Basic buddhist concepts analysed in a Christian website

last SG · 2012-12-12T09:15:01+00:00

Re the flag and the wind, I believe the answer has got to do with the mind, but this is not the proper answer to give at all. It is again more like playing m...

SJS6638 SG

Christians and the bible again, haizzzzzzzzzz

An Eternal Now SG

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2010/04/buddhism-is-not-what-you-think.html

"The Song of the Jewel Mirror Awareness," a poem by the great Chinese Zen teacher Tung-shan, speaks of the very same Awareness that the Buddha pointed to. This image of a jewel mirror was used as a way to express the source from which all things issue. All the myriad things, thoughts, and feelings we experience appear like images in a mirror: vivid yet insubstantial. The ungraspable mirror is what's Real, while the seemingly isolated things that appear in it are not.

Consider for example, the simple act of smelling a rose. We see the rose, feel the rose, bring it close, breathe in through our nose. We "smell the rose," as we say, though this refers more to how we conceptualize our experience than it does to what is actually experienced. To say we smell a fragrance would be closer to the actual experience.

But where does the act of smelling a fragrance takes place? If we attend carefully, we can see that all of our usual accounts of the experience start to break down.

Is the fragrance in the rose? If it was, how could you smell it? You're here while the rose is "out there" somewhere. On the other hand, if the rose were removed, you surely wouldn't smell the fragrance. But if you were removed - or if the air in between you and the rose were removed - you also wouldn't smell it.

So is the fragrance in the rose? Is it in your nose? Is it in the air in between? Is it in the air if no one is around to smell it? If so, how could we tell? Is the fragrance in your brain, then? And if it's in your brain, then why is the rose necessary at all?

Ultimately, the simple act of "smelling a rose" - or any other act involving a subject and object - becomes impossible to pin down and utterly insubstantial.

Gradually, however, we can begin to appreciate what the experience of smelling a rose actually entails. It's of the nature of the mirror itself - that is, that the source of all experience is Mind. As such, the act of smelling - or seeing or hearing or touching or thinking - literally has no location. This non-locality is the very essence of Mind.

Jui SG

I see, thanks for the correction. I'll work towards having a better understanding of the subject.

BroInChrist SG

Yes it's a bit bizarre when you try to wrap your head around this concept. I know I certainly had a terrible time with it. But upon reflection, I discovered that sensing is simply a result of having sense organs, and thinking, a result of having a brain do its work, where the resulting mental processes are labelled "thought". I'm sure that nobody can refute that, with or without thought, there will still be experience and experiencing.

So does that mean that there's an experiencer experiencing experience (heh heh!)? After all, you can say that since there's a constant experiencing there has to be a constant something right? True, but you need to look properly at what this something is. Under observation, you'll find that there is no experience of "literally having no experience" which has zero content, just the experience of "nothing", where there is content. There's really is no experiencer outside of experiencing i.e. experiencer and experiencing are actually one thing.

And what is experience if not everything happening at this very moment? So if every moment (and thus, experience) is new, aren't "we" being reborn every single moement?

Just to be clear, by "self-destruction" you're talking about being nihilistic right? Since my understanding of buddhism is not as clear as I would like, and that some schools apparently do not hold the exact view, I can only offer how much I know.

The buddhist answer is that things really do exist in the sense that they have their causes and are able to effect change. The problem is that there's nothing you can really do to prove objective existance of their qualities, since our world really is just a construct of our sense organs and mind. The world really does exist, just not the way we think we do.

People suffering from mental illness, people with brain damage or born without certain sense organs etc, their view of reality certainly aren't the same as ours, and the fact that we're susceptible to optical illusions, mis-hearing of sound, smelling non-existant smells and other tricks of the mind already prove that we're not that immune to having a false understanding of what is out there. What is conventionally true is just true "to us", and frequently but not necessarily true "to everyone".

Conventional truth: You experience seeing a pretty girl in red". Ultimate truth: You really don't know if that's true, could be the lighting that's showing her dressed in red, heck she could be a transvestite for all you know. And all your experiencing as the conventional truth is a result of everything in that situation: Your state of mind, you previous experiences, the functioning of your senses and a lot of other factors.

So conventional truths are essentially false, because everyone has a different take on their experience. But that said we all have to operate conventionally, just that with the understanding that ultimately this experience is not what we think it is, we can work at being a better functioning human being, conventionally :) .

1. I don't quite get the point you made about there really is no experiencer outside of experiencing i.e. experiencer and experiencing are actually one thing. It seems to be again to be just making the distinction between the noun and the verb. I would not identify the experience with the actual person. A person may experience many things in life, but the person =/= experience. I don't think that makes logical sense. Neither would I see every passing moment or experience as being "reborn". I think that is equivocating on the word "reborn".

2. By self-destruction I mean in the sense that the person "blows up" himself into pieces aka self-refuting. I am not sure if you are referring to some kind of matrix-like existence that we are all bound to. Even if we are, obviously the person who can "escape" from this matrix world knows that there is a real universe/world which is unlike what the others are experiencing. In short, objective reality exist. Does the universe exist? I am sure nobody would deny that. But what do you mean by not the way we think we do?

3. I think the crux of the issue is whether objective truth exists i.e. independent of what people believe, or prefer, or feel about it. The sun exists whether the blind man sees it or not. His experience of the sun may be lesser from those of us who can see and feel it, but that does not negate the existence of the sun. I think what you call conventional truths may be more akin to relativism, some form of subjective views about reality. Something like the blind man and the elephant analogy?

BroInChrist SG

So the next question to ask is whether this “Self” consciousness is dependent on being alive or is “Self” independent of the living body. So does “Self” still exist if a living person is unconscious, eg. in a coma, without brain activity.

The Bible teaches that God created first Adam from earth material. That was just a lifeless body until God later breathed into it and Adam became a living soul. In other words, the Bible knows nothing about pre-existence of spirits/souls. Having said that, every living person has a soul. When the person dies his soul/spirit lives on. It is the soul/spirit that "animates" a body and makes it alive. Neither can a dead person be made alive again even with all the genuis of man. The mortuary is full of dead people, all the ingredients for life is present, but without the soul/spirit it is just dead. The soul/spirit is what I would call the self, which is immaterial but when it is in the body, when I point to you or to myself or another living human being, I am referring to yourSELF, mySELF or himSELF. Even an unconscious person has a self, just that it is not communicating to us. In my view the self does not cease to exist during coma and then come back when awake.

BroInChrist SG

Upon one’s demise, we can either choose whether “Self” ends which discussion ends.
Or when we die, the “Self” remains, residual of karmic consciousness, subject to our habitual clinging. It is with this identify that we cling “Self as “Soul”.
When only if we are born with human parents that we develop a human consciousness. Again investigation shows one’s”Self” is developed in this human body, pending its functionalities. The provision of “Self” comes with being born and not with introduction of “Self”.
Similiarly, if being born an animal, similiarly the consciousness will be that of an animal. Just a dog would have dog “Self” or a cat with cat”Self”!
I think the Christian belief is that animals have not “Soul”, but when we observe or interact with animals, we will find that they are capable of acting for “Self”, exhibiting free will.

The Bible talks a lot about animals, but you are right that the Bible does not speak of animals in the same way it speak of humans. Both humans and animals are considered nephesh chaya, which means "living soul". That would mean that both animals and humans possess the same "life principle" if you like, but man is created in the image of God whereas animals are not. So yes, animals do act and behave as if they have a mind on their own and have feelings too, but they do not worship God or engage in self-reflection and moral reflection. On the other hand, plants are not called nephesh chaya so plants are not alive in the way that humans and animals are. Which his why when we say that God gave man the freedom to eat from plants and fruits there is no issue of death. The original creation was all vegetarian. Plants wither, they don't die in the same sense as animals and humans die. Biblical life is not the same as biological life, that's the point I want to mke.

BroInChrist SG

There is no subject or object. Subject is empty of a self-standing, independent Self or agent or controller or perceiver apart from experience. Object is also empty in that they are dependently arisen and empty of any inherently existing substance.

What I find most intriguing is why, if there is really no subject or object, that universally we communicate and live as though object and subject exists. I mean, even as a Buddhist communicating Buddhist beliefs to others you have to speak in terms of object and subject. You cannot communicate without presupposing them. So how is it possible to deny the very existence of something that must be presuppose to even begin to deny it? In the same way one would have to use the very laws of logic to deny that laws of logic exist.

BroInChrist SG

In any case, it must be understood that the emptiness teachings reject a substantially existing Brahman or ultimate reality.

The ultimate truth of emptiness is not the same as some Absolute [inherently existing metaphysical essence, which would oppose emptiness]. Ultimate truth is not the same as ultimate reality.

While ultimate truth is not ultimate reality, wouldn't ultimate truth declares or reflects what ultimate reality is? If an ultimate reality is rejected, what then is left of reality? By my lights, the ultimate reality is like the ground of all being or existence. I believe that God is the ulltimate reality, the great I AM. From Him comes the source of all that exists in the universe. The universe exists because God made it, but God is self-existing and eternal. If He is not self-existing, then there must be someone greater. But since God is defined as that which there is no greater, we cannot go backwards or it becomes irrational and illogical. Philosophically speaking God is called the necessary being of which there can only be one.

BroInChrist SG

You would have realised that the Yahweh in the Old Testament and the God of Jesus Christ has different roles. One is a patron deity of the tribes of Israel has much anger, that wage much destruction on Israelis’ enemies and anyone, including Israelis who worship other gods.
The other is the New Testament God that embraces Gentiles but with a double standard with Jews as chosen people and professing(conditional) love and forgiveness.
This are aspects of Christianity I more familiar with. Please pardon my ignorance.

The God of the OT and the NT is the same. There is no double standard at all. You have to understand the makeup of the OT and NT. OT has 39 books, large in volume and having more historical elements in it. NT is only 27 books, 5 of which are historical and the rest being letters. The OT is about God's dealings with humans over a period of 4500 years, but the NT is only about a history of 100 years beginning with the birth of Jesus. So it is incorrect to say that God in the OT is more angry or is a mere tribal God compared to the NT. That stems from a failure to consider the makeup and genre of the books in the Bible.

BroInChrist SG

It is false ultimately but on the level of conventions it may be true (that is, on the presumption of self and things which is how language works), and language does not actually need to have substantial existence to work (for example we know that a car has no self-essence of car anywhere inside or outside its components, yet conventionally we impute 'car' for communication purposes) which is why,

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/jootla/wheel414.html

Other devas had more sophisticated queries. One deva, for example, asked the Buddha if an arahant could use words that refer to a self:

This deva realized that arahantship means the end of rebirth and suffering by uprooting mental defilements; he knew that arahants have no belief in any self or soul. But he was puzzled to hear monks reputed to be arahants continuing to use such self-referential expressions.

The Buddha replied that an arahant might say "I" always aware of the merely pragmatic value of common terms:

The deva, trying to grasp the Buddha's meaning, asked whether an arahant would use such expressions because he is still prone to conceit. The Buddha made it clear that the arahant has no delusions about his true nature. He has uprooted all notions of self and removed all traces of pride and conceit:

I guess this is why I find it intriguing to speak of no-self. A car exists or it does not. I own a car. I sit in it and drive in it everyday. It has real existence, not just by convention or conventional use of language and words. The car really exists. If one wishes to go philosophical and say that the car CAN BE deconstructed in the mind such that you no longer have a car but only the various parts that can be made into anything, of course I agree with that. But that's just being philosophical about it and theorizing, or you might actually physically wreck it, but you are still left with the physical parts, you cannot deconstruct it until it disappears into thin air. The fact remains, and the reality remains, and the law of identity applies, that there is a car in which I am really using. The car objectively exists right here and right now. The reason why a car exists is because human intelligence has been applied to matter, an intelligent cause resulting in an intelligent product that serves a purpose.

BroInChrist SG

It is certainly not self-destruction because to 'destroy' a 'self' would imply that there was a self to begin with.

But it can be realized that there was indeed, no such substantially existing 'self' to begin with, that could later be annihilated or destroyed.

So we are not 'destroying' a self but simply seeing through that notion. Indeed, thought does not need to presuppose a thinker and senses does not need to presuppose a sensor.

Just like raining does not need to presuppose a 'rainer'. Raining rains, raining IS rain.

Wind blowing does not require a blower, etc. Blowing = the wind. We are not denying that causes and conditions are required for wind: for example, the interaction of air pressure, etc. But we are saying there is no ultimate self, controller or agent that 'controls' wind. There is just the blowing/wind. The same goes for self and experience.

Related: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XeCW-b41_E

But wouldn't it be precisely begging the question to say that the self does not exist? Wouldn't it more in accordance to daily experience to affirm the existence of the self than to deny it? Wouldn't the burden of proof rest on the person denying the existence of self, for even there needs a self to deny a self. Thoughts presuppose a thinker in the same way that a painting presupposes a painter. I would even argue that rain presupposes a "rainer" because God established the laws of nature such that we have the hydraulic cycle. The same applies for other natural effects like wind or snow.

BroInChrist SG

The Buddhists however are rejecting a Self that is: A separate, or independent, or changeless self or agent, apart from and unaffected by all conditioned experiences.

If I understand correctly, I see this rejection of Self as a rejection of God, for in Christianity we understand that God is separate, independent, changeless etc. i.e. God is separate and distinct from His creation. God's existence is not dependent on any other, for if so He ceases to be God. Instead, all else that exist is dependent on God.

BroInChrist SG

No, that is not the case. You are thinking that the person, as an individual person, becomes deified. It is not the case that the person is God. There is no ego involved (if it is the individual person that is 'God' then that would certainly be an 'egoic' kind of position), instead the ego dissolves in this realization.

Actually what the person experiences is a dissolving of his 'old me', a dissolving of a sense of a separate or individual existence, so there is no question of the person or old me becoming deified. (as mentioned in the 'salt doll' example in the upanishads example) Instead, what 'takes over' is transpersonal true I AM/Self that is all-pervasive consciousness underlying and giving rise to life, and an animating life force that transcends him and lives him. And this realization and experience is common to all the mystical/contemplative traditions of all religions throughout the world, whether or not you agree with the mystics' understanding of God.

This is why I find that this quote is very similar to the mystic's experience and there is no doubt to me that this author has experienced similar states:

20 I have been tcrucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives uin me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, vwho loved me and wgave himself for me. (Galatians 2:20)

I have personally been through that realization, so has a number of people in this forum. It is a humbling realization, not a self-centered one.

Yet the apostle Paul, in penning those words, is describing a reality, or an experience, that is vastly different from what I understand you as sharing here. Paul is not negating himself, or denying his self's existence. Rather he is telling us who is his boss in life now. It is akin to the master-slave relationship, but more intimate and spiritual in nature. Paul wants to be more like Christ, to let the character of Christ be reflected in his life. Christ has become Paul's role model in life, so to speak.

BroInChrist SG

But I would ask, why even try to break down the rose? The rose can be observed, held, seen, and smelled, and even tasted (if you like rose tea). It really truly exists in reality. If it has thorns it can prick you and make you bleed for real. So this is very much the part where (very sorry) I still find it hard to grasp.

Weychin SG

The difference between humans and animals is the level of sophiscation of speech and elaboration of conceptuals ideas. This owes to the complexity of the human society. Comparatively just as chimp can taught to understand spoken, sign and written language, owing to its relative complex society as compared to other animals. It is just as easy to say that God is created on Man's image/consciousness as no other animals is able to identify with God.

BroInChrist SG

I think the difference is one of kind, not degree. Chimps and dogs can be taught to understand SOME human patterns of communication, but you can teach them for their entire lifetime and they can never reach the language grasp of a 3 year old precocious girl. You can even teach a parrot to talk, but you are not going to have any meaningful conversation with it. I think it only responds to cue words or repeated words but it is not reflecting and actually interacting with you like how a 3 year old would. If God were really created in Man's image, how would it look like? I doubt it would be the God of the Bible, because I would think that man would create a god that would be most palatable and acceptable to everyone. Even then, one must have some shred of evidence that God (specifically the God of the Bible) is invented by man. Not only that, it still leaves unanswered the question of who created man, and why man is the way he is, and so different from the animal kingdom in many aspects.

Weychin SG

The presence of God in the Old Testament, centers around the Israel tribe and areas for the most parts. Other than Creation, God's presence is not ubiquitious among all peoples. Other tribes are usually just Israelis' enemies. So the relationship with God and Israelis' is an exclusive relationship,eg. patron deity. God have never acted on behalf any other people or tribes. Also the so called lost tribes are just what they are, "lost".

BroInChrist SG

I beg to differ and would have to say that you are incorrect on this

The Bible talks about a God who created the heavens and the earth, a merism to denote the entire universe. God is a God for all mankind, beginning with Adam who was our ancestor, and then Noah after the Flood. Even from Abraham and then Israel whom God chose, the plan was always to bless the entire world beginning with Abraham. God's dealings with Israel always had a greater purpose that extends beyond the borders of Israel. Thus we see the progressive revelation of God from the OT to the NT, from dealing with Israel to the birth of the Messiah, from the Jews to include the Gentiles. Jesus died for the whole world, not just for the Jews.

Weychin SG

That is you've failed to compare the pace evolvement of complexity of different animal societies. We appear to one of a kind because of our constant developing minds owing to ability to conceptualize and communicate ideas through speech and writing. However, we also have developed "Self" and by proxy "God". The image of God is you as an individual would perceive it to be, and if you take the bible literary, man is to be created God likeness, an mirror image of man.

BroInChrist SG

What do you mean by pace evolvement of complexity of different animal societies?

The Bible talks about God creating living things to reproduce after its kind. So we have man kind, the dog kind, the cat kind etc. Each has been created and designed to do what it does do. Only humans have the ability to write and talk. Animals do not. They can communicate within their own kinds of course, but it is rather instinctual. Certainly unlike the language capability of man. Our ability to possess language complete with grammar and syntax is what sets us apart from the animal kingdom. We can talk and conceptualise things is because that's how we were created and designed to function.

If I were to create a God, I would not create a God that is all holy and will punish sin, don't you think so? Why not create a God that will save everyone, completely overlooks sin and put everyone in heaven?

« Previous Page Next Page »