The Ex-c Epic Buddhism Thread

[badpuppy]

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...

 

Yes, but I like this delusion. I'm keeping it until someone literally rips it out of my hands!

[VacuumFlux]

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?

 

Bolding mine. I definitely agree with the idea that the me of this moment is not the same me as in the next moment, except I don't think there is an unchanging me to unify them. As far as I can tell, the observer is the changing me, and all continuity is an illusion due to the smallness of the changes and current-me's access to previous-me's memories (well, except for the periods of dissocation when I don't feel like I'm at all the same person I was yesterday because my brain chemistry changed too fast and I can't emotionally comprehend those memories no matter how hard I try). It's like you can't have a society without a lot of individuals; you can't have a lifetime without a bunch of separate "me"s existing one after the other.

 

Then again, I may not get what you mean by "observer". I don't feel like the observer I've got is the same from one moment to the next. When I'm asleep, I'm not observing anything. When I notice that things are going wrong and I stop to think, I can create an observer to hold a committee meeting to get my thoughts all going in the same direction. In order to go about living life again, the observer diffuses. Sometimes it disolves because I don't need it any more, other times it becomes my will that gives me direction. Sometimes it hangs around and provides an obnoxious running commentary using language. But the words are all wrong, because the observer itself is the one that chooses to disolve, there's no external me telling it to do so. Words always come out that way, just like I always come out in the singular when talking to other people even when I'm merely translating the results of a committee meeting inside my head. Because we are one, and we've always known that we are singular. I can sometimes feel the shift taking place when I speak or type; I feel my thoughts in the plural and watch the words come out in the singular. That's what my brain's translation module does. When I start thinking externally, in language, I think as if I have an observer. But that's not what I see when I look inside. I meditate not to connect to the eternal unchaning me, but to create a singular me out of the pieces that are getting all disoriented. But it's hard to talk about how that really feels, because the words always come out as if there were a singular continuous me.

[Legion]

I'd like to get this book by Lonnie Athens called The Self as a Soliloquy. Here's an abstract...

 

The major shortcomings in the Meadian and Neo-Meadian views of the self are identified. An alternative view of the self as a soliloquy that avoids these particular shortcomings is presented. In this alternative view, an “us” or “phantom community” is seen as playing the premier part in our soliloquies. Thirteen principles that govern soliloquizing are explicated, including ones governing the nature and form of our soliloquies, the creation of our emotions, the hidden sources of our emotional sensitivities, the painting of our self portraitures, the origin and nature of our phantom communities, as well as governing our display of individuality and conformity.

 

Here's the link where I got it... http://onlinelibrary...1743.x/abstract

 

 

Yes, I do talk to myself.

[Ouroboros]

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

 

Maybe that's how I can get rich?

[Deva]

[

....I don't think there is an unchanging me to unify them. As far as I can tell, the observer is the changing me, and all continuity is an illusion due to the smallness of the changes and current-me's access to previous-me's memories (well, except for the periods of dissocation when I don't feel like I'm at all the same person I was yesterday because my brain chemistry changed too fast and I can't emotionally comprehend those memories no matter how hard I try). It's like you can't have a society without a lot of individuals; you can't have a lifetime without a bunch of separate "me"s existing one after the other.

 

Yes, I wonder about the role that memory plays in the perception that there is an "observer" that is basically unchanging. I am surprised, however, that you don't feel that there is an unchanging observer. I have always felt that there was. Odd..

 

 

I don't feel like the observer I've got is the same from one moment to the next

 

Its very hard to put into words. There is this inner core of a stable identity - maybe observer isn't quite the right word, but it seems to exist from my perspective. It orders everything - it stabilizes and perhaps explains?

 

When I'm asleep, I'm not observing anything.

 

Oh, I do, I have vivid dreams almost every night. I am observing almost all the time.

 

When I notice that things are going wrong and I stop to think, I can create an observer to hold a committee meeting to get my thoughts all going in the same direction.

 

OK, yes, that is right. That is part of the function of the observer.

 

In order to go about living life again, the observer diffuses. Sometimes it disolves because I don't need it any more, other times it becomes my will that gives me direction. Sometimes it hangs around and provides an obnoxious running commentary using language. But the words are all wrong, because the observer itself is the one that chooses to disolve, there's no external me telling it to do so.

 

Sometimes, rarely, it does diffuse. If I am intensely interested and concentrating on something, some activity, everything goes but that activity. "The observer is the observed" - as Krishnamurti put it. But these moments are rare for me.

 

....we are one, and we've always known that we are singular.

 

Yes, that is what I think of as the "observer."

 

Its all very interesting when you think about your own inner process. Many, and yet one.

[blackpudd1n]

I'd like to ask a question, if I may, and I don't mean to offend anyone with it, so if I do, I'm very sorry, it's just something that has been bothering me for some time.

 

I'm kind of interested in the response that any Buddhists may have for the treatment of Thai Buddhist nuns.

 

I came across a report some time ago, that highlighted the difficult life of a Thai Buddhist nun. Things like they live their lives in servitude to the monks, waking up hours before the monks do to cook and clean for the monks, and going to sleep hours after the monks, once they have finished their chores for the men. The monks are able to go out seeking donations for their food, etc. every day, while the nuns can only do so one day a week , from memory. And the nuns do not receive as great a contribution from the general public as the monks do, because apparently there is greater blessing to be had from donating to a monk's upkeep than a nun's. So the monks live quite well, while the nuns toil and work, and continue to do so in an effort to be reincarnated as a male in their next life

 

I guess I just wonder about how a Buddhist can reconcile such inequality. From the little that I know of this belief system, it seems to be contrary to the ideals purported. And it makes the feminist in me sad, to see these women treated like this and taken advantage of by the Buddhist monks.

 

Does cultural background really have that much of an influence on this belief system? I've heard some people diss a Western-style approach to Buddhism, but here is one example of an Eastern-style approach where I believe a Western-style approach would be far preferable.

 

Please understand that I ask these questions with the utmost respect, and in the pursuit of understanding

[Antlerman]

I guess I just wonder about how a Buddhist can reconcile such inequality. From the little that I know of this belief system, it seems to be contrary to the ideals purported. And it makes the feminist in me sad, to see these women treated like this and taken advantage of by the Buddhist monks.

 

Does cultural background really have that much of an influence on this belief system? I've heard some people diss a Western-style approach to Buddhism, but here is one example of an Eastern-style approach where I believe a Western-style approach would be far preferable.

Of course cultural backgrounds influence belief systems. I'm an advocate of bringing together the Eastern and Western Enlightenments. The West has it over the East as far as systems of democracy, technologies, etc, while we are anemic in the technologies of the mind and spirit. The East is the opposite. What is needed is a bringing together of the interiors of the East and the exteriors of the West. The inner truth is manifest in external forms of equality in government, and the external forms created through reason are guided through inner light. It is the integral approach. Spirit and Knowledge. The whole person, the whole world.

[Rev R]

I guess I just wonder about how a Buddhist can reconcile such inequality. From the little that I know of this belief system, it seems to be contrary to the ideals purported. And it makes the feminist in me sad, to see these women treated like this and taken advantage of by the Buddhist monks.

 

Well I could attempt a doctrinal refutation of the idea, but it seems to me that the best way to reconcile this poisonous idea is to not be that kind of asshole. It is going to take a long time for it to clear up since Buddhism has been male dominated from the beginning and there is scriptural support for this crappy practice.

 

Does cultural background really have that much of an influence on this belief system? I've heard some people diss a Western-style approach to Buddhism, but here is one example of an Eastern-style approach where I believe a Western-style approach would be far preferable.

 

I'll have to approach this part of the question a little later on.

[blackpudd1n]

I guess I just wonder about how a Buddhist can reconcile such inequality. From the little that I know of this belief system, it seems to be contrary to the ideals purported. And it makes the feminist in me sad, to see these women treated like this and taken advantage of by the Buddhist monks.

 

Does cultural background really have that much of an influence on this belief system? I've heard some people diss a Western-style approach to Buddhism, but here is one example of an Eastern-style approach where I believe a Western-style approach would be far preferable.

Of course cultural backgrounds influence belief systems. I'm an advocate of bringing together the Eastern and Western Enlightenments. The West has it over the East as far as systems of democracy, technologies, etc, while we are anemic in the technologies of the mind and spirit. The East is the opposite. What is needed is a bringing together of the interiors of the East and the exteriors of the West. The inner truth is manifest in external forms of equality in government, and the external forms created through reason are guided through inner light. It is the integral approach. Spirit and Knowledge. The whole person, the whole world.

 

Thank you for your response, Antlerman. That makes a great deal of sense to me, the need to bring the best of both worlds together.

[blackpudd1n]

I guess I just wonder about how a Buddhist can reconcile such inequality. From the little that I know of this belief system, it seems to be contrary to the ideals purported. And it makes the feminist in me sad, to see these women treated like this and taken advantage of by the Buddhist monks.

 

Well I could attempt a doctrinal refutation of the idea, but it seems to me that the best way to reconcile this poisonous idea is to not be that kind of asshole. It is going to take a long time for it to clear up since Buddhism has been male dominated from the beginning and there is scriptural support for this crappy practice.

 

Does cultural background really have that much of an influence on this belief system? I've heard some people diss a Western-style approach to Buddhism, but here is one example of an Eastern-style approach where I believe a Western-style approach would be far preferable.

 

I'll have to approach this part of the question a little later on.

 

Yes, unfortunately I believe that many belief systems are too entrenched in dogma, and require some flexibility to be permitted as humans become more progressive in their thought and actions. Truth seems to me to be a fluid concept; as we learn and grow, our understanding of truth changes. Ultimately, the majority of us are on our own path to discover our own truth, and I perceive that those who proclaim to hold "the truth" are the furthest from it, as they seem to be cut off from further learning.

 

Please take your time answering the other question; I have to get some uni work done, so I will come back and check in later.

[badpuppy]

@Blackpudd1n

 

That's part of why I dropped the label (another part was that I realized I was starting to put myself in other people's boxes and I needed to be true to me and what I think without limiting where I can go by tying my identity too strongly to an external label). I realized that anytime I accept a group label to define myself, then I'm lumping a lot of preconceived ideas onto myself that don't necessarily clarify the issue. Like, there are certain ideas within Buddhism that I don't necessarily agree with as well as some ideas I have that might in some way contradict some major part of Buddhism. Likewise there are Buddhist fundamentalists, too. And I agree with you on the Thai nun thing. And also there is a lot of tomfoolerly under the banner of Buddhism in Japan. And I'm sure Thailand and Japan aren't the only places with issues.

 

This doesn't mean I think it's "wrong" to have/use the label "Buddhist", or any other label. In fact, the impetus for coming out of lurkerville, creating an account, and posting, was because I'm working on a book about spirituality and I wanted to find out what other people thought about labels being used even when a lot of evil has been done in the name of that label... like where is the line?

 

A lot of people find the label "Christian" problematic for Christians because of the hundreds of years of sheer TERROR perpetrated by this group. It doesn't make every modern Christian a fundamentalist or violent/bad person but they are constantly having to defend and explain away why they have that label. But, since Christianity is a missionary religion in many of its denominations you pretty much "have" to label it. If you're asking someone to join you, you have to give them a name for what they are joining.

 

I wanted to know "how much baggage is too much baggage, and knowing Buddhism has some baggage too, did it make me a hypocrite for labeling as Buddhist while having problems with Christians labeling as Christian?"

 

In the end, for me, I decided that it did, so I dropped the label. I still find a lot of value in Buddhist thought and it's one of the things I am studying but... I don't agree with everything about it and I no longer feel compelled to define myself by that label. The other thing that came out of it, though, was that I feel now that I can respect people who are Christian and choose to use that label. Like I can't respect what Christianity in general stands for or think it's the most rational way to be. Nevertheless I can't deny there are good Christians for whom the Christian mythos and the character of Jesus speaks to them and i would be an utter douche to tell them they CAN'T USE THAT or that they can't label themselves Christian. They know the baggage and they still choose the label for their own personal reasons.

 

I don't want a specific religion/spirituality labeling me but I guess I recognize every label has it's baggage whether it's a spiritual label or not. Sometimes we think this shorthand helps us be understood more, but maybe we should just sit down and have a conversation with someone. And maybe for those who can't bother to have a conversation, maybe it's not their business in the first place what we believe or don't believe.

 

That's my 42 cents.

[blackpudd1n]

@badpuppy,

 

That's fair enough. Though, I've never really had problem with labels, because I view them as an explanation, and a starting point to a discussion. That being said though, I tend to get conversations from my personal belief label because it is, quite simply, a conundrum that many people want to hear an explanation for.

 

I personally believe in independence of thought regarding any belief system, and the right to be fluid in one's beliefs.

[badpuppy]

@badpuppy,

 

That's fair enough. Though, I've never really had problem with labels, because I view them as an explanation, and a starting point to a discussion. That being said though, I tend to get conversations from my personal belief label because it is, quite simply, a conundrum that many people want to hear an explanation for.

 

I personally believe in independence of thought regarding any belief system, and the right to be fluid in one's beliefs.

 

I agree. I just felt I was attaching too much to a label and it was limiting for me. Plus I just didn't want to deal with the baggage of other people who had claimed that label. But I respect other people's right to use labels and don't think that makes them somehow "lesser" than me.

[blackpudd1n]

@badpuppy,

 

That's fair enough. Though, I've never really had problem with labels, because I view them as an explanation, and a starting point to a discussion. That being said though, I tend to get conversations from my personal belief label because it is, quite simply, a conundrum that many people want to hear an explanation for.

 

I personally believe in independence of thought regarding any belief system, and the right to be fluid in one's beliefs.

 

I agree. I just felt I was attaching too much to a label and it was limiting for me. Plus I just didn't want to deal with the baggage of other people who had claimed that label. But I respect other people's right to use labels and don't think that makes them somehow "lesser" than me.

 

I can appreciate that. I have a friend who was having trouble with working out where she stood regarding belief. She was a Catholic, but there were things she did and did not like within Catholicism, and she also liked many aspects of Buddhism. She couldn't work out how to define herself. I told her it was all good, she was just bi-religious. Creating her own little definition seemed to help her, and she's sticking with bi-religious now!

[Rev R]

Does culture affect a belief structure?

 

The short answer is yes. For example, the Chinese scrapped a lot of Indian Buddhist metaphysics when the Dharma arrived there simply because it didn't jibe well with the pragmatism built into the culture. The same holds true in the West, we are not only influenced by the Enlightenment but by monotheism so that influences interpretation as well. It is only natural I think. It is taught that all things are impermanent, all things are subject to the forces of change- why this would not apply to the Buddha-Dharma as well is beyond me.

[badpuppy]

 

 

I can appreciate that. I have a friend who was having trouble with working out where she stood regarding belief. She was a Catholic, but there were things she did and did not like within Catholicism, and she also liked many aspects of Buddhism. She couldn't work out how to define herself. I told her it was all good, she was just bi-religious. Creating her own little definition seemed to help her, and she's sticking with bi-religious now!

 

HA! Bi-religious. That's awesome.

[blackpudd1n]

Does culture affect a belief structure?

 

The short answer is yes. For example, the Chinese scrapped a lot of Indian Buddhist metaphysics when the Dharma arrived there simply because it didn't jibe well with the pragmatism built into the culture. The same holds true in the West, we are not only influenced by the Enlightenment but by monotheism so that influences interpretation as well. It is only natural I think. It is taught that all things are impermanent, all things are subject to the forces of change- why this would not apply to the Buddha-Dharma as well is beyond me.

 

I would have to agree with you there. and I think you could even go one step further and say that it is not just culture that impacts on a belief system, but also a person's personal world view. Regardless of what the belief system says, I think we all flavour it with our own personal beliefs and values.

 

Could I ask one more question? Which country did Buddha come from? I always just assumed that it would be India, but a friend of mine was recently informed that Buddha was, in fact, from Nepal. Any thoughts on this?

[blackpudd1n]

 

 

I can appreciate that. I have a friend who was having trouble with working out where she stood regarding belief. She was a Catholic, but there were things she did and did not like within Catholicism, and she also liked many aspects of Buddhism. She couldn't work out how to define herself. I told her it was all good, she was just bi-religious. Creating her own little definition seemed to help her, and she's sticking with bi-religious now!

 

HA! Bi-religious. That's awesome.

 

Feel free to steal it!

[Antlerman]

Could I ask one more question? Which country did Buddha come from? I always just assumed that it would be India, but a friend of mine was recently informed that Buddha was, in fact, from Nepal. Any thoughts on this?

He came from America and looked a lot like the Caucasian Jesus, except without the long hair.

 

Correct answer: India, I believe.

[blackpudd1n]

Could I ask one more question? Which country did Buddha come from? I always just assumed that it would be India, but a friend of mine was recently informed that Buddha was, in fact, from Nepal. Any thoughts on this?

He came from America and looked a lot like the Caucasian Jesus, except without the long hair.

 

Correct answer: India, I believe.

 

Not according to Wikipedia:

 

Ancient

 

Nepal is first mentioned in the late Vedic text, Atharvaveda Parisista as a place exporting blankets, and in the post-Vedic Atharva Siras Upanisad.^[17] In Samudragupta's Allahabad inscription it is mentioned as a bordering country. The 'Skanda Purana' has a separate chapter known as 'Nepal Mahatmya', which "explains in more details about the beauty and power of Nepal."^[18] Nepal is also mentioned in Hindu texts such as the Narayana Puja.^[17]

Around 500 BCE, small kingdoms and confederations of clans arose in the southern regions of Nepal. From one of these, the Shakya polity, arose a prince named Siddharta Gautama (traditionally dated 563–483 BCE), who later renounced his status to lead an ascetic life and came to be known as the Buddha ("the enlightened one"). It is believed that the 7th Kirata king, Jitedasti, was on the throne in the Nepal valley at the time. By 250 BCE, the southern regions came under the influence of the Mauryan Empire of northern India, and Nepal later on became a nominal vassal state under the Gupta Empire in the fourth century CE. Beginning in the 3rd century CE, rulers called the Licchavis governed the Kathmandu Valley and surrounding central Nepal.

There is a good and quite detailed description of the kingdom of Nepal in the account of the renowned Chinese Buddhist pilgrim monk Xuanzang, dating from c. 645 CE.^[19][20]

The Licchavi dynasty went into decline in the late eighth century, probably due to Tibetan dominance, and was followed by a Newari or Thakuri era, from 879 CE (Nepal Samvat 1), although the extent of their control over the country is uncertain. In the 11th century it seems to have included the Pokhara area.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepal

[DesertBob]

I don't feel like the observer I've got is the same from one moment to the next.

I'll add my voice to this one. I don't see continuity at all. I'm not the same man I was even a month ago, much less a decade or three decades ago. Even my physical being has changed, especially at the atomic level.

 

I've also thought this continuity idea runs counter to evolutionary concepts. If we are all growing / evolving / adapting then in what sense is our role as observer untouched by that? Also, if we are not supposed to be attached to our identity as having some role but are supposed to think non-dually, even embracing our ultimate dissolution as a distinct entity and our oneness with all things, then why would there even be a teaching about continuity? It seems schizophrenic to me.

[Antlerman]

I don't feel like the observer I've got is the same from one moment to the next.

I'll add my voice to this one. I don't see continuity at all. I'm not the same man I was even a month ago, much less a decade or three decades ago. Even my physical being has changed, especially at the atomic level.

 

I've also thought this continuity idea runs counter to evolutionary concepts. If we are all growing / evolving / adapting then in what sense is our role as observer untouched by that? Also, if we are not supposed to be attached to our identity as having some role but are supposed to think non-dually, even embracing our ultimate dissolution as a distinct entity and our oneness with all things, then why would there even be a teaching about continuity? It seems schizophrenic to me.

Because consciousness itself is not your thoughts about things. It is formless being itself. If you are being that witness of all things, that itself is not those things. All things are temporal. Nonduality is neither subject nor object. It is not even "it". You cannot think of it using dualistic terms. It is the 'suchness', the 'is'ness' of all things, itself no-thing, as such it is not temporal.

[Antlerman]

Could I ask one more question? Which country did Buddha come from? I always just assumed that it would be India, but a friend of mine was recently informed that Buddha was, in fact, from Nepal. Any thoughts on this?

He came from America and looked a lot like the Caucasian Jesus, except without the long hair.

 

Correct answer: India, I believe.

 

Not according to Wikipedia:

Sorry, yes. You are correct. Nepal is in along Northern India. I was thinking she was saying Tibet for some reason. Buddhism had its roots in that area, but Siddhartha Gautama was born in Nepal.

[Rev R]

The site of Lumbini (Gautama's hometown) is said to be located in Nepal but the authenticity has not been verified last I remember. Doesn't really matter all that much to me.

 

For giggles, this link has a map of many of the places Gautama is said to have traveled to. http://levityisland.com/buddhadust/www.buddhadust.org/backmatter/buddhas_india/buddhas_india.htm

[DesertBob]

... consciousness itself is not your thoughts about things. It is formless being itself. If you are being that witness of all things, that itself is not those things.

To simply declare oneself outside time and space for purposes of observing oneself would not change one's position. What would actually matter is where one is in fact located, and it seems to me that the problem of consciousness always has been that it is limited to making inferences from within itself.