The Ex-c Epic Buddhism Thread

[badpuppy]

So, if you're going to sell me enlightenment, heaven or hell you better have something to back it up with. If you're just coming up to me and saying "I believe this will help you develop as a human being" than that's a different story and I can sit down and muse with you and really enjoy it and grow too.

 

I'm with you right here. This is why after months of thinking about it, I don't self-identify with any labels. I'd say I'm about 70% Buddhist, but the other 30% makes me feel uncomfortable keeping that label. I'd rather be a student of everything and a follower of nothing. I want to be free to think what I actually think. I don't see things in a materialistic way but neither can I accept "faith statements". Like I believe there is a lot of value in Buddhism and continue to study and practice, but i can't say with any kind of certainty that the Buddha actually reached enlightenment. I'm not sure that I believe that can even "happen" on this particular plane of existence. Maybe the next level up, I'm just not sure. Likewise I'm not saying he "didn't" reach enlightenment. I just dont' know one way or the other and I'm uncomfortable making a faith statement about the issue.

[badpuppy]

Demonstrate how the concept of enlightenment is supernatural?

 

I've swapped words, my apologies, I think the term I'm after is "nirvana"; i.e the end result of "enlightenment".

 

 

To be fair here, there are different concepts of Nirvana, but it's still considered unwise to speculate too far because it's believed to be beyond what we can know. (My understanding of this issue at least). Some people see Nirvana as some sort of "nothingness", others see it as an "everythingness", some see it in more "heaven" terms. I'm not aware of an official "one true Buddhist teaching" on what Nirvana "is". The agreed-upon idea seems to be that at SOME point suffering will end for any given person. What that ends IN, who knows? Some think just peace and nothingness. Some think some kind of merging where they are still conscious but not in the sense they are now, some thing totally other things. The expression of Nirvana seems to me to be different than the idea that suffering ends at some point. I think that part about suffering is likely. We just can't be sure how it ends or what that ending turns into if anything.

[badpuppy]

I'd consider the belief that the ending of one's existence due to one ceasing to acquire karma is supernatural because it assumes the existence of a supernatural force called "karma" that controls one's existence; i.e. rebirth or nothingness. This is of course one of many things that can be considered supernatural, depending on how much you accept of Buddhist mythology/teachings (I think Antlerman mentioned earlier something about lotus blossoms appearing as Buddha walked?).

 

I don't really see karma as "supernatural", just cause and effect. Whether one believes in literal rebirth or not is a separate issue. I personally "do" believe in reincarnation, or at least accept it as a possibility. I reincarnate every night. When I dream there is my "I" that is put inside a situation that seems to have no logical continuity from other dreams I've had. In fact, while in the dream, I almost never remember previous dreams. Since I see "this" reality as a larger group-powered dream, where my "I" remains in tact and from the vantage point where I can remember various "I's" from my personal dreams, I just see no reason why the pattern wouldn't continue. i.e. when I wake up from "this dream" (i.e. after this life), I don't see a reason to believe the "I" doesn't continue but from a broader perspective/understanding inside a still bigger reality. I'm not sure how far that goes on, perhaps forever until some type of "total merging or oneness" or whatever the crazy kids are calling it this week. Maybe in the end, "God" has multiple personality disorder and I'm one of the personalities.

 

I realize my dream theory may seem "out there", but I fully reject monotheism because I find it irrational. I reject materialism because I likewise find it irrational (it strikes me as equivalent to counting all the bathroom tiles in a dream as proof the tiles are real and physical). There is no way to prove a self-creating universe without positing some kind of quality within nature itself... well MIND exists... so why not mind? My consciousness is not supernatural. If the universe itself is conscious then how would that be supernatural? It would just be its nature. I know dreams can happen. I know my mind can project a realistic three-dimensional world that "I" can interact and engage in, that feels, smells, tastes, looks, very very real. In fact, I've had lucid dreams that were more hyper-real than THIS real I'm talking to you in.

 

Since I know dreams are possible and i don't know that a god "out there" is possible, or some magically self-creating universe that somehow is super mathematical exists, it seems to me... following Occam's razor, that no matter how weird and outside most people's assumptions it is... the likelihood that this is another type of dream, is at least a rational and internally coherent option. And if it is the truth, it's not "supernatural". Supernatural is a convenience word to dismiss weird stuff we don't like or can't explain. It doesn't mean the explanation has to be materialistic or can't be real if it isn't materialistic. Most quantum theory can only be seen as 'materialistic' in the most loose way anyway. It's largely theoretical math by this point. Hardly something real and solid we can touch and feel and measure exactly. It's all probability on the quantum level, anyway.

 

To me, this all looks a lot more like a dream than a solid, mechanistic, self-created machine, or something a primitive skydaddy made.

[Deva]

Legion's post about interdependent origination just brought this to mind. So this is for you, Legion. Its never far from my mind anyway -

 

 

The Four Reflections Which Reverse the Mind (from Samsara):

 

The freedoms and the favorable conditions of this human birth are extremely difficult to obtain,

 

Everything born is impermanent and bound to die.

 

The results of virtuous and unvirtuous actions (which are causes) are inexorable,

 

The three realms of cyclic existence have the nature of an ocean of suffering.

 

Remembering this, may my mind turn towards the dharma! - "The Preliminary Practice of the New Treasure of Dudjom"

[JadedAtheist]

@Antlerman and Rev R..

 

Interesting and informative responses, thank you I will respond after I've thought about it for a bit.

[Legion]

Legion's post about interdependent origination just brought this to mind. So this is for you, Legion. Its never far from my mind anyway -

Ah! Thank you Deva. Reading that was an interesting experience. It was as if some stranger from a foreign land who had been watching me unknowingly suddenly spoke up to give me kind words of correction.

 

I remain interested in this notion of interdependent origination (dependent arising, paticcasamuppada). Although I can seem to find no consensus on its nature. But apparently the Buddha said this...

 

""He who sees Dependent Origination, sees the Dhamma; he who sees the Dhamma, sees Dependent Origination."

 

This is interesting to me for several reasons, and apparently when I can see the one I'll see the other.

 

I also found this while looking for the quote above...

 

"... what if Dependent Origination doesn't operate over a lifetime, but operates moment to moment. This is the thesis in Buddhadasa's wonderful book Paticcasamuppada: Practical Dependent Origination. In this interpretation, Birth and Decay & Death refer not to physical birth and death, but to the birth and death of the ego/self/atta. "

 

It's a funny word among many funny words. Paticcasamupadda... I suppose the word is Pali? Anyway, I find it very interesting. Thank you again Deva.

[Deva]

Thank you Legion, that is very interesting. I found what appears to be the entire book online:

 

 

http://www.vipassati.ch/english/books/Paticcasamuppada-Practical-Dependent-Origination_ebook.html

 

I don't think I have read anything by Buddhadasa. I am not too ashamed, because the library of Buddhism is truly vast and I have tried to purposely restrict myself to the Mahayana so as not to get too confused. I have read a lot of books over the last four years, but have barely scratched the surface. The teacher that I have read that seems to speak about dependent origination the most - in a rather poetic way - is Thich Nhat Hahn.

 

 

As far as the "self" being real - I have heard different and rather contradictory teachings. It seems to exist and doesn't exist. Or, it exists but not in the way that we think it exists (Robert Thurman said that).

[Legion]

As far as the "self" being real - I have heard different and rather contradictory teachings. It seems to exist and doesn't exist. Or, it exists but not in the way that we think it exists (Robert Thurman said that).

I've had discussions with Judith Rosen about this. She approaches nearly everything from a biological perspective. She seems to suggest that "ego" or "self" or whatever are a collection of models that we have of ourselves. If this is accurate then these models would be subject to all the things which models imply. (i.e. that they are learned, that they can change, that they can only be partially accurate, etc.)

[Antlerman]

As far as the "self" being real - I have heard different and rather contradictory teachings. It seems to exist and doesn't exist. Or, it exists but not in the way that we think it exists (Robert Thurman said that).

I've had discussions with Judith Rosen about this. She approaches nearly everything from a biological perspective. She seems to suggest that "ego" or "self" or whatever are a collection of models that we have of ourselves. If this is accurate then these models would be subject to all the things which models imply. (i.e. that they are learned, that they can change, that they can only be partially accurate, etc.)

Well yes. The funny thing is that if you recall looking at yourself when you were five, you had such a model of 'me'. Then when you were 10. Then when you were 15, then 20, then 25, and so on. The whole time someone is the one looking at that model 'me', and the whole time that someone-looking is still that someone-looking now. The whole time there has been the unchanging you, the whole time you have have known the changing you. Who is that unchanging you? It certainly isn't changing you, or is "you" both the models and the observer of the models; the observer that can never been seen by observation because it is the unseen, unchanging observing you?

[Legion]

The funny thing is that if you recall looking at yourself when you were five, you had such a model of 'me'.

Ah yes. Uh... but I don't believe that any of us have A model of ourselves. I think we have multiple, multiple models of ourselves. (Legion) And these models can and do disagree with each other. We are kind of fragmented this way I think.

 

I didn't address the rest of your post Ant, because I don't believe in an unchanging anything.

[Deva]

As far as the "self" being real - I have heard different and rather contradictory teachings. It seems to exist and doesn't exist. Or, it exists but not in the way that we think it exists (Robert Thurman said that).

I've had discussions with Judith Rosen about this. She approaches nearly everything from a biological perspective. She seems to suggest that "ego" or "self" or whatever are a collection of models that we have of ourselves. If this is accurate then these models would be subject to all the things which models imply. (i.e. that they are learned, that they can change, that they can only be partially accurate, etc.)

 

Here is what I am thinking as I am reading this:

 

What is the "we" that has the model? There is a collection of models, but what is at the core? Am I barking up the wrong tree or do you see what I mean? Our image about ourselves can certainly change (like everything else) but doesn't there seem to be a constant core that everything is related to?

 

If you think of yourself as a child - you know that your thought process was different and you were quite ignorant about many things. There has been much change, but there is a continuity, what is it? Memory or more than memory?

 

If the self doesn't really exist now, how can it cease to exist when you die?

 

I have a lot of questions, but I don't know that I can properly formulate them. This is a complicated issue for "me".

[Deva]

[

Well yes. The funny thing is that if you recall looking at yourself when you were five, you had such a model of 'me'. Then when you were 10. Then when you were 15, then 20, then 25, and so on. The whole time someone is the one looking at that model 'me', and the whole time that someone-looking is still that someone-looking now. The whole time there has been the unchanging you, the whole time you have have known the changing you. Who is that unchanging you? It certainly isn't changing you, or is "you" both the models and the observer of the models; the observer that can never been seen by observation because it is the unseen, unchanging observing you?

 

You posted while I was writing and this is part of what I was trying to point out. I can accept that there are changes, but there seems to be an observer, if you will, that doesn't.

[Legion]

What is the "we" that has the model? There is a collection of models, but what is at the core?

I love you Deva. (Please remember that the next time I lose my mind and throw something at you.) You said "we"! You said, "collection of models"! You straight rock!

 

At the core I think, is a paradox. And I am unable to express this at the moment. We (meaning the living) are anticipatory. And the establishment of organisms in nature requires certain paradox.

 

Something like that...

[Antlerman]

The point of being the observer is to recognize that all these models are illusions. They are not the true Self. If you can see all those false selves, then those are not you. Who then are you? It is a basic practice in mediation in moving beyond models which define reality, which we use to say "That is me. That is who I am", into a clearing where we see the illusion of all these models and meld into something without definitions - the formless. It is true that there is nothing that doesn't change. Which is why you move beyond all things, all objects. All things arise from that; that which you are.

[Deva]

I love you Deva. (Please remember that the next time I lose my mind and throw something at you.) You said "we"! You said, "collection of models"! You straight rock!

 

I love you too Legion. And I am glad you liked how I phrased the unphrasable.

 

At the core I think, is a paradox. And I am unable to express this at the moment. We (meaning the living) are anticipatory. And the establishment of organisms in nature requires certain paradox.

 

I am willing to accept that it is something that this particular collection of models with some kind of center observer called Deva can't quite comprehend. The self both exists and does not exist. I think that is a paradox, yes.

[Legion]

... all these models are illusions. They are not the true Self.

Hmm... ( I see no "in my opinion" on this.)

 

I don't Know Ant. I'm still trying to understand. I don't believe "illusion" is the right word for it. Certainly I think they are constructs. But they have a purpose, a function, for the organism.

[Antlerman]

... all these models are illusions. They are not the true Self.

Hmm... ( I see no "in my opinion" on this.)

 

I don't Know Ant. I'm still trying to understand. I don't believe "illusion" is the right word for it. Certainly I think they are constructs. But they have a purpose, a function, for the organism.

Oh they certainly do, and I wouldn't dispute that. The key as I relate to it is that in recognizing these constructs are not the *real* you, that you dis-identify with those things, those objects, and as such you are freed from the overdue concern to protect that investment in that self as if your whole world depended on it. You become in essence, alive in the world. You witness everything rising and falling with joy and without fear. Those constructs we tell ourselves are "us" become as features of the body, like a hand or your foot. Yes, those are things we identify with who we are in this unique body, but if you were to say scratch, cut, or burn your hand, you feel the pain of it, but you treat the wound without feeling like your whole life is out of control, as if your hand is imbued with all your sense of self-worth and the very essence of your entire being.

 

Same thing when we see all those personality constructs as objects, as features of this unique body. You no longer identify with the egoic self, that construct of "me". As such you respond to its fluctuations, illnesses, and responses with a detached clarity as if you were dealing with a cut on your hand, as opposed to feeling like the world in closing in on you. You are not the body, you are not the ego. Who or what are you? Your identity moves beyond the ego into the world itself. Your own personal rising and falling is part of Life Itself. Your identity becomes Life Itself.

 

 

And BTW, the statement that these are illusions, is not just my opinion, but that of whole schools of teaching. I just happen to recognize it through personal experience. It's effect is incredible. You become clear, aware, calm, joyful, patient, centered, free and alive. We spend way too much of our lives focused on this shell. The shell if beautiful, as all of life everywhere is. We need to open to see that.

[Legion]

Ah, Ant... I was just in another thread, being naughty.

 

Uh... I am willing to concede that Self cannot be understood, it can only be realized.

 

Does that groove with you?

[Antlerman]

Ah, Ant... I was just in another thread, being naughty.

 

Uh... I am willing to concede that Self cannot be understood, it can only be realized.

 

Does that groove with you?

Just groovy.

[badpuppy]

The funny thing is that if you recall looking at yourself when you were five, you had such a model of 'me'.

Ah yes. Uh... but I don't believe that any of us have A model of ourselves. I think we have multiple, multiple models of ourselves. (Legion) And these models can and do disagree with each other. We are kind of fragmented this way I think.

 

I didn't address the rest of your post Ant, because I don't believe in an unchanging anything.

 

Is the unity the illusion or the fragmentation? If all is somehow one, then are we fragmented in any real way or is that an illusion or conceptualization? (Dammit, I think some of Rev R's zen rubbed off on me!! )

[Rev R]

They make a cream for that.

[Ouroboros]

Ah, Ant... I was just in another thread, being naughty.

 

Uh... I am willing to concede that Self cannot be understood, it can only be realized.

 

Does that groove with you?

"Me" is another delusion we have...

[Antlerman]

Ah, Ant... I was just in another thread, being naughty.

 

Uh... I am willing to concede that Self cannot be understood, it can only be realized.

 

Does that groove with you?

"Me" is another delusion we have...

The Me Delusion. I wonder if it will sell as much as Dawkins' book?

[Rev R]

Ten days

In the monastery

Made me restless.

The red thread

On my feet

Is long and unbroken.

If one day you come

Looking for me,

Ask for me

At the fishmonger's,

In the tavern,

Or in the brothel.

~Ikkyu Sojun

[badpuppy]

They make a cream for that.

 

Does it come in strawberry?