people simply do not have.




Because, to me, that's not what Buddhism is about. The point of meditating and walking the eight foldpath is to deal with suffering now. There is lots of effort put into it. It's not easy to sit around for hours meditating. I think what trivializes Buddhism is adding on all this unnecessary stuff about reincarnation, souls, hell realms, levels of enlightenment, etc. I consider myself a Buddhist because I take the four noble truths to be true and I try my best to follow the eight fold path (although I'm not the best at it).

I also have a problem with your last sentence in this quote too. This idea of some people having higher spiritual perception and aptitude is an elitist view that says that not everyone can understand the Buddha's teachings. I think that's simply false. The four noble truths are easy to understand and verify for oneself to see if they're true or not. They can be rejected if they don't fit with one's experience, but I wouldn't say that it's because they're inept and can't understand the teaching.


--------------------
Current favorite candy: Peanut Butter Kisses


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: Speculative Non-Buddhism [Re: r72rock]
    #22454058 - 10/30/15 03:31 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

I reject the notion of reincarnation. I disagree with the Buddha here.




As far as I can tell the Buddha rejected transmigrational souls as well. Some people interpret differently but I think they are wrong.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Christianity + Buddhism
( 1 2 all )
Alnico 4,560 33 07/28/07 01:58 PM
by MarkostheGnostic
* Nirvana Sutra? (Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra)
( 1 2 all )
Chronic7 3,098 32 02/21/08 07:15 AM
by Lakefingers
* Buddhism
( 1 2 3 all )
akb112211 4,268 47 02/02/09 11:06 AM
by durian_2008
* Buddhism Anyone?
( 1 2 3 all )
InnerBeing 3,324 48 12/10/04 04:59 PM
by InnerBeing
* Vajaryana buddhism and a mushroom trip. thestringphish 1,646 5 02/03/04 03:01 AM
by thestringphish
* The Deconstruction of Buddhism. Icelander 1,507 6 12/01/05 04:07 PM
by Icelander
* Buddha's Death by 'Shroom
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Teotzlcoatl 5,248 95 07/27/07 04:01 PM
by Icelander
* Buddhism Overview to correct Misunderstandings
( 1 2 3 4 all )
egghead1 8,864 77 05/13/05 06:05 PM
by Icelander

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
1,759 topic views. 1 members, 12 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.038 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 16 queries.