|
deff
just love everyone



Registered: 05/01/04
Posts: 9,411
Loc: clarity
Last seen: 3 hours, 16 minutes
|
Re: Speculative Non-Buddhism [Re: r72rock]
#22454272 - 10/30/15 04:26 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
here's an interesting article by a Theravadan monk about the issue of no-self versus not-self: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html
from the article:
Quote:
In this sense, the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness. At that point, questions of self, no-self, and not-self fall aside. Once there's the experience of such total freedom, where would there be any concern about what's experiencing it, or whether or not it's a self?
--------------------
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,825
|
Re: Speculative Non-Buddhism [Re: deff]
#22454444 - 10/30/15 05:05 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
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
|
deff
just love everyone



Registered: 05/01/04
Posts: 9,411
Loc: clarity
Last seen: 3 hours, 16 minutes
|
|
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
--------------------
|
deff
just love everyone



Registered: 05/01/04
Posts: 9,411
Loc: clarity
Last seen: 3 hours, 16 minutes
|
Re: Speculative Non-Buddhism [Re: deff]
#22454815 - 10/30/15 06:37 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
just a link related to the jonang view i mentioned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shentong
--------------------
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
|
Re: Speculative Non-Buddhism [Re: r72rock]
#22455132 - 10/30/15 07:45 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
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?
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,825
|
Re: Speculative Non-Buddhism [Re: deff]
#22455139 - 10/30/15 07:46 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
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
|
deff
just love everyone



Registered: 05/01/04
Posts: 9,411
Loc: clarity
Last seen: 3 hours, 16 minutes
|
|
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
--------------------
|
deff
just love everyone



Registered: 05/01/04
Posts: 9,411
Loc: clarity
Last seen: 3 hours, 16 minutes
|
Re: Speculative Non-Buddhism [Re: deff]
#22455291 - 10/30/15 08:11 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
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
--------------------
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,825
|
Re: Speculative Non-Buddhism [Re: deff]
#22455312 - 10/30/15 08:15 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deff said: 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 
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
|
deff
just love everyone



Registered: 05/01/04
Posts: 9,411
Loc: clarity
Last seen: 3 hours, 16 minutes
|
|
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
--------------------
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,825
|
Re: Speculative Non-Buddhism [Re: deff]
#22455374 - 10/30/15 08:28 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
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
|
deff
just love everyone



Registered: 05/01/04
Posts: 9,411
Loc: clarity
Last seen: 3 hours, 16 minutes
|
|
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
--------------------
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: ... And if there is no self, how can Nirvana be a state of happiness?
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.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,825
|
Re: Speculative Non-Buddhism [Re: deff] 1
#22455567 - 10/30/15 09:11 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deff said: 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 
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
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
|
Re: Speculative Non-Buddhism [Re: laughingdog] 1
#22455591 - 10/30/15 09:15 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
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.
|
|