reality is illusion. non-existence is reality, because there is no reason for anything else to exist, but it can't exist without the existence that it is. all opposites, like reality and illusion, nothing and something, are the same, and because of that, they are not the same, at the same time.
Does this issue you raise relate to the examples I found? How do you think I am getting confused here? First I want to say that you seemed skeptical that there was dualism in buddhism and now we have shifted to whether it is fair to not like that fact. Do you now agree that there is dualism in Buddhism? I am not sure that your example shows the inevitablility of dualism. I do make some choices in the way you said. But actually it is something I am trying to move away from. How do we know he was qualified? How do we know what enlightenment is? How do we know it is what we want? (for me I have to look at and feel the process and I have not liked it) To assume that he is qualified to speak about enlightenment is very close to an assertion that you can recognize enlightenment yourself. No, you or they cannot speak of it. I cannot speak of it. But I know he can. I am pretty ignorant of the various traditions and which texts belong to which one and the distinctions between the various schools. I seem to hit the same issues in my contacts with Buddhism. I seem to be being instructed to do things I do not want to do. Perhaps I am missing which school is the real one and that this one does not suggest I do the things I do not wish to do. As far as your harshness. I mean, harshness is fine. And I will not, in general, follow the Buddhist pressure to not be harsh in general. Perhaps this is another misunderstanding of mine. I am not making claims to scholarship. I am talking about what has happened when I have come in contact with texts and people calling themselves Buddhist. That is what I have to work with. Perhaps my intuition has been good here. That it does not fit me and what I want and this is not simply a sign of my entanglement in things it would be better if I was not entangled in. And perhaps the Buddha was not making universal claims about the roots of everyone's suffering. It has seemed that way to me. Let me know if in your tradition it seems more relative.
There is so much here I have to catch up on. No time right now, but I wanted to comment on sowhatifit'sdark's comment on the Buddha not wanting people to be harsh. There was one monk who claimed to understand teh Dhamma, but he disagreed with him. The Buddha called him up in front of the whole Sangha and redressed him pretty thoroughly, constantly referring to him as "Worthless man" and calling his viewpoint pernicious . He was no sweet, little bunny. He essentially bullied and shamed this man into capitulation because he had the gall to disagree. I was pretty disappointed when I read that Sutta - it's a pretty popular one. Alagaddupama Sutta The Water-Snake Simile Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
This took me just 20 seconds to find in the Dhammapada. I believe there is more that could indicate and is used to indicate that harshness and its roots are to be controlled, regardless of what the Buddha did himself. If it is simply a misconception, it is a misconception supported by contradictions within the tradition itself and in the practices of many followers and masters. I don't think 232 and 233 leave any room for harshness. I want to repeat. I think harshness has a place in our reactions. I am not saying Greenberg should have been nicer to me. I am saying that the tradition has some serious problems with people who are harsh in speech and thought. This is not my creation or projection. Perhaps it is one of those situations where one is supposed to do as the guru says and not what the guru does. I realize 'guru' is from another tradition, but religious leaders from many traditions seem to believe this implicitly or openly.
The monk Arittha didn't simply disagree. He was misrepresenting the Dhamma as taught by the Buddha. Arittha said: "As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those acts the Blessed One says are obstructive, when indulged in, are not genuine obstructions." Note, he was a monk there, part of the community, he wasn't just any person, a lay or a foreigner. It is understandable that within a group, the group will seek cohesion and unity and have its members either conform, or leave.
Just because some reaction looks harsh, does not mean that there was the intention to be harsh. When the Buddha called that monk "worthless man", does that mean the Buddha was angry and irritated when he said that? Many people would probably have to be angry and irritated in order to be able to call someone a "worthless man" and such. But it is possible to be firm, to use force, without there being any anger, hatred, irritation present in the person's mind. For example, if you have to lift something heavy, or if you are trying to save a drowning person, you will have to be firm and use force. But will you necessarily have to be angry when you do that? No. As I understand, the Buddhists take on faith that the Buddha was free from anger, and that whatever actions he did or words he spoke that might look like they have been done in anger or irritation, were not intended in anger or irritation. However, this argument is not to be used for just anyone who looks angry or irritated. Some people say they are just practising "tough love", or "giving others what they deserve/need", but that they have "good intentions". More often than not, this is manipulation, a way to save face. But some people who look angry truly do have good intentions. One must be careful how to interpret these things, and whom to put one's faith in. In Buddhism, it is advised to mind one's own actions first and foremost, and not be concerned with what someone else does. There is the understanding that unless the person has reached a certain level of spiritual attainment, there will be anger occasionally present in their mind. To expect that others should be without anger, is unwise. It seems to me you have the impression that Buddhists are supposed to be nice, or they aren't Buddhists. Or that they should smile and just bear with everything. - But that's some Westernized Beatnik version of Buddhism. Unfortunately, many people take to a guru or teacher in blind faith, without first checking whether the person is qualified to give them what they want, and whether their own intentions and desires as a disciple are such that they will help them find a good teacher and benefit from the teachings. Some people take to a teacher without having the desire to learn what the teacher has to teach; they just want a teacher, or they just want to relieve themselves of the burden of thinking for themselves. Such people don't learn much, no matter how good the teacher might be. Taking a teacher, having faith in some teachings is a matter of choice. Some people don't seem to realize this, and act as if it weren't a matter of choice. From an interview with Thanissaro Bhikkhu: I would suggest reading the rest of the interview as well.
I think it does. To answer your questions and the issues you've raised, I think some studying on your part may be necessary, and that it won't be possible for me to answer your questions here comprehensively enough. I'm afraid my replies would raise only more questions. So I would suggest to read the Suttas and some of the essays at Access to Insight, under Lay Buddhist Practice. I'm sorry if I seemed skeptical about dualism in Buddhism, for I am not skeptical about dualism at all. Dualistic reasoning is common in Buddhism, I would even say it is fundamental. For example, when the Buddha instructs Rahula (MN 61)to check whether an action he has done, is doing or attempting to do, leads to suffering, or not. I understand that the Buddhists take on faith that the Buddha was enlightened and thus qualified to speak of it. One does not simply have to believe or have faith that the Buddha was enlightened. But if one takes to Buddha as one's teacher, then one has faith he was. Moreover, the Path unfolds as a Gradual Training. One isn't meant to first study the whole "theory" and then decide whether one wants to "become a Buddhist" or not. Ideally, one works with whatever attainment, faith and skills one currently has, and works from there. I think this is a radically different approach to spiritual practice than we're used to in, say, Christianity. As for being instructed to do things that you do not want to do: I would say this is common. But I think one ought to be careful not to throw all such instructions into the same waste bin. For example: (1) When the doctor instructs me to eat more fruit and vegetables, this is definitely not something I would want to do. I like pasta and meat and I have to force myself to eat fruit and vegetables. (2) When my old friends instruct me to drink more alcohol and go to more parties and get drunk, this is definitely not something I would want to do. I hate the hangovers and the time doesn't seem well-spent to me. But whether one wants to do something or not is not the point. The point is in predicting, as best as one can, what will happen if one were to follow through with an instruction. If one predicts the consequences will be good, then one would be wise to follow through with the instruction. If one predicts the consequences will be bad, then one would be wise to not follow through with the instruction. If I act on the doctor's instruction to eat more fruits and vegetables, I predict this will have good consequences for me. If I act on my old friends' instruction to be more of a party animal, I predict this will have bad consequences for me. You could do the same with any other instruction: check where acting on it would likely lead you. As I understand, he was making universal claims about the roots of everyone's suffering, all suffering. People do differ in how they see and understand things, and understanding changes over time if we work on it.
The denial or refusal of these human traits are detrimental to mental health and can induce catalepsy. Perhaps you might want to try a method of deleting the instinctual passions, fears and other feelings that prevent one from being happy in this lifetime. I experienced pure consciousness the other day, or the pure awareness and unmediated intelligence. Untethered by feeling. And I must say, it got me to reconsider my lot in life. To be truly happy one must also be fearless of death. That is what the actual freedom website has written prolifically on. You might want to check it out, it's a non-spiritual method of eliminating fear and suffering altogether.
As far as I know, the whole teaching of the Buddha is contradictory to any description, argument or whatsoever can be said about it... really, the whole thing is summed up in "Be a light on to yourself", the last words of Buddha. The essential is being aware that the whole teachings and words of Buddha are only meant to throw you back to yourself, not to cause any kind of worthless philosophical discussion. Life is paradoxical and so are the Buddha´s teachings. As far as agreing or disagreing wit Buddha, I mean what the hell. And as far as being freed from Samsara, this can only be achieved through feeling, and not through mind, as some people think. Through logical reasoning you can only go in circles, life is an experience not a thesis.
His words mean one of three things... He misunderstood. He disagrees. He is misrepresenting (lying). The third seems the least likely scenario to me. Why would he lie to the Buddha and the Sangha? Why would the lying not be addressed in the Buddha's redress? Why would the Buddha go on with the two similies to attempt to solidify the lesson? No, he wasn't misrepresenting. He either misunderstood or he disagreed.
Yes. I have a sense of what would happen if I followed the precepts of Buddhism and I do not like that direction. I have the feeling you will see this as me not listening to a doctor telling me to eat more fruit and vegetables. Consider the possibility that this is incorrect. And that it will not, either, become correct later that I should listen to the Buddha. Or that my suffering is caused by what he thinks it is. Yes, and he was wrong in relation to me. If you want to dismiss this possibility - that he was wrong in relation to me - you might want to look at your assumptions. Just to add. I find something odd about the dialogue here between you and me. I think it might be because you are not a Buddhist but are presenting Buddhism and perhaps even defending it. On some level I am finding it confusing. Like the ground is shifting or perhaps like I don't really get what you are doing here. That's better. Yes, I don't really know what you are doing and it feels unpleasant somehow. Like you are selling a car that you don't own after overhearing me tell someone else that it's not the car for me. Well, it doesn't seem to be the car for you either since you are not a Buddhist. I realize you are not telling me to be a Buddhist, but it seems to me you are telling me that there is something wrong about my reasons for not being a Buddhist. That I am probably wrong to think the Buddha's universalizing doesn't fit me or everyone. That I am wrong to think that he was wrong about the roots of my suffering. Obviously I think you are incorrect here. And I think I know myself vastly better than you do. So that is an impasse it feels fruitless to talk around.
I'll put it this way - One Raven, what does it matter to you whether the Buddha was right or not? (In his teachings altogether, not just in the case with the monk Arittha.) What is in it for you to prove the Buddha right, or to prove him wrong?
I am just trying to work out my own position. I understand that this might be awkward sometimes. I have my reasons for not being a Buddhist. I dare say that those reasons are actually in line with the Gradual Training. That is, the reason I am not a Buddhist is that I have not progressed so far yet as to take Refuge. However, this does not mean that I think that what the Buddha taught was wrong.
I am not out to prove him right or wrong. I am simply contrasting my own ideas with his. It started with a discussion with the friend I emailed this too in which she asked why I was not a Buddhist, because I seem to agree with so much of what he said.
greenberg, While I can certainly understand how you got the impression you did, I would not say that my philosophy is Epicurean in nature – and certainly not Hedonistic. I am not saying that one could not follow an Epicurean philosophy and still experience unbinding, mind you. I’m just saying that there is a lot more to the story of my personal philosophy. My opening post was only one small part of what I believe, and if I posted the rest (or at least a good amount more) it would be clearer. I did not start this thread with the intention of proselytizing, however, so I don’t plan on delving too deeply into my own personal belief system. There is one thing I would like to speak to, however. While I can say that I don’t disagree with most of what the Buddha said (if I disagree with anything) on an intellectual level, where the two of us diverge is that I think his philosophy neglects the physical and (for lack of a better word at the moment) emotional aspects of the self. I know it is a widely-held misconception that the Buddha claimed there was no self – I am aware that Anatta is a strategy or approach, more than it is a belief or truth. The Buddha did, however, teach that one should disregard the concept of self (whether claiming or denying it exists) as an unskillful pastime. The self, in my view, consists of three distinct, yet fully integrated and complementary aspects: The first would be the intellectual aspect. The second would be the physical aspect. The third would be the emotional aspect. The third (emotional aspect) is the one I have the most difficulty wording – more because of all the cultural, religious and linguistic baggage that tends to come along with words such as “soul”, “spirit”, “energy” and “instincts” than anything else. What it is, essentially, is the part of you where your instincts come from – it is nature in the “nature vs. nurture” debate – it is the core of who you are that you were born with – if the intellect is the seat of reason, this is the seat of passion – it is the part of you that suffers when you lose your innocence – it is the part of you that aches for touch and tenderness – it is the part of you that feels like it is dying when you lack sensual interaction – it is the part of you that is the very core of who you are beneath the surface of shame, regret, insecurity and fear. It is your essence. I think that the Buddha’s philosophy disregards the physical aspect of the self and the essence. While that very well may lead you to unbinding (and I have no argument with the Buddha there) I do not think it is necessary for unbinding. The Buddha taught that his was the only path to unbinding. Regardless of the popular notions of the Dhamma being wide-open to interpretation and personal trail blazing, there is quite a bit of it that the Buddha did claim to be essential to the path. This is one of those things. For example, according to the Buddha, it is not possible to reach enlightenment unless you forego sensual pleasures (I already posted one of the multiple Suttas that supports this statement). I think that one does not have to “endure” this existence in order to reap rewards in the next – if there is a next. I think that balance is key in every aspect of life and living – and this is certainly no exception. In my view, one would work to balance the three aspects of self and keep them interacting harmoniously. I don’t know whether samsara is a reality. I don’t know whether there is a different existence after, or other than, this one. I don’t know whether this is the one and only life and existence we will ever know. Frankly, none of that really matters. What matters, above all, is living a balanced, virtuous life with integrity, compassion and mindfulness of kamma. One who disregards two of the three aspects of self, in my view, is not living a balanced life - and, as I said earlier, is denying their own humanity.
I think it is more that I don't think these particular stresses are be something we should work to avoid and hide from. They make the experience of life a fuller one - just as pain, hard work, discomfort, difficulty and heartbreak do.
IMO, Buddha did not deny them but realised the meaninglessness of both pleasure and pain; joy and sorrow. He asked people to getdown from the tread-mill ; no need to run, no need to be carried off or fall when unable to run. This attitude is not easy to come. It is not the laziness to keep away from gains and pains. A realisation/experience, that we have not experienced so far, made him to be totally detached and aware of the ultimate truth. He showed the way for everyone to attain that realisation. His eight fold path, like other masters like Krishna, is to balance our emotions, condition the mind, to enable to attain that realisation. I had a bit of such self-realization once. But Buddha's might be an immense one and his knowledge too.
I would add to this the desire to be separate, which also entails a desire for control. Or to put it in Christian terms - its better to rule in hell than serve in heaven. The ego is the devil. I don't think the Buddha denied these things...he just saw that chasing samsaric pleasures increases suffering. An obvious example of this is drug use...using drugs is very pleasurable but if you become (addicted) attached over time it increases suffering. Is saying that becoming addicted to drugs denying our humanity? I don't think so. I would say that the eight-fold path is not a way to avoid pain. In my opinion meditation is actually a way of not avoiding things but just being with them as they are without attachment or aversion. I'm not sure that Buddhism disagrees. I think what Buddhism says though is that ultimately a person cannot be fulfilled by the things of the world...its ultimately unsatisfying which leaves people feeling they need more. Buddhism addresses this fundamnetal aspect of human existence. You know I've actually heard of some people getting enlightened and they find it very unpleasant because they lose a sense of self. They want self back. I think thats why people are reborn...death(loss of self) is forced enlightenment (loss of self) and people need to get away from enlightement...hence create a new self as only means of escape. I htink the only people that wont feel this are people that are completely without sin and have no unfinished business (karmic debts)...otherwise tough shit, you're getting reborn. I think the number of people that fit this are about 1 in a million. In my opinion what the corporeal state affords us is the illusion of separation. This is ultimately why we are not enlightened. Hmmm, I don't think the buddha denied them. I think he just saw that ultimately they are unsatisfying.
The physical world is illusory, since it's temporary coherence is only relative to our scale and point of view. The mental world is also illusory, since it has less coherence than the physical. When we stop thinking, the mind stops existing. Since there is nothing to be attached to, all efforts to come to some satisfactory conclusion about the nature of existence are futile. It's only when we give up trying to understand the world with the mind, (which itself is part of the world) that enlightenment is possible.
greenberg, You never responded to my last two posts addressed to you. I am curious of your take on what I said.
