How do you strike a balance between knowledge and practice?

last SG · 2011-08-04T20:27:38+00:00

Practise comes from heart, book reading comes through the mind. The heart is wiser than the mind because the spiritual heart has more Light. People usually s...

AtlasWept SG

Buddhist practice involves three complementary aspects – view, meditation and action. The ‘view’ is what corresponds to the metaphysical perspective, investigation of the ultimate nature of things, of the phenomenal world and of the mind. Once this view has been established, ‘meditation’ consists of familiarizing oneself (distinctively) with that view and integrating it through spiritual practice into the stream of consciousness in such a way that the view becomes second nature (post-meditation). ‘Action’ is the expression in the outer world of the inner knowledge acquired through ‘view’ and ‘meditation’. Afterwards, it becomes a matter of applying and maintaining that knowledge in all circumstances.

In this way, it seems reasonable that Buddhist ideas can perfectly well impregnate someone’s mind, bringing them many benefits without their necessarily renouncing what they do. In theory, there are said to be eighty-four thousand approaches, or entrance doors, in Buddhism. The large number is to indicate, in fact, anyone can start wherever they are. To climb Mount Everest, you could set out from the traffic jams of a Los Angeles suburb or from the lush greenery of Ireland’s countryside. The goal is the same, but the ways you might travel are different. In the same way, on the spiritual path we all have to start at a point where we find ourselves, each with a different character, set of disposition, intellectual and belief structure. Everyone can find the particular means tailored to their needs, allowing them to work on their thoughts, gradually setting themselves free from the yoke of the negative emotions, and finally perceive the ultimate nature of the mind.

Yet, simple though it might seem at first, the liberation of thought is neither an optimistic view of things nor a collection of recipes without any basis or outcome. The techniques it uses are derived from a ‘contemplative science’ thousands of years old, built up at the cost of considerable effort by hermits practicing, quintessentially, for hours a day over twenty or thirty years of their lives. It is inevitable that, without taking some steps in the context of their own experiences to see what it’s all about, some people will feel doubtful about any knowledge obtained using such unfamiliar methods. Every science has its own instruments, as without a telescope one cannot see the moon’s craters, as without contemplative practice one cannot see the nature of the mind…

Nevertheless, Buddhism doesn’t claim to have discovered any new truths. The very notion of ‘newness’ is, of course, foreign to any spiritual knowledge, which aims at recognizing the very nature of things. But what distinguishes Buddhism from a purely intellectual analysis is that it’s derived from direct contemplation of the nature of the mind. It’s acquired by experience, not just conceptual reasoning. Nor is it knowledge that’s left as theory, like a doctor’s prescription left on your bedside table without the medicine having ever been taken. It’s actually put to work to eliminate from the stream of mind everything that veils its underlying nature…

Perhaps most reasonably, to become a Buddhist one’s not obliged to adopt the cultural context in which Buddhism was born and in which it was able to develop in the East. Rather the essence of Buddhism isn’t ‘Buddhist’, its universal because it touches the basic mechanisms of the mind. Buddhism considers each person has to start where they are and use the methods that match their nature and their personal capacities. That specific flexibility and richness of possibilities could be useful to anyone without Buddhism renouncing its fundamental values.

In this manner, Buddhism is a search that concerns any human being, Buddhist or not. Perhaps one could say it is not a question of how Buddhism fits into one's life, but rather how one's life fits into Buddhism.

As such, it becomes neither a matter of adapting the teachings of Buddhism nor establishing a balance between knowledge and practice, but of being sure to understand its very essence – which doesn’t need any adaptation, for it corresponds to the deepest preoccupations of anyone, whoever and wherever they may be.

I No Stupid SG

Well said. In particular, “The techniques it uses are derived from a ‘contemplative science’ thousands of years old, …”. Siddhartha Gautama in deep contemplation discovered the Noble Truths. He had lived amongst the ascetics and yogis who practiced meditation, and he spent considerable waking hours mulling over why there is ‘birth, ageing, sickness and death’. He would have had debated long and hard with Brahmin priests and nobles, spiritual gurus and intellectuals of the day. All these require intellectual prowess. And Siddhartha had lots of it.

Your concluding paragraph is succinct.

An Eternal Now SG

AtlasWept did it again! Thanks…

To I No Stupid: you missed this part, “But what distinguishes Buddhism from a purely intellectual analysis is that it’s derived from direct contemplation of the nature of the mind. It’s acquired by experience, not just conceptual reasoning. Nor is it knowledge that’s left as theory, like a doctor’s prescription left on your bedside table without the medicine having ever been taken. It’s actually put to work to eliminate from the stream of mind everything that veils its underlying nature…”

I No Stupid SG

AtlasWept did it again! Thanks…

Going back to Buddhism began as a philosophy ...., I have stated that Siddhartha came up with the Noble Truths by deep contemplation of a 'burning issue' he had in his mind for 6 yrs - the encounters he had when he sneaked out of the palace. This is as good as saying "derived from direct contemplation of the nature of the mind". I had never proffered the term 'purely intellectual analysis' and it certainly wasn't my position but the suggestion of others.

I also said that the 4NTs are not just strict theory but are meant to be put into practice, especially the 4th since that is the solution (way). And I have compared the 4 steps in the Noble Truth as similar to a problem-solving technique. Therefore, any ordinary visitor (other those who had a fixation) will not consider the 4NTs as just knowledge only for theoretical discourse! It never occurred to me that way when I first learned the 4NTs!

Do not confuse how the 4NTs came about with ‘experiential realization’. The day Siddhartha was ‘awakened’ and became the Buddha, he was confronted with the problem of explaining himself. The problem was that his experience (the process by which he arrived at the 4NTs) transcended language and he was initially daunted by the impossibility of conveying it to others. As we all know, he found a way and he often explained by way of metaphor. When one wants to convey an experience which eludes denotative language, it is natural to resort to metaphors. The use of metaphor and analogy is even more characteristic of his preaching than the use of the parable is for Jesus.

Thank you for bringing this up and I think I have nailed the coffin.

An Eternal Now SG

To jui:

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=49&t…

Loppon Namdrol:

“Study widely and deeply.

Dharma learning is like making a deposit in the bank for this and future lives.

Panditas attain buddhahood faster than kusulis.

.......

Sonam Wangchug wrote:
“Panditas attain enlightenment quicker than kusuli’s?

How is this so? could you post something in support of this

thanks”

Sakya Pandita addresses this question extensively in his reply to Nyemo Gomchen:

There are two kinds of Buddhist panditas and Buddhist kusalis i.e. the panditas and kusalis of the perfection vehicle will become Buddhas, but it takes a long time, three incalculable eons and so on. The pair of panditas and kusalis of the secret mantra vehicle quickly attain Buddhahood because of the arrangement of inner interconnections. In addition, a so called “pandita” is described as “A scholar in the foundation of outer and inner objects of knowledge.” A so called “kusali” is described as “One who inwardly has the most dedication inwardly after severing all outer distractions.”

In terms of actual perfect Buddhahood: first, having become knowledgeable about all objects of knowledge the pandita has severed doubt through hearing, reflection and meditation. Then, because of severing doubt through meditating which makes samadhi essential, gradually attains Buddhahood after actualizing the Dharma of realization is a pandita. A kusali necessarily has the same basis, but when considered alone, a pandita is closer to Buddhahood.

Now then, if it is wondered whether there is a conflict with the statement in The Ratnakuta sūtra:

Compared with someone who listens for ten eons
and then gives explanations to others,
when someone who meditates for just a moment,
the merit of the latter is greater than the former.

The intent of that: the intention is that mediation is when a scholar understands the meaning of the object of meditation, but without understanding what sort of beneficial qualities can there be? Also Vinaya states:

Don’t meditate in mountain retreats without being a master of the canon.

The Abhidharmakośa states:

Possessing basis of discipline, hearing and reflection,
is best applied in meditation.

And as the Āryācharya Nāgārjuna states:

Without relying on convention,
the ultimate will not be realized,
without realizing the ultimate,
nirvana will not be attained.

Therefore, since it is said many times “…liberation is attained in this life by listening the categories from all the sutras”, it is said that “…if one is not liberated by hearing, later on one should meditate.”

An Eternal Now SG

Yet, simple though it might seem at first, the liberation of thought is neither an optimistic view of things nor a collection of recipes without any basis or outcome. The techniques it uses are derived from a ‘contemplative science’ thousands of years old, built up at the cost of considerable effort by hermits practicing, quintessentially, for hours a day over twenty or thirty years of their lives. It is inevitable that, without taking some steps in the context of their own experiences to see what it’s all about, some people will feel doubtful about any knowledge obtained using such unfamiliar methods. Every science has its own instruments, as without a telescope one cannot see the moon’s craters, as without contemplative practice one cannot see the nature of the mind…

Nevertheless, Buddhism doesn’t claim to have discovered any new truths. The very notion of ‘newness’ is, of course, foreign to any spiritual knowledge, which aims at recognizing the very nature of things. But what distinguishes Buddhism from a purely intellectual analysis is that it’s derived from direct contemplation of the nature of the mind. It’s acquired by experience, not just conceptual reasoning. Nor is it knowledge that’s left as theory, like a doctor’s prescription left on your bedside table without the medicine having ever been taken. It’s actually put to work to eliminate from the stream of mind everything that veils its underlying nature…

Perhaps most reasonably, to become a Buddhist one’s not obliged to adopt the cultural context in which Buddhism was born and in which it was able to develop in the East. Rather the essence of Buddhism isn’t ‘Buddhist’, its universal because it touches the basic mechanisms of the mind. Buddhism considers each person has to start where they are and use the methods that match their nature and their personal capacities. That specific flexibility and richness of possibilities could be useful to anyone without Buddhism renouncing its fundamental values.

~ AtlasWept's post, reposted because it was cut short by length in original post

I No Stupid SG

In AtlasWept's post, 'nature of the mind' was mentioned a few times. I think this needs explanation.

Mindfulness SG

Anyone using sutra to practise in this forum ?

I recite sutras and buddha name only. No meditation at all.

AtlasWept SG

In AtlasWept's post, 'nature of the mind' was mentioned a few times. I think this needs explanation.

The ‘nature of the mind’ is truly ‘the ghost in the black box’ and is perhaps most relative to the first of three complementary aspects of Buddhist practice – ‘view’. Generally, and without delving into an adventure of metaphysical conventions and psychoanalytical debate, the nature of the mind is fundamentally an examination of the mind-body relationship and an examination of the ‘reality’ of matter itself. This ‘relationship’ is a classical problem for many and has been so for literally hundreds, if not thousands, of years. In fact, Descartes’ famous ‘composite human’ postulated man as a hybrid. In other words, are we made up of a mind housed inside a body? Or is a psyche separate from its material envelope in fact just an illusion, as all materialists’ philosophies and much of modern neurophysiology would claim?

According to Buddhism, the conflict between materialist and idealist points of view, between mind and matter, is a false problem. In fact, in the mind of most philosophers and scientists, it’s a question of ‘solid’ matter and ‘nonmaterial’ mind being in opposition to each other. But the dominate idea today among scientists is that such dualism infringes the laws of conservation of energy by supposing that a nonmaterial object can influence a material system. Such a view of things does indeed raise a multitude of seemingly insoluble problems! So it might be useful instead to investigate the ‘reality’ of matter itself, for it’s actually in reifying matter that materialism comes up against its failure to understand ‘the nature of the mind’.

According to Buddhism, atomic particles can neither be ‘solid’ nor even exist intrinsically at all. No collection of such entities, however numerous, is any more real than its constituent parts. Without making too much of the parallels with modern physics, it’s hard not to be reminded of Heisenberg, who wrote, “Neither atoms, nor even sub-atomic particles, are real. They form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than of objects or facts.” For the purpose of the present discussion, suffice to say that according to this view, the opposition of mind and matter is not irreducible because neither one nor the other exists in an autonomous and permanent manner. There’s nothing, therefore, to stop consciousness being able to manifest in the brain through chemical reactions, leading to physiological processes that act on the body; nor anything to prevent such processes exerting an influence in return on consciousness. This interaction lasts as long as the consciousness is associated with the body. But Buddhists add that what guides the workings of the brain and its decisions is the nonmaterial consciousness. To deny that is a metaphysical choice made by neurobiologists, just as asserting it is a metaphysical choice made by Buddhists.

By its very nature, consciousness escapes the methods of investigation used by physical scientists. But not to be able to find something is no proof of its nonexistence. Buddhism’s choice is based on experiences acquired through contemplation, the investigation of any indirect indications that a consciousness separate from the body could exist. In Buddhist terminology, the subtle or nonmaterial consciousness is ‘without form’, but it’s not ‘nonexistent’ because it’s capable of fulfilling a function. Consciousness carries within it the capacity to interact with the body, which itself has no ultimate reality.

According to Buddhism, there is an interaction between consciousness and a body with which it’s temporarily associated. The stream of consciousness continues after death and experiences different states of existence between each birth and each death. The ‘embodied mind’ is what defines the relationship between the stream of consciousness and the nervous system. That embodied mind could also be called the gross aspect of consciousness, as it’s associated with the physical body. The subtle aspect constitutes the continuum of consciousness, which carries on from one life to another. It’s a continuum without beginning or end, because consciousness could never arise from nothing, nor from inanimate matter – each instant of consciousness can only be born from the preceding instant of consciousness and result in the following instant of consciousness. In physics there’s the principle of the conservation of energy: mass energy can neither be created nor disappear, but only transformed. In just the same way, we could speak here in terms of a principle of the conservation of consciousness.

From a certain perspective one could possibly understand it better by considering the nature of the mind as an amalgam of the subtle and gross aspect of consciousness; a continuum, a current of consciousness for each being, which can be changed, just as the water of a river can be either polluted or purified. That’s how, through such transformation, it is possible for the confused state of ordinary beings to become the enlightened state of a Buddha. As such, understanding the nature of the mind renders and leverages partiality to ‘view’, and through view ‘meditation’, and through meditation ‘action’, hence the complementary aspects of Buddhist practice.

reborn76 SG

Well by no means do I consider myself knowledgeable or well read, but I do like to read up on the dharma a bit. There's always this warning that I hear, that a person might get too caught up by conceptual knowledge of the dharma and this can affect his/her progress in awakening. How do you avoid becoming a victim of your own concepts? Do you all have a method(s) to strike a healthy balance between practising and knowledge?

Hi Jui

Great to see someone asking a sincere question. My 2 cents opinion is always be humble and pick up a practice then suit u. Dharma knowledge is good. It is like Singapore Highway Code which one need to know before going for circuit driving. However, when one put onself behind the wheels, that's where the actual transfer of knowledge into practice take place. In the same manner, a person can read a lot of Dharma related materials if one fail to practice. One is like a man who knows the in and out of highway code. When u enquiry, "have u drove a car?" He might answered know or put a lot excuses for not doing so. Ultimately, he still not a driver.

All great accomplished practitioner, will study and practice to excel. May it be Theravada or Mahanayana.

Finally, I would like to quote a phrase from Nichiren writing, "Exert yourself in the two ways of practice and study. Without practice and study, there can be no Buddhism. You must not only persevere yourself; you must also teach others. Both practice and study arise from faith"

南無妙法蓮華經

Note by AEN: deleted your youtube video as it contains contents from the Dhammakaya cult: http://www.buddhismaustralia.org/cults.htm

Mindfulness SG

Namo Amitabha Buddha. I aimed to recite this 1 million times like I listened to the chanting for more than one million times on my MP4.

Namo AMTF

I No Stupid SG

//the nature of the mind is fundamentally an examination of the mind-body relationship and an examination of the ‘reality’ of matter itself.//

There are 2 ‘examinations’ here.

For the first, I am not sure if there is any purpose in looking at this mind-body relationship other than for philosophical reason. From a purely human anatomy and physiology point, the body is a system of organs, each performing specific function. The brain is the organ the mind is associated with, unless someone says his kidney does the thinking! The brain itself performs many tasks as well as storage (similar to kidney!) but it is the cognitive and intellect areas that we would call it the mind. In this regards, two human bodies are basically the same except for the minds. This is borne out by twins because they even have the same DNA and studies showed that twins may share many similar characters but their minds are certainly different and are even more apparent when twins are raised separately. The way I see, there is no need to examine the mind-body relationship when talking about ‘nature of the mind’.

As for examination of the reality of matter – what has this got to do with the mind? The matter refers to the body (obviously in this discussion). Even if we take other matters such as an element, say hydrogen, I wonder what it has got to do with ‘nature of the mind’?

I suspect the argument is whether the ‘mind’ is made up of ‘matter’. I think the short answer, it is not. So, I don’t see any ‘conflict’ between materialist and idealist let alone mind and matter.

//Descartes’ famous ‘composite human’ postulated man as a hybrid. In other words, are we made up of a mind housed inside a body?//

Man certainly has a mind and the body is integral to it. If it is a hybrid, than we should be able to house a ‘human’ mind in a pig’s body, since the pig’s body is very similar to the human body. I rather see mind/body in the same fashion as home/house. You need a house to make the home. You need a body to make the mind. Perhaps, instead of the ‘composite human’ postulation, I prefer the famous quotation attributable to René Descartes "I think, therefore I am". The simple meaning of the phrase is that someone wondering whether or not he exists is, in and of itself, proof that he does exist – at the very least, there must be an "I" who does the thinking. If it is the “I” and “existence” then Descartes’ phrase is harmless rhetoric. However, if one thinks he is ‘superman’ and can fly, that is delusion. It is tantamount to saying that the mind proposes (think) the “I” as a horse, and the body becomes a horse (therefore). This is a fallacy, there is no relationship between mind and body in the sense of transformation or actualization. So, I think I am superman is fine so long as it is in the mind. Descartes’ phrase is incomplete: it should be I think ____, therefore I am ____. That is, I think (I exist), therefore I am (in existence).

I would not go further to discuss the property of matter because the mind is not matter. Likewise, consciousness should be a separate topic.

I thank you for your attempt to explain but truly I still don’t get ‘the nature of the mind’.

sinweiy SG

All great accomplished practitioner, will study and practice to excel. May it be Theravada or Mahanayana.

地藏论坛《佛藏经》云:「不先学小乘,后学大乘者,非佛弟子。」

AtlasWept SG

//the nature of the mind is fundamentally an examination of the mind-body relationship and an examination of the ‘reality’ of matter itself.//

There are 2 ‘examinations’ here.

//Descartes’ famous ‘composite human’ postulated man as a hybrid. In other words, are we made up of a mind housed inside a body?//

I would not go further to discuss the property of matter because the mind is not matter. Likewise, consciousness should be a separate topic.

I thank you for your attempt to explain but truly I still don’t get ‘the nature of the mind’.

Buddhism combines knowledge of how the mind works – there are whole treatises on the subject – with knowledge of the ultimate nature of the mind. Such knowledge has a liberating effect on the belief in a self. The range of techniques used to that end is both effective and varied as it relates to the metaphysical perspective, investigation of the ultimate nature of things, of the phenomenal world and of the mind.

The idea behind examining the body-mind relationship is to distinguish the divergence between Buddhism’s methodology of investigating the mind and that of the West’s cognitive sciences (neuroscience, cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, and so on).

Cognitive sciences accord much more importance on mental states, in terms either of cognitive activity that processes information from the outer world (perception, communication, movement) or of autonomous cognitive activity (dream, memory, mental imagery, language development, and so on).

However, even nowadays, introspection – the mind looking at itself – is still not accepted as a valid method of investigation, because for the moment Buddhists, as well as others, cannot convert the results of introspection into physically detectable phenomena. (There are surely interesting avenues of discussion on this point, such as reincarnation for example.) Nevertheless, the different points of view reflect what are, in essence, metaphysical choices.

« Previous Page