I pretty much agree with Xunzian’s comments. Some additional thoughts:
In terms of the distinction between ‘religion’ and ‘philosophy’ it is worth remembering that the Buddhist religion is not ‘religion’ in the way that we typically think of it, since Buddhist dogmas are only provisionally held in order to mine their practical value. Traditional ritual practices, which for some practitioners may border on superstition, are one aspect of the enormously broad approach to the Buddhist path. However, to the extent that these practices do represent superstitious beliefs on the part of the practitioner, those beliefs are considered ‘wrong view’ (substantialism) in the context of Buddhist philosophy. According to Mahayana Buddhism the phenomenal world is considered to be ‘empty yet vivid’. Ritual visualization practices, if approached correctly, capitalize on our powerful and active imaginations in order to effect personal (and by extension societal) transformation, and yet do not ultimately fool the practitioner into believing that they are ‘creating their own reality’ in the jingo of contemporary new age solipsism. It is also worth noting that the Buddhist path is not a singular or global one, and that where we begin and how we progress is deeply personal. In Tibet ‘beginning’ practices are of an overtly religious and ritualistic character, as that is the general character of the society. In modern western societies ‘beginning’ practices are typically of a secular self-help oriented character, and overtly religious practices (i.e. visualizing ‘deities’) might not be undertaken at all. There is no contradiction in this – people are in charge of their own lives and are free to make use of whatever is useful.
In terms of freedom and determinism, I have never heard of a Buddhist theory of 100% determinism. (Xunzian: which schools believe this?) Logically, determinism and Buddhism don’t seem to relate, as there would be no reason then to teach a path where a change of direction in life is possible for the practitioner. However, the teachings on karma certainly state that much of what happens in our lives is unavoidable, and that in fact it is often in trying to avoid what is unavoidable that we create unnecessary suffering for ourselves and others. It is pretty basic actually - we learn to distinguish the source from the result, and direct our efforts towards the things that actually matter, as opposed to the things which are inconsequential. I think the relationship of freedom and determinism can be likened to changing the direction of a large ship in the ocean. Once the captain of the ship begins to turn the ship, it will take quite a while before the effects can be noticed. If you are interested, the classic teachings on this subject may be researched by looking up “The Twelve Nidanas†or “Dependent Origination†(Pratitya-samutpada).
Then “Buddhism” would be a completely meaningless word.
Yes, although I think this is often somewhat misunderstood by modern people who would like to completely equate Buddhism with modern educational theory. “Questioning” in a Buddhist context has more to do with undertaking regular practice and study and continually engaging in critical appraisal of the situation. “Is this really working?”, “Does this theory truly match my experience of life?”, etc. Buddhism has never promised instant results nor enlightenment through casual intellectual speculation. Certainly there is reason to abandon theories and practices which may be historically no longer valid. For instance the Dalai Lama has said that if modern science disproves aspects of Buddhist worldview, then those aspects are best abandoned.
anon :‘‘Then “Buddhism” would be a completely meaningless word.’’
Do I have to go there?
One thing that bothered me about buddhism(curious more than bothered)is that although buddhism is individual to all those who claim to practice it(as are all things), is enlightenment individual or is there a specific enlightenment to all(like christian or muslim heaven, except for the women in islam’s case)?
Buddhism seems to me to have always fairly on the level so I would think that it is individual, yet shares a specific, yet not all encompassing, commonality…a question to the wise.
That is a good question, and one I don’t have a ‘correct’ answer for. My understanding is that the ultimate fruition of the Buddhist path has many characteristics which could in some way said to be the same, but that doesn’t mean that everyone turns out a carbon copy of each other. Reading biographies of enlightened Buddhist ‘saints’ reveals them to be very different people from each other. Further, they often have personality characteristics that many people might not associate with saintliness. To me personally, this is very good news.
Japanese Zen during the Edo period. It is largely a historical curiosity now, but it does demonstrate the level of fatalism that karma can be taken to. It is worth noting that in many parts of Asia, karma continues to have a strong fatalistic edge to it. Granted, this position isn’t terribly well supported from a canonical point of view, but it is widely believed.
As for Buddhisms radical individuality, I think that Buddhism needs to be placed within a cultural context in order for that to make sense. As much as I hate to talk in gross generalities, Asian cultures tend to have a much more collectivist bent than European ones. Naturally, as soon as someone says something like that, one can and should start finding exceptions immediately, but I do think the generalization holds and I don’t think it is a terribly controversial assertion. Seen from that perspective, Buddha wasn’t arguing for radical individualism as we understand it in a western sense, but rather was acting as a moderating force on the imbalance that he saw in the culture. Indeed, I would argue that were Buddha to preach in America today, the Sangha would be emphasized much more stridently because America is unbalanced in the other direction. You might not be able to step in the same river twice, but we all agree that you’ll get your feet just as wet in that new river.
Well, right now I’m reading about the Five Skandhas or Aggregates. It’s quite interesting. It seems to me that Buddhists are experimentalists; in by practicing meditative techniques they explore varying levels of the mind’s faculties, usually via the consciousness.
The problem, for me lies, in their presupposition of Karma’s infiniteness and resulting phases of reincarnation. Buddhists spend their entire lives attempting to dissolute their Skandhas into a state of Nirvana (via the Noble Eightfold Path) all while under the presumption that Karma, reincarnation, and Dukkha will never be quelled, even by death. But what if it were? What if everyone achieves Nirvana when they die? Does that mean that we should all kill ourselves? Does that even make Nirvana a desirable thing (which is an oxymoron considering that desire is in itself counterintuitive to Nirvana)?
Also, the way I interpret it, Dukkha or suffering is not just limited to physical pain and displeasure, but it can also be thought of as a lie or an untruth. In other words, kitsch. If Dukkha is kitsch, and life is Dukkha, life is one big fat lie. To commit acts that propagate Dukkha is to contribute to the lie that is life, i.e. kitsch. Is this a correct interpretation?
I haven’t had much time to be here, and what little online time I have I’m getting less inclined to spend on ILP, such is the level of my disgust with some of it lately…but that’s neither here nor there for this topic…and there are hardly any Buddhists around so I wanted to respond to your questions to the extent that I can. I haven’t read the posts from folks other than you, so please bear with me if I’m repeating anything that’s already been mentioned. I just clipped snippets of your posts that I could comment on.
First off, there are fundamental differences between Western philosophy and Buddhist philosophy. I’m being specific to Buddhism in this sentence, rather than using a broader term “Easternâ€, because the core of Buddhism is based on Indian logic, not Chinese, Tibetan or Japanese, although the indigenous traditions of all three have influenced Buddhism as it migrated there and, subsequently, on to the West. The point is that they mesh quite nicely in many respects under the “Eastern†umbrella because the Eastern view of reality focuses on experiential reality…the nature of becoming.
What this means is that if you subscribe, even if at an semi-conscious level, to the Platonic legacy of a sharp demarcation between being and becoming – with the choice made clearly in favor of being - you will likely struggle at a basic metaphysical level with the East’s characteristically different view of the nature and function of being and becoming. Eastern thought has never been burdened, in a sense, by these concepts in one way or another simply because it’s never treated them as mutually exclusive realities.
With that said, the Buddha characterized all phenomena in 3 ways: impermanent, dependently arisen and without inherent self-essence. This characterization applies also to movement of the mind, aka mental constructs or thoughts and feelings. “Existenceâ€, as it were, is characterized as having both a dual and non-dual nature. Duality is that which is expressed by thought/language…what can be perceived or understood conventionally, like your body, your car, your values. The non-dual is pointed to as a formless or pure awareness, sometimes referred to as direct or dynamic experience of reality.
Suffering (or anguish, angst, dissatisfaction…the Pali term dukkha has many translations) is caused by craving, by desire in and of itself…I emphasize it this way because while the Buddha explained the roots of suffering, he didn’t really make much of a deal about what we desire. That’s because the objects of desire aren’t that relevant, it’s our nature to desire, it’s how we’re built for survival. The suffering arises from our attachment to our desires and passions (which gives rise to our illusory sense of an inherent ‘selfness’), to the so-called ‘surface’ elements of perceptions. Our perception and understanding is overwhelmingly influenced by the observable elements…we live by these elements of perception and remain unmindful of the fact that this is too narrow a perception. From Kenneth Inada, a philosophy prof at SUNY:
“The failure to become aware of this myopic perception has been the bane of ordinary experience. On this point, the East has always been wary of this type of perception and has from the outset taken any experience to be full and rounded, without any element, part or aspect being emphasized or dominating. In such hyphenated conceptions as Atman-Brahman, Samsara-Nirvana, yu-wu, ying-yang, etc., there is no strict mutually exclusive dichotomy in the metaphysical nature of things. This is truly one of the marvelous and unique features of Eastern metaphysics and yet, paradoxically, it has been the source of the false epithet ‘mysterious East’. In this vein, for example, negations in Buddhism are used not as metaphysical nullities but merely to exhibit the limits of rational or logical function. The Buddhist anatman (no-self) doctrine is a classic case in point. This doctrine, if anything, reveals the open and wider nature of existence, though that is not known by the term itself. Anatman is not simply the logical opposite of atman (self), nor is the negation of atman the negation of self or being.â€
Focusing on what we desire can, in fact, muddy the water by simply creating another false (dualistic) idea of ‘absoluteness’ or oneness floating around ‘out there’ somewhere to be ‘found’.
Buddhism is essentially a practice of mind training, it’s something that one has to do to ‘overcome’ or to let go in order to reduce the suffering that results from grasping and clinging at that which is essentially not retainable. This isn’t learned by thinking or reasoning it, because the mind will simply then cling to ideas. Instead, the training is to calm the mind in order to open to pure awareness, or direct experiential reality.
I don’t understand this, ‘will’ is construed differently in Eastern thought. To a Buddhist, the ‘differentiation between something and nothing’ is illusory. This is perhaps the most misunderstood concept by Western thinkers. Again, from Kenneth Inada…
[i]“The West in general has analyzed experience under the rubric of either rationalism or empiricism. Somehow these two became polarized conceptions early on and Western thinkers have thereby suffered in such a way that they have not been able to completely resolve the divide between them, if that is at all possible. It would seem that the empiricist cannot be a complete empiricist without somehow extending into the mental aspect of things and, likewise, the rationalist cannot be a complete rationalist without touching the physical nature of things. Both are, in their failure, certainly victims of Gilbert Ryle’s category mistake. To cut a long story short, the basic schism in the subject-object epistemic framework has compelled a rather curious static analysis of elements at play in both empiricism and rationalism. Perhaps this can be traced back to Plato’s sharp demarcation between being and becoming, but where the choice was clearly in favor of being.
The West as always been resistant to the notion of nothing or nothingness and has judged it inconsequential to life’s function. The West in short adhered to the nature of being, and anything else opposing this nature, such as non-being, was immediately ruled out of place. It represented a total substance-view of reality, starting and ending with being. This is the Platonic legacy.
[With the advent of Einsteinian physics]…reality is now on the move and rather than conditioned or burdened by the concept of being, it has taken a dramatic leap into the nature of becoming, a concept which had been set aside for so long that it has now become too heady for the average mind to cope with. For surely the concept of dynamic relativity is not the easiest things to comprehend, nor is it easy to incorporate it into one’s life….we still live, by and large, in a Newtonian world for its simplicity and convenience, although in the scientific community the Einsteinian world is an accomplished fact.
…Eastern thought has avoided a strict dichotomous treatment of being and becoming. The sphere of human experience is always taken to be larger than that of reason. As such, it informs reason much more than reason informs it. This is a simple fact but we normally do not pay attention to it because our habits of perception place a premium on mental function. The point is not to elevate sense faculties or experience above reason; the point is that there’s no priority either way.â€[/i]
Because dichotomous Western thought construes ‘non-being’ as meaning non-entity or the opposite of being, mutually distinct with categorical differences from ‘being’.
The two aren’t really comparable IMO, although there are some who hold that a ‘living Christianity’ reflects the momentariness principle of Buddhism. But that’s a surface comparison; the core tenants are irreconcilable.
Shunyata is empty, there is no ‘becoming one with’ it. I don’t know how else to state it, other than one simply has to go deeper, to cast off this sense that becoming means movement toward (or away from) some ‘thing’. Shunyata has no ‘thingness’ and it has no ‘non-thingness’. There’s nowhere to stop, rest and look for it, ever. That may sound ‘nihilistic’ in a conventional sense, but that’s because I’m pointing through negation to that which is non-dual.
It’s moot, no one’s not affirming difference. Emptiness, or shunyata, eliminates the need for (or more accurately, dissolves the illusion of) such distinctions.
The point is that there is no nirvana to ‘achieve’. You just think there is.
Sorry, the above statement reflects my aphoristic Zen influence, although I try to keep it in abeyance when surrounded by Western thinkers, lol. The point I’m making is that this is both much simpler and more complicated than it may seem. Buddhists practice letting go of particular thoughts and simply observe the nature of thought itself. We already know how to think (our duality), the missing piece is simply noticing what thought does without getting involved and distracted in specifc thoughts. If you’re stuck in dualism (which nobody can avoid, one can only get accustomed to noticing it through meditative practice), then what I wrote above looks like word twists. But it isn’t, it instead points to the essential meshing of being and becoming.
Because there’s nothing to ‘become’. Or, if you think there is, describe it for me and tell me where I might find ‘it’. While you’re at it, maybe you can tell me where to find “I”.
That’s a Western distinction, the roots of which I’ve tried to explain.
Buddhism does not teach reincarnation, that’s Hinduism. (Buddhist “rebirth†is a different concept.) There would have to be a ‘me’ or ‘self’ (Hindu ‘atman’) to reincarnate…and the Buddha taught a doctrine of non-self. Karma in Buddhism means simply action, or action formed from volition.
The term refers to the Buddhist Eightfold Path.
It is interesting. It’s the actual practice that’s hard and unfortunately nothing like many of the new-agey feel-good versions one sees bandied about in the west.
No thing is ‘persistent’, all things are dependently arisen and impermanent. That’s all that ‘becoming’ means – it’s not a state of being. That’s a point where some Westerners understandably struggle.
The ‘will to power’ has no particular significance in Buddhism, but will can be discussed as a general concept divorced from Nietzsche, who was poorly informed in Eastern philosophy (there wasn’t much worthwhile in the subject available in the West during his time). I’ll expand on this later if you’re really that interested.
No. Ditto for the whole ‘will’ thing being another discussion, another time.
Try searching for articles from major western Buddhist scholars and teachers. Off the top of my head (there are many more):
Kenneth Inada
David Kalupahana
Jay Garfield
David Loy
Robert Thurman
Robert Aitken
Pema Chodron
John Daido Loori
Jack Kornfield
I agree. The Buddhist teachings on freedom aren’t to be equated with radical individualism.
In my experience that is actually the case - that teachers try to emphasize the importance of Sangha. People do tend to become embroiled with other people though, and ironically it may be the teachings on non-attachment and freedom that help us to relate better to other people.
I would agree that Buddhists tend to be experimentalists.
Karma and reincarnation are the classic sticking points for our culture. It is not necessary to literally believe in reincarnation to become involved in Buddhism. As Xunzian previously pointed out, karma is simply cause and effect.
In regards to nirvana and death, I don’t think I would personally equate the two so closely. Some cultures or schools of Buddhism may do that, but it is not what I have been taught. Even if I were to associate nirvana with death, it seems to me that it would be a bit like quitting an internet forum. Everyone at the forum might then think of you as dead…
I think if you replace the word ‘life’ with ‘samsara’ your interpretation seems fine. The Buddhist teachings are fundamentally about the art of living well.
Provalone: What Ingenium says here is technically true, based on the differing conceptions concerning ‘self’ in Buddhism and Hinduism. In terms of culture and practices Buddhism certainly took hold in a Hindu context and therefore there are overt similarities. Recognizing this helps to make sense of the context and meaning of some of the Buddhist teachings. However the historical Buddha rejected the notion of a permanent, independent self or soul and though that could be seen by some as a subtle point, it is an insight that in fact seems to have changed the entire tenor and dynamic of thought and action. I don’t believe it can be said that Buddhism is a subset of Hinduism, as some have asserted. According to Buddhism when a person dies they die. Our psychosomatic continuum (to which we falsely attribute a self or soul) is said to continue, but from an experiential perspective that is nothing for us to latch onto to give us some sort of comfort or false hope (or unnecessary fears for that matter).
I’m not sure how the wide variety of Buddhist schools deals with the issue of desire, but I have been taught within the context of Vajrayana (and therefore Mahayana) schools that it is ignorance, and not desire per se that is ultimately the cause of the cycle of suffering. Reduction of coarse forms of desire is conducive to undertaking development of prajna (discriminating wisdom), which leads to a transformative re-orientation to our world. At the very least if desire was seen as wrong and fundamentally to be avoided, there could be no Buddhist practitioners as their very goals would be fundamentally contradictory from the start. Even if ‘desire’ is meant to mean strictly ‘sexual desire’, I think there are issues with this view. If sex isn’t wrong, and if desire isn’t wrong, then what of sexual desire?
I’m not sure if this is just a question of semantics or not, as at least on the surface you seem to be saying two different things - “by desire in and of itself” and “The suffering arises from our attachment to our desires and passions”. I think the ability to deal with paradox is a positive one, so I’m not saying that this is necessarily a fundamental contradiction.
Well, let me just say off hand that I am completely surprised by how molded and predisposed my mind is to Western paradigms of thought and habit. I am trying my best to be vigilantly self-conscious of this, though, just like any person learning a new language, I doubt I’ll ever shake off the accent (though, isn’t that statement in itself just a Western prejudice?).
That’s the thing I’d like to point out in this discussion: self-consciousness or self-awareness. Now, there are two things that I am currently reading at this time: Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Notes from Underground and various articles on Buddhism, its tenets, and its multitude of denominations. Maybe it’s just me drawing overly-reductionist conclusions from two works I am reading interchangeably, but I can’t help but find some strong parallels.
For instance, near the beginning of the book (which is where I am still at), Dostoevsky makes some allusions on the concepts of the ‘normal man’–one who is not only utterly habituated to clinging on to simple notions of ontology, but is perfectly content with living in such a sphere of unawareness–and the man who, like the protagonist, is ‘overly-conscious’. That is to say that he can’t help but recognize the more sophisticated and transcended side of things; i.e. being aware that you are being aware that your are being aware, or finding pleasure in pain and pain in pleasure.
This is simply due to the fact that his awareness is a constant reminder of the world’s futility and, what I’d consider, Samsara and maybe even Karma–existentialists call this angst. This ‘extended awareness’ is neither good nor bad because such a state of consciousness disallows one to properly accept such dualities (amongst others). It is merely the nagging bug in the back of your head that is always reminding you of ‘emptiness’. It renders one incapable of neither being a ‘hero’ nor an ‘ant’. Dostoevsky considers it a disease that many philosophers suffer from.
Now, since my other readings have been about the Five Aggregates, one of which is consciousness, I can’t help but draw some sort of comparison here. Buddhists say that the dissolution of the Skandhas is essential, yet to that effect they are also aware that life is basically ‘goal-less’ because they are aware that they are aware, i.e. they are aware of both Samsara as well as Karma. They utilize the one Skandha of consciousness to explore and eventually liquefy the other Skandhas; at which point, like a dilapidated vehicle that has lost its use, they abandon the consciousness Skandhas as well, thus acquiring Nirvana (yet, is it truly an acquisition?).
It’s both. It’s our ignorance (or delusion, the inability to see the world as it actually is) that causes us to seek after pleasure, material things, immortality…the wants that can never be fulfilled.
How is that even possible? Desire (meaning ‘need’, not specifically sexual desire) is how we’re constructed as humans, it’s the basis of our survival. I don’t know exactly what you mean by ‘coarse’ forms of desire, that sounds a little like ‘sin’. But if you mean attachment or grasping at that which ultimately causes suffering and harm, then I agree.
But Buddhist practitioners’ goals are fundamentally contradictory at the start. It’s the irony of ‘beginner’s mind’, which has a purity in that it isn’t tainted with ideas like what Buddhism is or what nirvana should be, but also is vexed with ideas of inherent self. My sense is that it’s the fundamental accuracy of the First Noble Truth that gives people the incentive to undertake the rest of it, even when they confront the difficulties of letting go of what they hold dearest (self), and face the reality of killing even the Buddha.
What of it?
It’s probably semantics. I consider desire in two ways, that which is natural-based need, like desiring food when we’re hungry and that which is clinging or grasping based on our illusionary belief in self, which could be explained as the basis of eating disorders, among other addictive behaviors.
No – and this is a critical distinction – it’s the illusionary belief that the skandhas have an inherent essence. It’s this ILLUSION that dissolves with the development of insight into the true nature of reality. That insight is that the skandhas are marked by impermanence, interdependence and non-self essence.
It’s ‘liquefying’ only the illusion of their inherent essence. We recognize the conventional existence of the skandhas, but note that all phenomena are impermanent, empty of inherent self nature.
I’m not really sure - I read Notes From Underground so long ago. All I can say I think is that I agree with Ingenium’s comments regarding ‘dissolution of the skandhas’.
I think we’re on the same page about this. I definitely do not mean ‘sin’. I only mean that rampant desire is not conducive to clear thinking.
It’s a subtle point about desire. I don’t disagree with you. However I have heard some western Buddhist teachers (in books) teach on having ‘no goals’ to beginners. I do question this tactic to some extent, although these were casual readings some time ago and I may have misunderstood them. I personally think that a clear conceptual understanding of the Buddhist path is very helpful.
Hmm, for some reason I took your comments on desire to refer to sexual desire. I’m sorry - I have no idea why. Maybe just because I take that to be the primary application of the word for most modern western people? Or maybe just me?
Can you provide us with one desire, one need, that does not cause suffering?
Wow, if that isn’t the quintessential recipe for all spiritual awakenings, then I don’t know what is.
What?
Is not all need based on, what you call, “our illusionary belief in self”?
If your only solution to the existential dilemma is the abolition of existence, then you are a preacher of death.
The fact that the self is sought after, as all absolutes are sought after, is what makes existence possible.
Your cure that puts the patient to death so as to save him, is what I call: a cowards ways out.
