| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |

This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
Maybe so. Maybe not. Registered: 01/06/09 Posts: 1,327 Loc: Chicago |
| ||||||
|
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.co 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.
-------------------- Current favorite candy: Peanut Butter Kisses
| |||||||
|
Outer Head Registered: 12/06/13 Posts: 9,819 |
| ||||||
|
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/religi from the article: Quote: -------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
| |||||||
|
Maybe so. Maybe not. Registered: 01/06/09 Posts: 1,327 Loc: Chicago |
| ||||||
|
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: 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
| |||||||
|
Maybe so. Maybe not. Registered: 01/06/09 Posts: 1,327 Loc: Chicago |
| ||||||
Quote: 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
| |||||||
|
Outer Head Registered: 12/06/13 Posts: 9,819 |
| ||||||
Quote: 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: Yes I thought that was particularly interesting. -------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
| |||||||
|
Alive Again Registered: 11/10/05 Posts: 9,230 |
| ||||||
|
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
| |||||||
|
lastirishman Registered: 03/09/07 Posts: 2,856 Loc: Last seen: 6 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: 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: 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. Quote: -------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen. Edited by soldatheero (10/23/15 11:39 PM)
| |||||||
|
Maybe so. Maybe not. Registered: 01/06/09 Posts: 1,327 Loc: Chicago |
| ||||||
Quote: 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: 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: 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
| |||||||
|
lastirishman Registered: 03/09/07 Posts: 2,856 Loc: Last seen: 6 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Quote: 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: 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/ -------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen. Edited by soldatheero (10/24/15 11:39 PM)
| |||||||
|
some kinda love Registered: 01/02/10 Posts: 6,799 |
| ||||||
|
meditation is to understand ideology?
can u elaborate/explain?
-------------------- dripping with fantasy
| |||||||
|
Maybe so. Maybe not. Registered: 01/06/09 Posts: 1,327 Loc: Chicago |
| ||||||
|
Sorry for the late reply, I've been busy this past week with work/midterms. But I appreciate you taking the time to reply.
![]() Quote: 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: 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: 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: I hope it doesn't seem like I'm trying to deny existence. 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
| |||||||
|
Maybe so. Maybe not. Registered: 01/06/09 Posts: 1,327 Loc: Chicago |
| ||||||
Quote: 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
| |||||||
|
lastirishman Registered: 03/09/07 Posts: 2,856 Loc: Last seen: 6 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: 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: 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/ Quote: Here is a very good break down and analysis of what we have been discussing. http://www.nirvanasutra.net/ Quote: 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.
| |||||||
|
lastirishman Registered: 03/09/07 Posts: 2,856 Loc: Last seen: 6 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
I think this is why I think it is quite true that many buddhist have lost there way.
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. -------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
| |||||||
|
Maybe so. Maybe not. Registered: 01/06/09 Posts: 1,327 Loc: Chicago |
| ||||||
Quote: 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: Why is that laughable? ![]() 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: 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: 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 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: 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
| |||||||
|
Outer Head Registered: 12/06/13 Posts: 9,819 |
| ||||||
|
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
| |||||||
|
lastirishman Registered: 03/09/07 Posts: 2,856 Loc: Last seen: 6 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
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: 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: 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. 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: -------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
| |||||||
|
Alive Again Registered: 11/10/05 Posts: 9,230 |
| ||||||
|
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
| |||||||
|
Maybe so. Maybe not. Registered: 01/06/09 Posts: 1,327 Loc: Chicago |
| ||||||
Quote: 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: 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: 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: I reject the notion of reincarnation. I disagree with the Buddha here. Quote: 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
| |||||||
|
Alive Again Registered: 11/10/05 Posts: 9,230 |
| ||||||
Quote: 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
| |||||||
|
just love everyone Registered: 05/01/04 Posts: 9,406 Loc: clarity Last seen: 18 minutes, 24 seconds |
| ||||||
|
here's an interesting article by a Theravadan monk about the issue of no-self versus not-self: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/l
from the article: Quote:
| |||||||
|
Outer Head Registered: 12/06/13 Posts: 9,819 |
| ||||||
|
With all due respect to anyone to whom this pertains (and not directed at deff in particular), to transform the rather blunt original Buddhist doctrine is to sugar-coat and Westernize it. There is nothing romantic or positive about the Buddha's formulation of Nirvana. It means extinction -- nothingness. No knower, no known, no thinker, no thought, no reflective consciousness, no self of any kind -- nothing. Quit sugar-coating a belief system that you're obviously trying to re-format toward your own desires. This is nonsense, and quite easy for someone not too involved with this thread to see through. Western kids trying to adapt Buddhism to their worldview.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
| |||||||
|
just love everyone Registered: 05/01/04 Posts: 9,406 Loc: clarity Last seen: 18 minutes, 24 seconds |
| ||||||
|
actually there is a sutta from the pali canon, wherein buddha calls nibbana/nirvana the 'highest happiness'
in the suttas and sutras, buddha never spoke of nirvana too much, but he also said upon his awakening (supposedly, we really have very little certainty about what was actually said imo) that he had discovered a luminous truth, or something to that effect what you are describing as nothingness, would be seen in the mahayana tradition as a form of annihilationism, which is one of two wrong views (annihilationism and eternalism) - in this tradition, the nature of mind is taught as emptiness, which avoids the four conditions of 'existing' 'non-existing' 'both existing and non-existing' and 'neither existing nor non-existing' - in this sense, the truth realized is ineffable. in the tibetan tradition, the nature of mind is taught as the union of emptiness and clarity - emptiness as previously described, and clarity as the minds knowing quality - so there is still awareness (albeit an insubstantial awareness) so this isn't just westerners who think of nirvana as also having positive qualities, it is quite rooted in the eastern buddhist traditions, some moreso than others. some traditions, like the jonang school of tibetan buddhism speak even stronger in terms of a self-nature to the enlightened state (which was criticized by other schools of tibetan buddhism). there are also sutras like the mahaparinirvana sutra and the lankavatara sutra that speak very much in terms of positive qualities to the enlightened state, so to say that it is a western deviation is i think very inaccurate
| |||||||
|
just love everyone Registered: 05/01/04 Posts: 9,406 Loc: clarity Last seen: 18 minutes, 24 seconds |
| ||||||
|
just a link related to the jonang view i mentioned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sh
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 03/14/04 Posts: 4,828 |
| ||||||
|
As I understand it, what was rejected as regards 'self' was firstly the Hindu or Brahmanical view of the time. Just as Jesus was not a Christian, but was reforming Judaism at the time, because he felt it had become sidetracked. So the Brahmans had an idea of soul: namely that it could be perfected and survive death. This Buddha rejected. He pointedly differentiated his teaching, from the other teachings of the time.
On another level it seems to me he was rejecting what we might call self image, and belief in the notion that personal history is accurate. Once we start to think about 'self' the less it seems like a graspable object. But self image may only be an extreme form of the objectification of experience. As soon as we describe any experience we have already begun to objectify it. And we talk to ourselves and others about "our" lives all the time. When we objectify experience we are making the mistaken assumption that we can step outside of it, and that time sort of stops while we do it. (And something funny is happening: what is the relation between the part that talks to itself and the part that listens? are they one or two?, and if one why does it split? and if two how is it whole?) Because indulging in such objectification is not an accurate perception of dynamic reality it results in suffering. When we classify things as objects we solidify them and lose awareness of their changing and malleable nature. I do not believe Buddha ever defined "self". In fact it seems to me he specifically avoided doing so. If he had done so it would have given us another notion to cling to. Whatever we are or are not, needs no exterior authorization. I seem to remember a sutra where he refutes all views on self, including the view that it is totally nonexistent. It would seem the point is that it is not an object (or idea) to grasp. The hand cannot grasp itself anyway, or the eye see itself. As they say it is like 'putting legs on a snake', i.e. unnecessary. People do experience self, this we all know, it is not an hallucination by a few individuals, but a universal truth of human experience, and Buddha knew this, and this is why he taught how to relieve suffering by letting go of fixation in this regard. This is why he did not accept a nihilist position. There is another teaching in Buddhism called the 'two truths'. This is sort of like the idea everything is made of atoms and 99.99…% space, yet we don't step in front of speeding trucks. On the level of society and 'mundane reality' 'self' exists, (and we yell ouch when we step on a tack), while in the realm of the absolute truth self is perhaps more like wisp of drifting transparent cloud, perhaps vanishing at times. It seems that, because objectification of self is maintained by thinking about it, meditation is recommended to us, so that we may glimpse the world without it. I wonder if what athletes call being "in the zone" is not also about, experience without words?
| |||||||
|
Outer Head Registered: 12/06/13 Posts: 9,819 |
| ||||||
|
How many schools or sects of Buddhism espouse the notion of a soul or independent self? And if they do, how do they relate this difference of opinion to the Buddha's original teaching? And if there is no self, how can Nirvana be a state of happiness?
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
| |||||||
|
just love everyone Registered: 05/01/04 Posts: 9,406 Loc: clarity Last seen: 18 minutes, 24 seconds |
| ||||||
|
well in the pali canon (theravada tradition) when directly asked if there is a self, the buddha wouldn't answer, and explained that either answer would lead to more suffering for the person asking. so within the theravada tradition, which many people assert is the earliest school (which is somewhat accurate and somewhat inaccurate), there is debate about what nirvana actually entails. many people do take the view of it being an extinguishing of everything, but there are also many who hold a more transcendent view of nirvana.
in mahayana, there`s the teaching of buddha nature, which isn`t exactly a self, but in certain uses can resemble one, and can denote that there is a transcendent potentiality and essence to all beings, which makes the attainment of buddhahood possible. in some metaphors, it`s described like a clear mirror that has dust (defilements) on it that through buddhist practice, one "cleans" to result in the stainless purity of buddhahood. i think east asian traditions like chan and zen will also at times assert a "True Self" or Original Mind/Nature. this kind of terminology is found heavily in the Mahaparinirvana sutra for instance. then there's tibetan buddhism, where there is a debate between rangtong (self-emptiness) and shentong (other-emptiness). the shentong wikipedia link i posted in my last post describes that position and how it relates to rangtong. there are many different schools of buddhism, and even within a given school there is often competing interpretations of doctrine. but the issue of what remains after enlightenment is a topic that is found in the east as well, and not just among westerners
| |||||||
|
just love everyone Registered: 05/01/04 Posts: 9,406 Loc: clarity Last seen: 18 minutes, 24 seconds |
| ||||||
|
just to add, presentations of buddhism often avoid (and with strong emphasis) the term self while also not asserting a complete absence of experience/awareness after enlightenment. this may seem like a contradiction depending on how one thinks of self and awareness. in any case, i think it is wise to consider nirvana to be ineffable and beyond concepts. people can make buddhism fit into their own beliefs or desires in either direction - affirming a self existing or affirming nothingness, or some who say buddha never taught rebirth, etc... unfortunately we do not have the ability to ask buddha ourselves what his teachings are, or at least i don't, maybe others do
| |||||||
|
Outer Head Registered: 12/06/13 Posts: 9,819 |
| ||||||
Quote: Point well taken. ![]() I was reading Ram Dass recently, and he witnessed a lot of very unnerving and spooky telepathic phenomena from his guru, that he cannot rationally explain to this day. For instance, the guru somehow knew his mother had recently died, and he also knew she died of bladder cancer! This was right after they first met and had never spoken a word to one another before. There are several other examples, some even stranger than that one. What this is leading up to is that the guru, according to Ram Dass, appeared to be a vessel of pure awareness -- was an enlightened being. And Ram Dass said the tradeoff for that was that "there's nobody home" -- in his words -- meaning that there was no individual person, no individual being there to interact in a normal way. There was no knower, only phenomena. The guru's body and behavior existed, but in a more immediate way he was simply gone, without what you or I would call a mind. Personally, I would like to know what's going on.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
| |||||||
|
just love everyone Registered: 05/01/04 Posts: 9,406 Loc: clarity Last seen: 18 minutes, 24 seconds |
| ||||||
|
well perhaps his awareness was raised into a new octave of experience beyond this phenomenal world, so in a sense both perspectives are accurate. from our vantage point here, there is no one home on our level within his being, and yet from a first-person view of his experience, perhaps there is still something occurring, albeit something beyond what is conventionally experienced by unenlightened people. i think this is in keeping with how enlightenment is viewed in some hindu schools. one common presentation of it in hindu thought is as sat-chit-ananda (truth, consciousness, bliss)
i think that if there is a transcendent awareness remaining after enlightenment, then we really cannot say anything about it using concepts which focus around unenlightened cognition. so it remains a mystery it would be interesting to ask a being such as Ram Das' guru what he experienced, but knowing stories about Neem Karoli Baba, we probably wouldn't get a straight answer
| |||||||
|
Outer Head Registered: 12/06/13 Posts: 9,819 |
| ||||||
|
I agree that, though enlightened, it would seem likely that he was still dealing with consensus-reality in some sort of direct way, but at the same time, what Ram Dass describes sounds like some sort of trance-state. Who knows what his experience was really like?
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
| |||||||
|
just love everyone Registered: 05/01/04 Posts: 9,406 Loc: clarity Last seen: 18 minutes, 24 seconds |
| ||||||
|
since apparently enlightened gurus like Ram Dass's teach others how to achieve it as well, I would imagine that the state of enlightenment is "better" than the state of regular consciousness, or else these gurus would not be very compassionate to teach it
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 03/14/04 Posts: 4,828 |
| ||||||
Quote: If we take for a moment a view that admits of gradation. There are times when we have more self and less self so to speak. When worrying or angry we have lots of self. When being generous or laughing we have less self--loosely speaking. So in the moment of orgasm there is less self, and more nirvana. When the racing car driver executes a turn at a hundred miles an hour, he is not having lots of worried thoughts about himself, he is in nirvana. When this mode of functioning becomes permanent, one never regrets anything, never takes anything personally, etc - hence no suffering - even when physical pain is present. It must be a state where everything is experienced as the impersonal process it actually is. I think our confusion is caused by associating 'happiness' with the idea of getting something, excitement, and celebration, but going to the toilet can be a great relief. Nirvana is when the belief in, a permanent, separate, fixed self is dropped. The teaching is that we are not separate, (NOT that there is no perception), so when this illusion is let go of it is a relief. Since a lifetime of subtle subliminal anxiety has been let go of the organism now has clearer perception and better energy. Another example of less fixed self is young children. As adults we say "I AM a republican!" or "I AM a buddhist", but children say: "Do you want to be the cowboy or the Indian today?" We are so used to thinking of self as something inflexible, having continuity… We are raised with blame and praise, (which leads to the idea that somebody is keeping accounts, on something that is stable) -- and everyone says "How are you today?". -- Kids never say: "How are you today?" because they don't feel like stiff impermeable stuck objects to themselves. They feel and are more fluid. They experience themselves in relationship with everything.
| |||||||
|
Outer Head Registered: 12/06/13 Posts: 9,819 |
| ||||||
Quote: Well, I'm not so sure it would necessarily be better. I mean, I just don't know. But the truth is the best thing, and while it may not always be better, it is more fundamental, and thus they are compassionate to teach it. -------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 03/14/04 Posts: 4,828 |
| ||||||
|
DividedQuantum said: …"No knower, no known, no thinker, no thought, no reflective consciousness, no self of any kind -- nothing."
deff said "just to add, presentations of buddhism often avoid (and with strong emphasis) the term self while also not asserting a complete absence of experience/awareness after enlightenment. this may seem like a contradiction depending on how one thinks of self and awareness. in any case, i think it is wise to consider nirvana to be ineffable and beyond concepts." The idea of a "thing" being beyond concepts is nothing exotic. That is the first point of the whole business. All our experience, all the time is beyond concepts. Hence Jesus said: "Except yea become as little children you shall not enter the gate." Because discussing buddhism uses the conceptual mind the problem may be compounded. The flavor of food cannot be explained to someone who isn't eating it, (although these days cooking shows on TV excite some peoples' fantasies). All of our experiencing is non conceptual in it's immediate nature, this is not something special about nirvana. To give folks a concept of the non conceptual would have been incorrect on the part of buddha. All day long we classify the world as good and bad, helpful to ourselves or not , desirable or disgusting, and fail to realize what a pointless compulsive habit this is. Life gets along fine without it. So there is nothing exotic about not thinking either. Just that 'normal' busy folks may not catch it when it happens.
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Christianity + Buddhism ( |
4,560 | 33 | 07/28/07 01:58 PM by MarkostheGnostic | ||
![]() |
Nirvana Sutra? (Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra) ( |
3,098 | 32 | 02/21/08 07:15 AM by Lakefingers | ||
![]() |
Buddhism ( |
4,268 | 47 | 02/02/09 11:06 AM by durian_2008 | ||
![]() |
Buddhism Anyone? ( |
3,324 | 48 | 12/10/04 04:59 PM by InnerBeing | ||
![]() |
Vajaryana buddhism and a mushroom trip. | 1,646 | 5 | 02/03/04 03:01 AM by thestringphish | ||
![]() |
The Deconstruction of Buddhism. | 1,507 | 6 | 12/01/05 04:07 PM by Icelander | ||
![]() |
Buddha's Death by 'Shroom ( |
5,248 | 95 | 07/27/07 04:01 PM by Icelander | ||
![]() |
Buddhism Overview to correct Misunderstandings ( |
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. 2 members, 5 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||


I agree that I exist currently, but I don't think that necessarily means that because I exist that I have a self.
