The Ex-c Epic Buddhism Thread

[Rev R]

Please excuse this rather superfluous post. I just want to link to the pratitya-samutpada thread here. It seems extremely relevant to me.

 

http://www.ex-christ...tityasamutpada/

 

Since the topic is central to Buddhist thought, why not simply transfer your salient points here.

[Legion]

Since the topic is central to Buddhist thought, why not simply transfer your salient points here.

 

Uh, hmm. I'm sitting here trying to gather my thoughts. Let's see...

 

I think pratitya-samutpada is imminently compatible with an emerging view of causality in Western science. And this compatibility, this agreement between these two great traditions of Buddhism and science excites me. It makes me feel like we might one day have a shared human spirituality which is mostly complimentary rather than antagonistic towards science. And vice versa.

 

Something like that anyway.

[Rev R]

Since the topic is central to Buddhist thought, why not simply transfer your salient points here.

 

Uh, hmm. I'm sitting here trying to gather my thoughts. Let's see...

 

I think pratitya-samutpada is imminently compatible with an emerging view of causality in Western science. And this compatibility, this agreement between these two great traditions of Buddhism and science excites me. It makes me feel like we might one day have a shared human spirituality which is mostly complimentary rather than antagonistic towards science. And vice versa.

 

Something like that anyway.

 

The Dalai Lama once said something to the effect that when science contradicts Buddhism it is Buddhism that must change. In practice it would seem a different approach is in play.

 

Buddhism in the West is in an interesting period. It has only been in play 150 years max and for the most part is still a copy of Asian forms with a few exceptions. More skeptical approaches do exist (ie, Batchelor) but these are far from being absorbed into the greater milieu of Buddhist thought. There are even people who speak out about such approaches as being adharmic- a type of fundamentalism if you will.

 

Always remember that Dependent Origination is not Truth, but a representation. It is a contemplative tool to bring about a non-conceptual and non-dual awareness.

[Legion]

Always remember that Dependent Origination is not Truth, but a representation. It is a contemplative tool to bring about a non-conceptual and non-dual awareness.

Ah yes, I can see that, I think. But science is built on dualities. Every mode of discernment creates a duality.

 

Let us suppose that there are many ways to understand reality. And among these ways is an explicit way. Let me find the definition of explicit.

 

Explicit - fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent.

 

I am perfectly willing to believe that those who have attained enlightenment have understanding. But it seems that much of their understanding is implicit. Indeed, it seems to me that a non-dual awareness must necessarily be implicit, being unable to be expressed, or communicated through language to another.

[Rev R]

Always remember that Dependent Origination is not Truth, but a representation. It is a contemplative tool to bring about a non-conceptual and non-dual awareness.

Ah yes, I can see that, I think. But science is built on dualities. Every mode of discernment creates a duality.

 

Let us suppose that there are many ways to understand reality. And among these ways is an explicit way. Let me find the definition of explicit.

 

Explicit - fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent.

 

I am perfectly willing to believe that those who have attained enlightenment have understanding. But it seems that much of their understanding is implicit. Indeed, it seems to me that a non-dual awareness must necessarily be implicit, being unable to be expressed, or communicated through language to another.

 

Here is the thing Legion. Reality must be explicit not because it is but because you want it to be. That is your thirst and it is what drives your mental anguish.

 

Wouldn't an explicit understanding of reality entail being divorced from the concepts used to categorize phenomena? Would an explicit reality entail being neither explicit nor implicit?

[Legion]

Here is the thing Legion. Reality must be explicit not because it is but because you want it to be. That is your thirst and it is what drives your mental anguish.

 

Wouldn't an explicit understanding of reality entail being divorced from the concepts used to categorize phenomena? Would an explicit reality entail being neither explicit nor implicit?

 

Reality is capable of being explicitly understood. This has been demonstrated, and appropriately enough, it has been demonstrated by Western demons: Aristotle, Galileo, etc.

 

You have insight, but it's not complete. You do not know me. I have chosen to suffer and I know why I have chosen it.

 

Here's the thing Rev R. If you do not make room for me, then why should I make room for you?

[Rev R]

Touch a nerve did I? Good.

[Legion]

Touch a nerve did I? Good.

 

Not really. Just a tad frustrated. I seem to always argue the middle position, the place where it seems we ought to be, a place of balance. But calling for balance in the midst of a storm is a recipe for frustration.

 

Again, it's about trade. Shall we try again? One more dance today?

 

-------------------------------

 

I believe pratitya-samutpada is a central and powerful idea in Buddhism.

 

You believe that _____?_____ is a central and powerful idea in science.

[Antlerman]

Here is the thing Legion. Reality must be explicit not because it is but because you want it to be. That is your thirst and it is what drives your mental anguish.

 

Wouldn't an explicit understanding of reality entail being divorced from the concepts used to categorize phenomena? Would an explicit reality entail being neither explicit nor implicit?

 

Reality is capable of being explicitly understood. This has been demonstrated, and appropriately enough, it has been demonstrated by Western demons: Aristotle, Galileo, etc.

This is true of the sensory world only. They have shown that and that only is true.

 

You have insight, but it's not complete. You do not know me.

And I will not be able to explicitly. It is not possible. Mind to mind can only be known through interview, through history and hermeneutics. It is never explicit knowing. Now, when you get to the spiritual, it is even more non-explicit. It is not a knowledge in the sense of sensory data. It is awareness itself. It is not about data.

 

I would say that the whole notion of 'omniscience' is a bad one when thought of as knowing all facts. If I were to use that word it would mean pure, unmediated awareness of reality. It is not a perceptual reality, but Absolute Reality which has nothing to do with 'correct knowing' using the mind and its symbolic tools to represent reality. It is directly plugged into to what surpasses all knowledge. That cannot be by its very nature, an 'explicit' understanding.

 

I have chosen to suffer and I know why I have chosen it.

Well... then stop it!

 

Here's the thing Rev R. If you do not make room for me, then why should I make room for you?

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but it applies. I make room for you in understanding you as one mind to another. I can explicitly know certain external facts about you, and through communication I can gain some approximate knowledge of you in your thoughts. And in a Satori awareness, I can know you as you are, as I am, and as we all are.

[Deva]

Reality is capable of being explicitly understood. This has been demonstrated, and appropriately enough, it has been demonstrated by Western demons: Aristotle, Galileo, etc.

 

Can you understand your own mind?

 

No disrespect meant.

[Legion]

Can you understand your own mind?.

 

"The unexamined life is not worth living." - Socrates

"Know thyself." - inscribed in the temple of Delphi

 

Deva I think we can. But as with all things complex, it can only be partial, fragmented, incomplete.

[Noggy]

what is the state of mind one has to be in to reach satori

[Deva]

I am pondering your question, Noggy. I am not sure "has" is the correct word. Also, I am not sure one can describe satori in anything but "not this, not that" terms.

 

Buddhist teaching is that the mind is also empty. Its true nature is that of emptiness, just like everything else.

 

Probably not very helpful. What say you, RevR?

[Legion]

Buddhist teaching is that the mind is also empty. Its true nature is that of emptiness, just like everything else.

 

I agree with this. But I can only agree with it because I now have a better understanding of what the term "emptiness" means.

 

Buddhists would do well I think to either adopt language closer to Western concepts, or explain what their own language means.

[Antlerman]

what is the state of mind one has to be in to reach satori

Awake

[Rev R]

what is the state of mind one has to be in to reach satori

 

I am pondering your question, Noggy. I am not sure "has" is the correct word. Also, I am not sure one can describe satori in anything but "not this, not that" terms.

 

Buddhist teaching is that the mind is also empty. Its true nature is that of emptiness, just like everything else.

 

Probably not very helpful. What say you, RevR?

 

An interesting topic for a Sunday morning.

 

As far as I can remember no one here has copped to being enlightened with the exception of you, Noggy. (Admittedly, I understood that to be a sarcastic and joking response and all in good fun.) Basically, the question boils down to: "how do you know if you are enlightened?" My answer is that you don't. The largest problem of Buddhism is that there is no trustworthy means of certifying enlightenment.

 

The closest I can come to defining an exact state of mind that could be said to allow enlightenment to blossom is that of mushin, empty-mind or no-mind. Mushin is the point at which all dualistic thought drops away. There is no conscious registry of self/ other, bodt/ mind, nirvana/ samsara, etc. Dogen, the founder of Soto Zen, considered this to be shikantaza, or just sitting. Takuan of the Rinzai school referred to this as the fudoshin, the immovable or unfettered mind. I also consider the Taoist p'u and the manifestation of wu wei to be examples of this state. Though the latter may be an acknowledgement of Taoist thought's influence over Zen.

 

With this said, I will repeat what has been said time and time again. You have to actually put in the work. That means developing a practice. A practice means cultivation of wisdom through study and observation, living an ethical life and practicing mental discipline in the form of meditation. Here is the thing, if you are looking for a guarantee that if you undertake the path you will attain enlightenment in any amount of time, you are looking in the wrong place. You also fail before you begin. No such guarantee exists. The path of Dharma is not a means to an end, it is a way of life. Hells, one could even make the argument that there is no enlightenment to be attained and that the Buddha's discovery was the path itself- that a life of refelction and discipline was the best life.

[Noggy]

Buddhist teaching is that the mind is also empty. Its true nature is that of emptiness, just like everything else.

 

I agree with this. But I can only agree with it because I now have a better understanding of what the term "emptiness" means.

 

Buddhists would do well I think to either adopt language closer to Western concepts, or explain what their own language means.

 

Mmm don't get the Taoist idea of emptiness and the Buddhists idea of emptiness confused...

[Noggy]

I am pondering your question, Noggy. I am not sure "has" is the correct word. Also, I am not sure one can describe satori in anything but "not this, not that" terms.

 

Buddhist teaching is that the mind is also empty. Its true nature is that of emptiness, just like everything else.

 

Probably not very helpful. What say you, RevR?

 

This idea of emptiness is interesting. I believe the Buddhist idea is that everything is emptiness, so therefore the mind should be emptied as well? It would seem that the mind is already empty...

 

what is the state of mind one has to be in to reach satori

Awake

 

I thought awakeness was satori?

[Noggy]

The closest I can come to defining an exact state of mind that could be said to allow enlightenment to blossom is that of mushin, empty-mind or no-mind. Mushin is the point at which all dualistic thought drops away. There is no conscious registry of self/ other, bodt/ mind, nirvana/ samsara, etc. Dogen, the founder of Soto Zen, considered this to be shikantaza, or just sitting. Takuan of the Rinzai school referred to this as the fudoshin, the immovable or unfettered mind. I also consider the Taoist p'u and the manifestation of wu wei to be examples of this state. Though the latter may be an acknowledgement of Taoist thought's influence over Zen.

 

This idea of no mind really intrigues me. I was reading a book by Kasulis, and he mentioned talked about the koan where a monk goes to Joshu and asks him for Instruction. Joshu asks the monk if he has had breakfast, and the monk says "yes". Then Joshu said, "wash your bowls". This seems to me to very deeply by the concept of wu wei. But I'm not sure if the emptiness of mind in the taoist idea is the same as the emptiness of everything that is abscribed to buddhism. It seems that the taoists want you to empty your mind so that the tao can work through it, while the emptiness in buddhism is about all things being empty.

 

Which makes mushin a very interesting idea. Does the taoist idea of emptiness follow from the buddhist idea of emptiness? The monk that went into the monastery to learn Zen went into it with a specific goal "in mind", eh? But later that purpose was transported into no-purpose. It seems like no mind is very similar to nothingness mind. As if ones thoughts are suspended before meaning is even conceptualized. This seems like an odd thing to desire, to me. it seems like this wouldn't be the satori we speak of, but like you called it "mushin".

 

How does one get from this no mind state to satori? Is there more steps that need to be taken? How can one take steps when one has no concepts? And if you can't, then why isn't mushin and satori the same? What makes them different?

[Deva]

This idea of emptiness is interesting. I believe the Buddhist idea is that everything is emptiness, so therefore the mind should be emptied as well? It would seem that the mind is already empty...

 

Noggy, I am speaking from what I have learned in the Tibetan Nyingma school of Buddhism - Emptiness is the true nature of reality, which means everything. There is no "should be". It is. What is done through practice is the removal of the obscurations to seeing this, the true nature of reality or what we call the "Buddha nature". I have probably stated this in an overly simplistic way, but I am not a teacher and just conveying what others have said.

[Antlerman]

what is the state of mind one has to be in to reach satori

Awake

 

I thought awakeness was satori?

Yes.

 

You don't 'reach' enlightenment. You always already are. You just have to wake up to it. People see it as 'out there', or outside themselves; not yet attained, not yet achieved. I would describe it as opening the window that isn't there. You just simply become Yourself. What state of mind is it that allows you to pass through that veil? At the utter end of self.

[Legion]

Buddhist teaching is that the mind is also empty. Its true nature is that of emptiness, just like everything else.

 

I agree with this. But I can only agree with it because I now have a better understanding of what the term "emptiness" means.

 

Buddhists would do well I think to either adopt language closer to Western concepts, or explain what their own language means.

 

Mmm don't get the Taoist idea of emptiness and the Buddhists idea of emptiness confused...

 

My point exactly. If people who are ostensibly interested in guiding others towards enlightenment are going to use language then shouldn't they communicate so as not to confuse others?

 

Emptiness? My mind is emtpy?

 

It makes not a lick of sense, unless you know what emptiness means.

[Rev R]

This idea of no mind really intrigues me. I was reading a book by Kasulis, and he mentioned talked about the koan where a monk goes to Joshu and asks him for Instruction. Joshu asks the monk if he has had breakfast, and the monk says "yes". Then Joshu said, "wash your bowls". This seems to me to very deeply by the concept of wu wei. But I'm not sure if the emptiness of mind in the taoist idea is the same as the emptiness of everything that is abscribed to buddhism. It seems that the taoists want you to empty your mind so that the tao can work through it, while the emptiness in buddhism is about all things being empty.

This is where things get very interesting. I don't have my books in front of me so I'm trying to recall all this from memory.

 

Buddhism entered China as early as the 2nd century CE. The scholars attempting to translate the various sutras and commentaries had a rough time with much of the Indian metaphysics so concepts were equated with similar terms in Taoism. What developed from that was called ko'i buddhism. In ko'i terms sunyata or emptiness of intrinsic existence became wu or (the best I can tell) harmony with the Tao. Ko'i was used as fuel for the argument against Buddhism by the Taoists. The claim was that Buddhism at best was a foreign version of the Tao likely taught to Gautama by Lao Tzu himself and that by this token the aboriginal Tao was superior. Bear in mind that the "decline" of ko'i was about 100-200 years before Bodhidharma was said to have brought Ch'an (Zen) to China.

 

Bodhidharma is supposed to have brought two things with him to China. The first being the intense concentration on sitting meditation and the second being the Lankavatara Sutra. The Lankavatara is a text that teaches primarily the "mind-only" doctrine. What does any of this have to do with mushin? The Lankavatara states many times that the understanding of "the philosophers" is inadequate to comprehend the true nature of reality. Certainly Nagarjuna's sunyata exemplifies this sort of philosophical approach decried in the Lanka. My hypothesis is that the Lanka was used to give the ko'i school a scriptural basis and that Bodhidharma was appropriated to provide a personal link to Indian Buddhism, making the Zen master and the Taoist sage one and the same.

 

Which makes mushin a very interesting idea. Does the taoist idea of emptiness follow from the buddhist idea of emptiness?

I think wu predates sunyata by a little bit, but the focus is different. Yet they are perhaps complimentary. Whereas wu is a state of mind or, better yet, a state of being, sunyata is centered on the intrinsic essence of all phenomena. I would say that sunyata is more akin to Tao. All things emanate from Tao, yet Tao is ineffable- it has no traits to define it. The fundamental essence of all phenomena is emptiness, yet emptiness is also empty of fundamental essence- it, too, is impossible to define.

 

The monk that went into the monastery to learn Zen went into it with a specific goal "in mind", eh?

Certainly. The first thing that Zen students (myself included) struggle with is the preconception of enlightenment

 

But later that purpose was transported into no-purpose. It seems like no mind is very similar to nothingness mind. As if ones thoughts are suspended before meaning is even conceptualized. This seems like an odd thing to desire, to me. it seems like this wouldn't be the satori we speak of, but like you called it "mushin".

That is the trick. "Go and wash your bowl" is meant to short circuit that desire and expectation.

 

Take a quick look at this clip from Babylon 5:

http://lampuntoyourself.blogspot.com/2011/06/gkars-sutra.html

 

Take note of how G'kar attempts to steer the student away from the question asked because it was full of preconceptions. He warns him at first that he doesn't want the answer, then proceeds to explain but it doesn't fill the conceptual longing of the questioner. The man asks again: "What is Truth and what is God?" To which G'Kar replies with much exaperation that "Truth is a river" and that God is "the mouth of the river."

 

Joshu would have laughed as G'kar since the student was obviously not ready to recieve such a teaching.

 

"Go and wash your bowl." Cleanse your mind of the preconceptions and expectations that will soil your ability to understand. Take care of the immediate need before charging ahead to such a lofty ideal.

 

 

How does one get from this no mind state to satori? Is there more steps that need to be taken? How can one take steps when one has no concepts?And if you can't, then why isn't mushin and satori the same? What makes them different?

Mushin is the fertile soil from which the lotus of enlightenment can grow. Once the soil is prepared, it needs no further help. It grows as it does.

 

I don't know if I have mentioned this before, but I am not a believer in satori as a permanent state. It may become easier to enter as we practice, but we still must return to the "monkey mind" of eat, work, sex, and play.

[Noggy]

Take note of how G'kar attempts to steer the student away from the question asked because it was full of preconceptions. He warns him at first that he doesn't want the answer, then proceeds to explain but it doesn't fill the conceptual longing of the questioner. The man asks again: "What is Truth and what is God?" To which G'Kar replies with much exaperation that "Truth is a river" and that God is "the mouth of the river."

 

Joshu would have laughed as G'kar since the student was obviously not ready to recieve such a teaching.

 

To me it seemed as if his exasperated reply was just a bullshit answer to get them to shut the fuck up. Though it may be a helpful metaphor, perhaps.

 

Mushin is the fertile soil from which the lotus of enlightenment can grow. Once the soil is prepared, it needs no further help. It grows as it does.

 

I don't know if I have mentioned this before, but I am not a believer in satori as a permanent state. It may become easier to enter as we practice, but we still must return to the "monkey mind" of eat, work, sex, and play.

 

I guess I'm confused at this concept of mushin, though. It seems very empty to me, it seems very dull, and it seems very still. But at the same time, Zen seems to go against most of that. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong parts of it though, there do seem to be lots of different schools of thought within Zen. But it seems to me that mushin seems much too stagnant for splash to happen from it.

[Rev R]

"The immovable mind (fudoshin) is always still, yet it never settles on anything."

~ Takuan Soho

 

Tell me about your understanding of Zen.