Pullin' a Buddha

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

A student raised an excellent metaphor in Omar’s “Religulous” thread:

Imagine, iff you’re willing and able, that the basic Buddhist cosmological template is not terribly irrelevant. Six holes: God(s); Demi-gods; Humans; Animals; “Hungry Ghosts”; and, Hell-beings.

Now, assuming one hasn’t spent a lifetime contemplating the Tibetan Book of the Dead, &c., how is it one might map out a way to the hole of one’s primary desire? Or at least, avoid those of one’s especial disdain?

Your ‘soul’ is the cue ball, nice and creamy, non-descript (except for apparently superficial etches, &c.).

Your ‘life’ is the pool cue, straight (or not) and long (or not).

And your ‘mind’ is the body, instigator of the shot. The Player. Mind is concerned to enter a hole through the image of the soul.

The pool balls, religions and philosophies, bodies of thought, spread around the table (“Reality”), each with a history of being positioned somewhere else previously, and fated to be redistributed again and again. In any event, they tend to obscure any clear pathway through to the holes (not necessarily a bad thing, mind you).

So, how might the mind acknowledge the geometry of the present distribution?

In the meditation of making its shot(s), on what must the mind be primarily focused?

What would represent Mara (a.k.a. “the Devil!”)? The current-state of (re)distribution? Or, say, a drunk at the bar? …or the bartender? Faust?!

Wisdom and Compassion: not only avoiding hooking others, but clearing/obstructing pathways for them, auspiciously of course.

Is the ultimate Buddhist goal to be jumped off the table (a.k.a. “Pulling a Buddha”)?

Or is this metaphor simply too Copernican? Is there multidimensional pool?

FYI: posted in both Philosophy & Religion to compare trains of thought…

EDIT: the cue stick (life) is the self, the cue ball (soul) is the subtle self, and the very subtle self (mind) is the body.

The self, of course, doesn’t survive death (which hasn’t been represented here yet). The subtle self returns through the pocket. The very subtle self returns through it’s image of the subtle self going through the pocket. But the very subtle self, at once, doesn’t (materially) exist in that process. I’m forgetting the nature of the embodiments of “what” reincarnates. I’ve also not represented how a Buddha might hold off from Nirvana (if Mahayanan) and assist in the multidimensional games-playing. Might Buddhas get together when they’re bored and play cut-throat?

2

Follow the ‘happy trail’, there’s hair around it!

Staanky!

Carry wood, chop water…

3

Blesss you, namelesss…

4

“In nomine patrii et filii et domini abomine, amen!” *__-

5

So, are you saying Faust is not Mara? Or are you just a minion delivering a message. A “server”, so to speak… How’s tips? Any pea soup today? :-&

I guess Mara could speak Latin, though. O:)

Further to the point, though, the subtle self only returns to the same table if it enters the respectively matching hole. There’s six different tables, so to speak. I’m not sure what “religions and philosophies” would be for animals, though. And studying shots would be a real bitch in hell…
:wink:

6

Problem is, desire is Mara’s domain. So the way to navigate the pool table is not to. Pay no particular attention to balls, holes, mapping or ‘ways out’.

7

You mean just be the shot? I do agree that that is the case for the bodhisattvas and other meta-pool sharks, but what about those who are just looking for a better rebirth, still stuck on the path of pre-enlightenment? Surely there’s some play relation relevant to the metaphor (even if it might ultimately be very individualized)? Is Mara to be avoided, ignored, or confronted? I’m thinking that the notion of (pre?)meditating the shot is the issue, which I do concede does ultimately always involve “just doing it.” Still, there are levels of preparation.

8

“Just”? “Just”?!!

9

By the Power of Our Lord Jesus Christ, I command thee, say thine name!
By the Power of Our Lord Jesus Christ, I command thee, Say Thine Name!!
By the Power of Our Lord Jesus Christ, I COMMAND THEE…

No, just kidding… being a minion is nothing to be ashamed of, truly. Please don’t take offense. Really, that’s quite an accomplishment if you think about it. I bet it took millenia to get where you are. Be proud of yourself, and of your work, too! Ya, I don’t have a clear spot for you in the metaphor yet. I’ll work on that. But I would want to know, do you consider yourself a sentient being? And Mara, I was never clear what the final word was on sentience there…

So, if Mara is a sentient being, then he/she/it must eventually get a shot at its own cue ball, too? Or is there a corrollary to Lucifer’s eternal damnation here, too?

Or, if Mara is simply a descriptor for the processes of karmic imprinting, or something, then who’s tending the bar?

Oh the limits of metaphor. Perhaps, though, in the presence of the limit lies the shadow of the unthought, and we have hope for further disclosure?? Alas, I will perservere…

10

“Just”? “Just”?!!

Pffft! I am nameless…

It is not the ‘minion’ to which I objected, I don’t think that I am a ‘minion’. Perhaps a ‘messenger’?

“Get thee behind me, Satan!” Pride is sin. The only one.

I dunno. Please define what you mean by ‘sentient being’.
I am Perspective.
I am existence.

[i][b]Mara (demon)
From Wikipedia

In Buddhism, Māra is the demon who tempted Gautama Buddha by trying to seduce him with the vision of beautiful women who, in various legends, are often said to be his daughters.[1] In Buddhist cosmology, Mara personifies unskillfulness, the “death” of the spiritual life. He is a tempter, distracting humans from practicing the spiritual life by making the mundane alluring or the negative seem positive.

The early Buddhists, however, rather than seeing Mara as a demonic, virtually all-powerful Lord of Evil, regarded him as more of a nuisance. Many episodes concerning his interactions with the Buddha have a decidedly humorous air to them.

In traditional Buddhism four senses of the word “mara” are given.
Klesa-mara, or Mara as the embodiment of all unskillful emotions.
Mrtyu-mara, or Mara as death, in the sense of the ceaseless round of birth and death.
Skandha-mara, or Mara as metaphor for the entirety of conditioned existence.
Devaputra-mara, or Mara the son of a deva (god), that is, Mara as an objectively existent being rather than as a metaphor.

Early Buddhism acknowledged both a literal and “psychological” interpretation of Mara. Mara is described both as an entity having a literal existence, just as the various deities of the Vedic pantheon are shown existing around the Buddha, and also is described as a primarily psychological force - a metaphor for various processes of doubt and temptation that obstruct religious practice.

“Buddha defying Mara” is a common pose of Buddha sculptures. The Buddha is shown with his left hand in his lap, palm facing upwards and his right hand on his right knee. The fingers of his right hand touch the earth, to call the earth as his witness for defying Mara and achieving enlightenment. This posture is also referred to as the ‘earth-touching’ mudra.[/b][/i]

What has your ‘Mara’ to do with me?

Sorry, I didnt’t read your entire pool ball analogy. It didn’t interest me from what I did read.

No karma. No processes. No bar.

Perhaps…

11

Yer one of them there Christian demons, aren’t ya!!

A messenger? An angel??

NO BAR???

Come on, now… that’s just absurd!!!

Be back soon… :arrow_right:

12

The pool table model, like any simulation, has boundaries of applicability. When you remove all the boundaries, what you are left with is no longer a representation, but the thing itself.

The world then is essentially the perfect simulation. It represents itself with perfect fidelity, and is in every operative detail exactly like itself. When we shrink the world down into a pool table, we have given ourselves a useful perspective on things. It allows us to digest the world in a way that we had not previously, but its power lies specifically in the limitations which restrict it from being the world itself. Therefore, whenever we try to extend the applicability of any model into territory it was not designed for, we exchange fidelity for meaning (like getting a high-def tv whose sound it perpetually too low? Maybe not the perfect metaphor, but the point should be clear). The exercise above shows this process pretty clearly, where the simulation dissolves itself by being too closely inspected. For the record, I think the whole pool thing is pretty brilliant, to a point.

13

Hi name, if I may be so familiar.

So:

Let me get this straight, you are:

  1. Unreferenced
  2. A delivery boy
  3. Without pride
  4. Unclear about your feelings, except to say that you see and you are.
  5. Not an Easterner
  6. Not interested in playing ball
  7. Contradictory
  8. Suspicious of my stamina

OK. First question. Are you bigger than a bread box?

Mr. Shambles,

Thanks for observing the boundaries! At what point do you see the metaphor degrading? Extra-tabular context deals?

I think a useful focus might be on what the connection between the cue tip and the cue ball might involve. One of the principal purposes of the habitual practicing of meditation, I understand, is to place oneself in the position to be in an auspicious emotional state at the moment of death, as this apparently is the singlemost determinant factor influencing one’s entry into the Bardo zone. So it might be compared to that instantaneous connection of meditation on and execution of a pool shot… I dunno, hey, it’s a mind game!!

14

The limit, so far as this thread is concerned is when you speculated whether:

If we are still using a pool analogy, then this would result in the loss of a turn, or perhaps (depending on house rules and the specific game you’re playing) the entire game. It is at this point that the difference between success and failure melts down into some gooey morass and we can’t really return to relevant symbolism.

I do like the rest of what you had to say though, even this particular line. I’m not disparaging any of it really, so long as we recognize that further speculation is more for humor than insight. That is the crossed-line I meant to point out.

Would using a bridge be like Catholic Indulgences? What the hell would you call a masse?

15

Ya, that’s where the sister thread pretty much instantly (un)ravelled in Religion.

… and chalk. What’s the chalk? Pharmeceuticals?

In any case, the no-mind of a great pool game has something to be said for it. I suspect that there’s a parallel to be considered, even if it’s mere metaphor. :happy-jumpeveryone:

16

I am, for you, exactly as you perceive me, moment by moment.
As you are informing me of your perceptions, what’s with the question? If you are so certain of the above list as to list it as a cosmic fact, your ‘first question’ is, on the surface, trivial and ridiculous. It is certainly a shame that you have wasted your one free question in such a fashion.
But, for the sake of comedy, I will answer that question from the Perspective of cutting edge physics (as it is a ‘physical’ question) as follows;
Yes, and no, and maybe, and yes and no, and yes and maybe, and no and maybe, and yes and no and maybe, all at the same time!
As I said; I am, for you, exactly as you perceive me, moment by moment.

17

…oh, trust me youngin’, you don’t want to mess with ME!!

18

…hmm. I predict a move. Barkeep, tab please!

19

Well. The transportation device seems to be down… so I must continue the babble here.

Back to you, Mr Sham-man:

If I may, let me resurrect the reference and defend. Accepting, for the moment, that in the typical game of pool, the object is not to “lose”, it may, perhaps, be considered that the Buddhist pool game does not have the typical object. Namely, to lose the entire game might well be thought concurrent with the advent of enlightenment. That this is counterintuitive from an egoic perspective is simply more telling to the point. In the game of samsara, it’s not so easy to entirely lose; indeed, it’s virtually effortless to be involved in cycle upon cycle of “wins”. Yay, I’m here again. Yay, I’m here again. Yay, I’m here again… Shit, I’m there again. Crap, not again. I could have sworn I lost! How can I lose all this?? Let me out of this game!!! Refuge!! Re-e-e-e-fffuuuuuge!!!

What gets begged by the metaphor is the contrast between Mahayana and Hinayana (and, of course, where exactly to put Dakini Land, but maybe we can wait on that one for a bit; and nevermind the Vajra thing…). And it’s not simply the issue of where the cue-ball goes (which became the issue in the Religion version of this thread), but where the “player” goes when the entire game is lost. Who is the player playing against? Must they be invited back? Or, if their choice is instead to be gone, where do they go? I would suggest into the mists of the contextual details which fade out at a distance from the table, past the bar, past Faust, out the door and, poof… Such are the poor losers.

Additionally, it is the fruition of karmic effects which “Pull the Buddha” and not the Player-ego’s choice in the matter, per se, so once again physics determines the nature of the game. Hmmm.

20

Spanish Mr Shambles says “ja ja ja”. Well put, and funny to boot. I can see the portability of ‘losing’ with simply choosing not to play any more.

I’m assuming you mean ‘poor’ in an ironic sense.

Regarding the different ‘vehicles’ of escape, I used to be familiar with the actual differences but my last class in this was in the fall of '00. If I recall correctly ‘vajra’ means ‘diamond’. That’s all I got on that front. The rest of this I can only infer through your contextual use. Of course, should you choose to explicate, I’m always happy to be enlightened (pun!).

This is another place where the pool analogy gets funky though (and not in the James Brown kind of way, more like the athletic sock). Taking analogs from Eastern thought the player is only playing against their self. Invitation back is really more of a failure to ‘get’ it all the last (millions of) times around. It just simply doesn’t fit with a game of pool any more. I want to reiterate that I love the analogy, to a point. My initial contention was more for the purpose of pointing out that ANY model will break down if over-applied.

This is interesting. Karmic residue influences the individual’s potential in a given life-form. But those who embark on an explicit path of enlightenment (monks, ascetics, etc.) have made a choice to do so. As I understand it this is a frequent road-block for many devotees, as there is an implicit conflict in ‘trying’ to attain enlightenment. On the other hand, if we’re putting it 100% down to the ‘physics’ of karma (presumably accrued from all past lives and having little to do with current ‘choices’), then there was really no choice in the first place, all intent, action and consequence is predetermined. This can’t be the case either though because then there is no game, no purpose, and no escape. This is all just fun speculation, and clearly has nothing to do with pool.

However, you SHOULD consider this a challenge. Next time you’re in the NYC area we’ll shoot a couple of rounds…