Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

Now first and foremost of all, I must admit, that I hardly know anything about Buddhism. I have little to no knowledge about the subject.

General question:
Is the buddhist mindset set to either of the following mindsets:

1. All which is observed is true.

2. Truth is out there in only one way, even though we might not see all aspects of that truth.

3. Something that was or could have been true once, will uphold that truth forever, in some way or the other.

And if not, to what mindset is it set? And if you wish to make no generilisation of the subject ponder this:

When do you 'know' something is truth?

I'll be awaiting your answers.

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

Happy New Year my intrepid friend!  Great question!!

The answer….that may be subject to the mindset (MS) in wich you originally phrased the question. 

MS 1. is clearly not set to the Buddhist Mind.
MS 2. may be true when limited to the ultimate truth; casual 'truths' may not be truths at all…
MS 3. again is set to Buddha Mind when considering the case of the
           ultimate law of life and the principles derived therefrom.

Bottom line (from my limited knowledge of the vastness of Buddhist thought) is that truth in and of itself has little value in any creative way. The Soka Gakkai (Value-Creation Society) operates from the virtues of beauty good and value. The “thing” is not the thing. It is our actions, and the positive value ceated, that make the meaning of anything.  Blessings D.U.

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

as to MS 3. :
Do you mean that there is an ultimate law of life? And from which all other things are derived? Hence it would imply. That this ultimate law, is indeed ultimate. And therefore the single highest truth?
In which case, statement two would be fulfilled.

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

it seems that reality is more in keeping with buddha-sight than truth
true is opposed to false
therefore, it is a product of mind, a duality
for mind must make dinstinctions within the one
to order it within itself

reality, on the other hand
is unknown to us
i think that is what the buddha saw
that which is beyond mind to think about
that which simply is

it is not an exercise in logic
but one of direct experience

at least
that is what is seen from here ;-)

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

It's strange what it is actually.  Something that is often overlooked is orientations to existing within or from a conditioned reality.  For example, Nobel Truths are beyond “simple truths”, like a table is a table.  Nobel Truths are beyond what people are “conditionally” aware of and in a way, truth is what you make of it, to some extent, literally. If you Attain a Buddhist Awakening, it's different than a Christian Awakening, and Truth becomes a manner of working with references to the history of Creation of and on Earth.

Like for a table to be a table is okay if your not A/awakened.

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

there are levels of truth
like a table is a table in newtonian terms
but a whirling mass of energy to the subatomic physicist
and possibly something else again to the christian or buddhist
perhaps even to you and me

direct experience is simply what is happening when you are not thinking about it
thinking, dissecting, naming, these are obscuring the direct experience
which cannot be conveyed through thought.

i am not sure how to know differences in awakening. I think each awakening is itself, like each person eating an apple for themselves. We can talk about the different flavors until the end of time, but each experience is a singular whole, no matter what we think about it.

so, i am not trying to make any big point here. Just that we can't know what we don't know. And the closer you look, the bigger that gets!

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

Domus Ulixes,

That's one of the questions that I, too, once kept asking myself.  But then I realized.. what purpose is it serving me to be mired in this kind of conceptual thinking that's only getting me farther from seeing reality as it is?

I understand that it can have a practical purpose, such as knowing what you're “really” supposed to be seeing in each moment.. but that's the catch-22; pure awareness is just that – unobscured by conceptualistic, dualistic thinking.  This is not to say that you don't think or don't appreciate concepts, but you're neither attached to, nor averse to, them.

Craving/attachment, aversion/anger and ignorance/delusion are the three poisons, the three things that keep us in Samsara… so working to eliminate them is a plus, definitely.

Buddha himself had a response to your question.. he said, ”Vaccha, the position that 'the cosmos is eternal' is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding.”

And he goes so far as to answer the rest of your questions/statements, as well, hehe:  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.072.than.html

As for the levels or stages of awakening that Mary alluded to, they are listed here (and the details of what each entails is likewise listed under each of the 4 stages, e.g., Sotapanna): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_enlightenment

Hope that this helps!

Namaste,

-Rob AKA shadowmonkx

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

Domus

it has been a long time since you responded to the responses to your questions. Are you still interested? Have you gone forward with your inquiry? What have you discovered? What do you think?

Help me know i do not waste my time dancing for you?

Of course, the good news would be that you are no longer plagued by questions, and are dancing yourself!

 ;-)

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

Indeed, Domus, are you alive?  That's not a metaphysical question, lol..

And oh, also, for those who might later find this thread.. I blatantly overlooked your most important question – how one knows “truth” in Buddhism.

In the Kalama Sutta/Sutra (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wheel008.html), the Buddha stated:

“Therefore, did we say, Kalamas, what was said thus, 'Come Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, “The monk is our teacher.” Kalamas, when you yourselves know: “These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,” enter on and abide in them.” ”

This “don't take it on faith; find if it is really true for yourself” mentality of Buddhism is pretty unique amongst religions or philosophies… it's not dogmatic.

There are other suttas/sutras where Buddha delimits the nature of truth or how it is recognized, morality, etc., but I'm not sure that you wanted to go that deeply at this moment…

Hope this helps,

-Rob AKA shadowmonkx

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

Now I am sorry, I am generally just not into my email responses from gaia, because I get the so much.
but here is the deal:


1. All which is observed is true. Is in my understanding more alike the copenhagen interpretation

2. Truth is out there in only one way, even though we might not see all aspects of that truth. is more like the hidden variable interpretation


3. Something that was or could have been true once, will uphold that truth forever, in some way or the other. Is more like the many world interpretation.

Perhaps I can rephrase the question:

What of the following statements do buddhist see as true?

1. What is there to see, and what I can feel and touch is complete. There is nothing beyond what I can see, and what I can touch and see and feel is all I will ever know about things in particular.

2. What I see, and feel and touch, will only gradually change in time. Nothing tangle will ever suddenly dissapear. Or suddenly come to being. And will generally evolve through time in a predictable fashion. (practicle time)

3. What I see, for myself, and what I touch and feel. Cannot be two entirely different things inside my own mind. It has to be a single sensation, or thought that belongs only to that person/object/feeling that I am having right now. The same I might have for others things. But at a given instant moment in time, I cannot see/feel/touch different things or feelings. With the same observation. (observation meaning a single moment in time, one touch, one look, one smell)

Perhaps that helps better.
It is just harder to rephrase to human language.

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

Hee-hee.  Such a delightful answer, Domus.  The number 3's, is what I hold to my heart as well.  It's like a center of attraction, that will indeed come around in it's own time.

There's nothing like working for it to happen though, huh….lol

“V”, and good will to us all….here and above<B

Rita

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

Domus,

Your question makes more sense now.. and I'm not trying to sound lazy or esoteric, but the truth is, in the Buddhist view:

Number 2 AND 3 are BOTH partly true – and because of that, both right, wrong, and neither at the same time.. if that makes any sense.  The Buddhist version of truth is “Nirvana,” (“Nibbana” in Pali) or the Unbinding (unbound from the ten “Fetters,” or attachments).  The image used is often that of a candle flame going out.. which does not mean that the fire is gone, but that it's in a state of transcendence – complete freedom.

Please allow me to elaborate by deviating a bit and explaining Nirvana/Truth, and how it plays into starting off in Buddhism.. and the eventual attainment of the actual goal.  Without doing so, it might seem as though I'm avoiding a direct answer to your question.

Let's use the analogy of a honeybee.  A honeybee has compound eyes, and can thus see hundreds of images whereas with human eyes, you only see one image.  Similarly, a honeybee can see infrared light wavelengths – which humans cannot.  Does this mean that the honeybee sees things that are not there, simply because humans can't see them?

No, they're one and the same reality!  It's a difference of a matter of perception, and even degree of awakening/enlightenment.  Because we aren't honeybees, we think that infrared light doesn't exist.. or at least, we didn't until we were able to detect it with scientific instruments… but even then, we still don't “see” for ourselves, as direct experience.

The Buddha used the analogy of an elephant for this.  He explained that several blind men were brought to an elephant; one felt the tail, another the leg, the other the hindquarters and yet another felt the trunk.  All argued over how they described the elephant… and none of them realized that they were arguing over little parts of a larger whole, the whole elephant in this case.

Awakening/Nirvana/Truth is much like this; consensus reality is still reality.. but your perception of it changes.  Buddhism does not have a hard and fast rule to your question.. which is why I provided the link to the Kalama Sutta.. because Buddha was constantly asked such “metaphysical” questions… and while he of course knew the answers given his full awakening, they would be useless to someone who has not tasted awakening for themselves.  He often remained silent to such questions, and instead invited people to stop asking questions that kept them running in circles, and to instead taste the nectar of awakening – unbinding, Nirvana – for themselves.

Even so, Buddha did answer some metaphysical questions for those at higher levels of practice/attainment – but only because they were at a point where it would not get them stuck in unhelpful viewpoints unrelated to actual practice.

While I suggested reading the Kalama Sutta before, it might have been better still to suggest the whole gamut should you decide to peruse them:

Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.072.than.html

Ditthia Sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.093.than.html

Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.063.than.html


Khema Sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.001.than.html



Ananda Sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.010.than.html



Kokanuda Sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.096.than.html



or the Avyakata Samyutta as a whole: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.intro.than.html

There's the old 10 Bulls set used in Zen Buddhism to describe this (or Tozan's Five Ranks).. you start off on the path searching for your “lost bull” (enlightenment), find it, tame it, ride it, transcend it, and when you're enlightened, you go to the marketplace – back to life – everything is still the same, and yet different.

Again, the theme is that all that has changed are your perceptions.

There's another parable for this.. you're riding out in a boat in a lake.. it's dark out, and you have a light.  Everything is calm and peaceful.  The next thing you know… WHAM.. another boat slams into yours!

You're really REALLY upset that some idiot didn't see your boat – you have a big light on it that only an idiot would miss!

But then, as you look into the other boat, you see that it's empty.  And it dawns on you.. you got upset for no reason at all.  Life is like that; life is an empty boat.

Perceptions are what change in awakening/enlightenment (as well as dropping the ten “fetters,” the unskillful mental/emotional/physical traits that most of us have) – your perceptions and way of living go from being self-absorbed, seeing things with beer goggles on.. to being clear, like having a new eyeglass prescription.  As you wear them enough, eventually, you won't even need the eyeglasses.

I hope my use of analogies and similies was abundant enough to make answering your question helpful.  Please let me know.

With sincere wishes,

-Rob AKA shadowmonkx

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

Now I would like to expand number one.
As your examples point out the nature of your reasoning.
Try and imagine:
1. What is there to see, and what I can feel and touch is complete.
There is nothing beyond what I can see, and what I can touch and see
and feel is all I will ever know about things in particular.

However this time What you can feel or touch. I also that what you can see with the use of a tool. For instance, you can use a mirror to see around corners, which else you wouldn't be able to see. You can point the light on your boat towards the other boat, and see it is empty. And you can use an infrared to visible light filter to see the infrared. Basicly you could adapt all of your sense to extreme levels, without those methods being untestable, so that you know they will work. (you can test the tools, and know what they tell you is true)

How would you see it then?

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

Also I would still enjoy to hear people's input about the second question.

When do you 'know' something is truth?

Which is more easily interpreted as:

When do you 'know' something is real?

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

Interesting question, DU. 

I suppose that anything that triggers any one, or all of ones sense's would be considered real to that person who is experiencing it, would it not be?

Rita

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

You tell me,
I can make a simple question.
Would something you know is real, also be real even if you do not observe it, or have that trigger of your senses?

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

Yes, because my life line is connected to the 'power of the one', and therefore, has advantage to my extreme out look of senses, yet to arrive, and or achieve it's destination of.

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

Hey, Domus,

Speculating about the nature of reality, truth, Nirvana is great – and I love such conversations and debate – but if your goal is the Buddhist version of Awakening, I guarantee that these metaphysical questions are not going to get you any closer to it.  I used to do this same wheel-spinning myself, until I realized how futile it was.

What you're doing is much akin to the parable of the poisoned arrow: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.063.than.html

You're turning reality – being shot with an arrow – into magnifying it twice, thrice, a hundred or even a thousand times.. by speculating on the nature of reality or truth, rather than realizing and living it for yourself.

Why live vicariously through your own mind (speculating on reality)… why not live WITH your own mind (letting your mind grasp and live in context with reality)?

In any case, I will answer your question as best I can… what you see, what you feel, what you taste, touch, smell… they are all real.  It's your attachment/craving, your aversion/anger, your delusion/ignorance – things you're adding to what would otherwise be raw, empty experience – that makes them not real.

A maple tree is real.  Touching it is real.  You feel it, you see it ,you can smell it.. and even taste its maple syrup, right?  It's what you add to that – your feelings about it, your like or dislike for it, your past experiences, your future hopes – that aren't real.

But yet, ironically, at the same time… these feelings, thoughts, etc.. are in themselves real… because they're there.  But they are separate from the raw experience of being one with the tree.

Buddhists believe in a very important concept: dependent arising/origination.

There's a sutta where the Buddha is holding a bowl filled with water, and asks one of his most learned monks whether it is full or empty.

“Full,” says the monk.

The Buddha dumps the water on the ground.

“And now?”, the Buddha asks.

“Empty,” says the monk.

But ah – as the Buddha points out – empty of what?  Water?  Perhaps.  Air?  No.. the bowl is now full of air!  Empty is always empty of something; full is always full of something.  Empty, full, high, low, big, small, good, bad.. these are not things that exist alone, independent of eachother.  They are concepts; they require comparison with something to exist.  So.. do they really exist?  Hmmm..

Of course, if you look deeply, you would see that the bowl is not really empty of water.. water is in the clay that made the bowl, heat used to harden the bowl.. the hands of the bowlmaker were needed.. the food that fed him.. the clouds that provided the rain..  and it goes on forever.  The entire universe exists in the bowl – and indeed is needed – for the bowl to exist.  This is why Buddhists feel that all life is valuable; because we are not really separate nor different from anything else.  Modern science even confirms this, in that we are all made up of the same stuff – atoms.

Now if you drop the bowl on the ground… does it cease to exist?

No.. nothing arises out of thin air, and nothing just disappears.. it transforms.  Birth and death are an illusion.

This brings us to impermanence.. nothing is permanent.  A seed does not die to become a tree, it transforms.. and indeed is NEEDED to create a tree.  If nothing changed, nothing could exist as it does.  Water could not turn into vapor, which in turn would form a cloud, which in turn moves the water where it is needed.. if not for change.  If not for the arising and falling of things that you consider “yourself,” the mix of things that you describe as “me” could not exist.  There is NOTHING about you that you can say is “me,” “mine,” “myself” that does not change.  You age.. you get sick.. you die.  Your mind states change, your habits change.

There are only three constants in life: that it is subject to (contains) suffering, it is impermanent, and not-self. By not-self, I mean what I said before.. that nothing really exists alone, but is a mixture of elements, space and time.

In addition:

The five aggregates (skandhas) of existence are:

-Form, which includes the body, senses, that of others, and tangible objects.

-Feelings (pleasant, unpleasant, neutral)

-Perceptions/Memory (perception of form, sound, smell, taste, bodily impressions and mental impressions)

-Mental Formations (thoughts, emotions, volition/intentional action and habitual patterns triggered by an object)

-Consciousness (eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, olfactory-consciousness, taste-consciousness, tactile-consciousness and consciousness of mental objects)

As it says in Wikipedia, “Form combined with a sense organ gives rise to consciousness; the concurrence of an object, its sense organ and the related consciousness is called contact, from the contact of form and consciousness arise the three mental aggregates of feeling, perception and mental formation, which can in turn give rise to additional consciousness that leads to the arising of further mental aggregates.”

You both do and do not exist… and neither… all at the same time.

Who are you?

-Rob AKA shadowmonkx

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

I personally do not think that buddhist awakaning is my goal. I do not just seek out simple statements. I seek to understand these statements as reasoned above. My first three statements of this post are very simple actually. They are all, three different versions of how people see, and live reality. Each differently, but each explaining the world around in manor that suffices all the users of such method.

In my normal days, as a quantum mechanic. I work with reality on a daily basis. I seek not its reason of existence. Nor to fully understand its truth. For I soon realised, that no such truth exists.

The world I live with, doesn't have definite form, for the simple reason that I deal with things that do not exist ab initio. That are not always tangible, and do not have a determinate existence like a bowl. Think of it as buddha's bowl. But it is shattered and not-shattered at the same time, And all in between. It isn't imagined like that, It just is.

My feelings inevitably influence my perceptions which directly on their turn, by nature, influence the world around me directly. Or as Wigner putted it, via a consciousness. As via my consciousness mental formations can trigger existence of objects not before existent.

Or as in one of my quotes: “But nowadays, I know, that I have limitations. And that I know, that what I say and think now, might not be as true or valid
as it will be tomorrow. My arguments for myself are just part of a flawless perfect reasoning. Which I haven't achieved yet. It is only trying to get close, to find that perfect argumentation that will eventually lead me to be exactly right. And I have no doubts whatsoever of what I speak. I my eyes, such an argumentation, is either yet unconceivable, or so pervasive, that it defies the laws of nature. There are limits to knowledge and wisdom.”

I do not need to be anybody else. I can see, that the world I live in, isn't shared by others. Others see it distinctly different. It is the shear realisation, that others, with total different mindsets. Can explain the world, and its facets in a different way that gives the same observational results.

If focused on the matter, one cannot help but wonder: Is our reality absolute? The answer: Hell no! there is nothing absolute about reality, it is a mindbogling blend of contradictions, that make up truth, because appearently no human ever tried to reconcile them.
I am about to make that attempt.

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

I would become a nurtured whole from it's existence past….that whom I would be.

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

Hee-hee….isn't life just so full of surprises, huh?
I just posted a comment onto “Shadowmonkx's” question about, “Who are you”, and it kept dropping in after “Domus Ulixes” reply.  Maybe it's all to be the way it is perhaps.
Om, me om, my…lol
What am I to do now.
Maybe it's need to be here instead…..who knows!
I pressed the “reply to post key”, but it seems like cosmic technology is having to much fun doing it's own thing tonight:)
2 postings of the same thing, must stand for a good omen, don'cha think:-)?

Bless

(maybe I should open up a group discussion about:  “Things like this can only happen to me”)…hee-hee

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

I would become a nurtured whole, from it's existence past…that's whom!

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

Domus,

If you feel that people only view the world within the constraints of those three options, you're missing a big one – nirvana – which in itself is an entire category, an entire option.

Nirvana is inexplicable, it can't be expressed without actual feeling.  It defies conceptualization.. it's like trying to explain the color red to someone that has been blind since birth.  It's difficult if not impossible!  You can try to explain it, using concepts.. but then you have to use more concepts to explain the previous concepts, and before you know it, all you're left with is words and no experience.

The experience is the meat of it.

Of course reality isn't absolute.. and even as a Quantum Mechanist, you're only seeing part of the picture and not the whole… and which you admit to being true, which is good – because most people think that everything they see and feel and touch is “the absolute truth.”  So you're already ahead of them.  =)

Yes, reality is a mindboggling blend of contradictions.. and it is just that, and  the nature of why we suffer from it, that prompted the Buddha to seek awakening.  He did realize – without limitations – the nature of reality, and it is what he tried to teach in his 45 years of being a monk.  In the view of Buddhists, what you're trying to do has already long since been done.

What you're looking for, even if you don't realize it yet, is nirvana.. by whatever name you want to call it.  A change in perception is not enough to make you a different person or change your life – trust me, I've had a “glimpse” of awakening before, but very far from the full deal – and even that alone was not enough to change a person, unless they kept that perception in mind constantly.  It isn't easy.  Changes in perception don't change your habits and patterns.

What makes it easier is improving concentration and insight in tandem… dropping the fetters that color your perception and keep you bogged down.. like anger, delusion, attachment, etc… and only then will reality start to shine through and better still – stay with you.

In any case, I hope you are able to accomplish what it is you're setting out to do, and wish you all the best!  If you have any other questions, feel free..

-Rob AKA shadowmonkx

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

Look, it has nothing to do with Nirvana.
Nirvana, is already in itself a description of something. And therefore already subdivided in these three categories. I am not talking about theories, I am talking about the assumptive nature of mankind behind theoretical reasoning.

I do not know if there are any more of these categories. I would like to, but I don't. I do know several examples of explanations of realities that can be subdivided in these three things.

–“In the view of Buddhists, what you're trying to do has already long since been done.” –

Honestly said, I have had some sort of an awakening, a few years ago. And JaBuddha somehow experienced it. He called it Buddha, it is since then that I even ponder Buddhism at all. I perfectly realise and use many concepts that buddhism uses. And I most honestly say, that Buddhistic views. (besides any dogmatic teachings) are in my honest opinion, perhaps the (at least for me) best way to describe the course of reality.
I have long ago dealed and dealt with most if not on occasion all the feters, even though I know that an emotional life, as one I choose on occasion. Is a direct opposition of those ideals.
I do not belief in an ego. I have no doubt about what I preach when I do preach it, at least what I deem to be true. I have no graving for tradition or ritual. I have no need for more things then I need to have to survive, I enjoy life itself. I see no reason to dread my head with doom mongering or elaborate theories, I cannot test for truth in real life. As far as I know I am not ignorant.
I am called Arrogant, but I don't feel myself good at all, I do however have an answer for basicly everything people ask me, and the will to help (which is bad) tends people to see me as arrogant. the ' I know better ' Arrogance, whereas I only offer them the options. Not tell them what to do.
I choose to have sensual desire on occasion. But am well able of putting myself over it whenever I need and want to do so. Overal I have few obstacles at all. Yes, It took me time to overcome them. And most of all attachement is difficult. For if you want to have a relationship, attachement is inevitable. But as you can read my blog ' The new attachement approach is working!'

All of that is not of the matter. Buddha was just the first person to perceive a whole truth explanation. And in my opinion the best so far. But it isn't the only one, and neither the only working one.
If several 'truths' work.

Who are we to say only one is right?

Who are we to say that arguments from my point of view, from my reality. Can even be applicable in someone else's reality? : We can't!

We will need to look, beyond reality, to find the reality behind the axiomatic reasoning of mankind itself. Perhaps we even need to look behind Consciousness itself, to find what is the foundation of reality.

And perhaps buddha wasn't just single mindedness. After all he is also called the 9th avatar…
But that is really the idea of this post.

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

Mary - hehe, it's cool.. and stuff like that doesn't just happen to you, trust me!  ;)

Domus - No, don't you see … Nirvana is NOT explained conceptually, and it is NOT theoretical.  It's real, but it's not explicible without experience.  Thus, it is in a category all its own.. that's the entire point of Buddhism, a new level of experience, of reality.  Not more of the same, not more conceptualization and dualism that can be pigeonholed.

Dualistic reality is what Buddhists are trying to change.

Perfectly realizing concepts and LIVING them are two different things.  I understand much of Buddhism intellectually, conceptually.. it's an entirely different matter to actually live it all.

The fetters are not things you “deal with” as they come up when you're fully enlightened – they're eliminated completely.  They don't exist for you anymore.  So to say that you have them, and moreover … to explain your level of experience cognitively, intellectually.. tells me that you are still, like many of us, working from an intellectual level.. and have not yet tasted the deathless, nirvana, for yourself.  Once you do, there is no going back to the way things were.

“Ignorance” or “delusion” in Buddhism is belief in an independent, separate self.  So long as you are talking about the “way humans perceive reality,” you are still stuck in that belief.  This is why the Buddha eventually called himself, “Tathagata,” or “this is suchness”.. because it no longer felt appropriate for him to use the term “I,” or “me,” or “mine,” as it would confuse his monks more.  Interestingly, this is also why a lot of Asian languages don't have the “I” subject.. so for example, “I am going to the store” ends up being, “Am going to the store” instead.

You yourself define your personality or approach as “arrogant”.. so it's worth mentioning that one of the fetters is Pride. And the fetters are usually eliminated in order.. with these three being eliminated, not just suppressed, first (which would make one a Sotapanna, or Stream-Winner.. the first stage of awakening):

belief in an individual self (Pali: sakkāya-diṭṭhi)[4]
doubt or uncertainty, especially about the teachings (vicikicchā)[5]
attachment to rites and rituals (sīlabbata-parāmāso)[6]
So long as you are having views like this:

“This is how [a person of wrong view] attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? … Shall I be in the future? … Am I? Am I not? What am I? …'

“As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: …

'I have a self…'
'I have no self…'
'It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self…'
'It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self…'
'It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self…'
'This very self of mine … is the self of mine that is constant…'
 
“This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed … is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.”[17]

Then you are still attached to the view of an independent, individual, separate self.  Which is fine – it's a very, very hard thing to eradicate and will take years, if not a lifetime, of serious meditation to eliminate.

I'm glad that you agree that Buddha was the first, if not the best.  I agree… and this is why I choose Buddhism for myself.  =)
Of course, there are other approaches, as you say.. but I'd rather be the person that takes one good medicine prescribed by the best Doctor, rather than 6 different medications from different Doctors.. you don't know which one, if at all, is working.. and they might have a serious, deadly interaction!  ;)

I agree, reality is subjective.  But I guess the best way of putting it is that Nirvana becomes objective reality, and subjective.. both at the same time. And neither.  It won't make sense so long as you are mired in conceptual, intellectual thinking.  It will only make sense to a person that has attained Nirvana.  I haven't – but I trust that it is the case, as it “makes sense” intellectually – and this “belief in the teachings” is one less fetter for me to worry about.  ;)

This is not to say that I don't keep an open mind – I do – but I also know, from knowledge and experience, what is likely not not likely to work for me.  Do what works for you, by all means.  There's no harm in that, so long as you keep becoming a better person in the eyes of 99% of other people.

Beyond consciousness?  Now you're talking about the movie, The Matrix.. which I loved.  And who knows, maybe life is just a dream – like the old song, “row, row, row your boat, gently down the stream.. merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily.. life is but a dream.”

The Buddha is the 9th Avatara in Hinduism… but he was “added” to the Hindu religion to give more weight to the Hindu religion.. and not for a good reason.  He was added because he is supposed to be an incarnation of Lord Vishnu, who used the “wrong teaching” to destroy demons. So, basically, this Hindu belief is saying that Buddha was not teaching the right stuff.  That's how it was written and believed originally, but of course, many modern Hindus disagree with that and think that – like us – Buddha was teaching the right stuff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha_as_an_Avatar_of_Vishnu).

Cheers,

-Rob AKA shadowmonkx

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

I know that you do not like to see this discussed like this. (at least, I think you don't)

But there is an important language barrier effect to be noticed here.
As humans, and especially on this forum, we use language to communicate. Each word and order of words representing thoughts and concepts. I am not searching for a pigeonhole either. I am searching to find the connection between different realities. As you say it yourself Buddhism is a 'new level of experience, of reality'. So, it is just another reality.

What I think of, and what I try to comprehend, goes beyond dualism. It is also beyond conceptualization. That is what makes it so hard.
I see how Buddhism would as to quote yourself: “Dualistic reality is what Buddhists are trying to change.”
In essence here too you see that Buddhism is an attempt to change humans interpretation of reality. right?
Disregarding the plain fact that I myself am real, and thus subject to my own reality. It isn't a factor that stops me to look at other realities. Or other interpretations of it.

What I propose here, has nothing to do with the contents of these realities. As the matter of fact. It has nothing to do with the concepts, realizations or any other result the Buddhist interpretation might render.
It has only to do with the nature of these results, the nature of thought, the path of a Buddhist thinker. The logic behind his reasoning with respect to measurable quanta like space, time and energy. But again, it doesn't matter what results this logic results.

In short, In order to do this objectively, or to find the answers I need. It is imperative, that you understand, that it has nothing to do with the teachings of Buddhism whatsoever.

Why do I do this? Well, by understanding a world, that doesn't even have a notion like belief, or notions of any concepts or even a dependence of viewpoint. Basically understanding (something) without having pre-made assumptions. By seeing the connections between all made assumptions in the world that is lived by others around you.

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

Domus

Thank you for jumping back in ;-) I hate spending hours on a thread when the questor is setting people up to be wrong, then bat them down with their hidden agenda. It is a time-honored teacher's trick, but a waste of time in the adult world. We are not here to play party games!

Language can certainly a barrier to understanding!

Once it is seen there is really only one reality, then the words become very difficult, as language depends on distinction, carving things from the whole to compare and construct into ideology.

Which is why the intellect can't get to the One. It creates many relative “realities,” which are actually hallucinatory, but unfortunately remain the state of human affairs, so heavily conditioned are we to believe whatever tripe the Mind cooks up.

But truly, only One thing is Happening right NOW.

catch it if you can!

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

And how do you exactly know that there is only one reality?
What are your arguments for that?

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

To my knowledge, there is only one reality but certainly has many different ways on how to perceive such a matter of confidence, and is but another step into ones growth and capacity towards it's infinite wisdom.

If there is more of a structured reality in the heavens, would that not mean that there is more than one god?

To be a part of this infinite structure, is a classic case of finding ones self through this mass media of destruction, (earthly measures) that we are now dealing with.

Buddha is, and can be a complexive derogatory means to a measure, and is also a means to an end…if you get my drift.  It aids in many ways of letting go;  opens a channel of insightful means;  crisps ones many mistakes of channels that were/are put into ones souls, and refines/renews a better way to understanding ones livelihood…enlightenment, in other-wards.

My doctrine also comes in many fashions.  I move with enlightenment of other ways as well, in order to achieve my goals.  Buddha, is but one of them, which I find is one of the big ones, and high on my list of others as well, such as, the Gnostic, and the Occult ways of religion.  And please do not let the word “Occult” fool you….it is but a theosophical science of a structure to another means of insightful balance which I aid myself to, and not of an evil cult, by any means.

Thank you for listening, and may God Bless,
Rita

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

It could very well be that, given the concepts of gods, that why not? Why should there be only one god, if gods could exist?
I hope you are doing well. ;)

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

Domus,

I agree with Mary and mum's the word.. and I've been feeling what she's said for a while.  It does seem as though you're baiting this forum by asking the same question over and over and over again.. you're just rewording it each time.  And I keep rephrasing my answer (which is and will remain the same) for you.  Then, when you seem to get stuck doing that, you throw a new stick in the wheel that gets it going all over again – like when you attempt to argue whether there's one or many gods.

Anyway, here's my response:

You said: “As you say it yourself Buddhism is a 'new level of experience, of reality'. So, it is just another reality.”

..no, it's not just another reality.  If everything you see now is like looking through a foggy window – and I'm looking through the same window, but it's not foggy for me – our reality is the same.  But as I alluded to before, our PERCEPTION of it and the way we react to it (wisdom) is different.  With different perception and wisdom comes a more… well, realistic.. way of living.

Your reality right now – and that of most people – is dualistic.  Me, mine, they, theirs, good, bad, rich, poor, enlightened, unenlightened, one reality, several realities.

As I said before… dualism is the way that most people see life.. but it's a foggy window they're seeing life through.  It's not the clearest, sharpest image they can find.  Everything looks distorted, and honestly, a little dream-like to most people.  If, as you say, you understand non-duality and your “reality” is trying to get away from that, as well, then all this talk about one reality or many is ridiculous.  You're arguing about a dualistic concept.  For example, you can't have light without darkness.  Darkness and light are NOT opposites – but they're not the same, either.  They're also not both at the same time.  They're not “neither” at the same time.  Light and dark just are.  Light doesn't exist alone, it only exists because there's darkness.  Darkness is only dark compared with something… in this case, how much light there “is not.”

Buddhists try to appreciate this concept viscerally… experientially.. not intellectually.  Intellectual understanding comes first, but then we actually have to get to the “bones” of it and do the work in making it part of our daily life.  When one sees that there are no longer opposites.. one tends to be more happy in the present moment, not regaling in the past or seeking the future.  Because, to re-word the old saying, “the grass is greener not on the other side, but right here.” (and neither, ha..)

You also said: “Disregarding the plain fact that I myself am real, and thus subject to my own reality.”

You're real?  Tell me.. which part of you is permanent, not subject to suffering and can be said to be “the self?”  Your brain?  Your mind?  Would either work without your body?  Oh, so you need a body?  But your body ages, it decays, it changes constantly.. and so does your mental impressions of your body, how it looks, feels.. and how your perceptions of things are.  So, what part of you, is “you?”  There's is just a flux of form, feeling, perception, mental objects and resultant consciousness.  This is the teaching of anicca, “not-self'.”

And no, Buddhists are not trying to make anyone change their reality.  We're not known to proselyetize.  However, if we are asked, or someone seeks us out (as you are), we are happy to share our knowledge and experience of things with them.

You stated, “Why do I do this? Well, by understanding a world, that doesn't even have a notion like belief, or notions of any concepts or even a dependence of viewpoint.”

…well, see, I don't have any assumptions about nirvana, that's the entire reason for my defining it as “another reality” – it's really the same reality, with just a much, much cleaner window to look through.  For most people, ANY change in perception – from being one of those “glass half empty” to “glass half full” types of people – is a “different” reality.

For a wise Buddhist, we appreciate, in the gut, that the glass is half empty, half full, both and neither – all at the same time!

Your reality is whatever you think it is.  Mine is whatever I think it is.  But just because something is “your reality” doesn't mean that you're not suffering, not causing others to suffer, or hurting the world in general.  Buddhists strive to avoid harming themselves, others or the world.  We try to have a reality that is consistent with the world around it – and which promotes peace, happiness and understanding.

So… if you insist that your version of reality is right… why are you trying so hard to argue it, to make us agree with or see it?  No matter what, you essentially made your own case for “multiple realities” if “our” reality is different from yours.. yes?  ;)

Oh, and as for how many gods there are.. I don't know, and I'm not really overly concerned about it.  I have never met a god, and a god has not played – that I know of – a direct part in my path.

I will say this, though: if you were a god and had unlimited power, would creating humans and the earth impress you?  Or would you be bored having an ant farm after a while… especially if “one human year” is a single day for you?  Would it be fair for humans to live only once, and for the short time they're here, enjoy either eternal bliss or eternal damnation?  Think about it; god is supposed to be immortal.. so human life is short by comparison.

Morever, consider this: if creation is the domain of a god, who created god?  Was god always just there?  I mean, did god just wake up one day and go, 'holy crap, I just created myself and almost missed my first Birthday, I better have a cup of coffee so I can deal with this!” Why would that be any more farfetched than the big bang, where energy and matter was “just there?”

I think, if there were a god.. or gods… that the most interesting thing you could do would be to make yourself lose ALL knowledge of the fact that you're a god, spread yourself out.. and “find yourself” again.  Like, you know, maybe being a bunch of humans seeking enlightenment and when one human, one part of yourself reaches enlightenment… realizing: “I have Buddha/God/Allah/Vishnu/etc. nature already!  I AM god nature!”  =)

For what it's worth, strict (Theravada) Buddhism – per the Pali Canon (Tripitaka) – doesn't believe in a creator god, or at least, it is not addressed.  What was addressed that even deities are subject to the three marks of existence: that they are impermanent (not immortal), subject to suffering (jealousy, rage, unhappiness, etc.) and like us, cannot be said to have a self (anicca).  The sects of Buddhism that DO deify or archetype Buddha or the famous masters (Mahayana, Vajrayana, etc.) are mostly due to cultural trappings that stuck with those forms of Buddhism over time.

I hope that this has fully answered your questions, as I am pretty sure that I've done so many times already.  Should you have any… ah.. more genuine questions or concerns, I can't speak for anyone else but I would be happy to answer them.  However, I can only explain/debate the nature of reality so much before it gets irksome… and I don't think that I'm eager to do it all over again.

All the best in your quest,

-Rob AKA shadowmonkx

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

I will of course find a contradiction to it, and the reason for it you will find at the very last paragraph of this piece.

” If everything you see now is like
looking through a foggy window – and I'm looking through the same
window, but it's not foggy for me – our reality is the same. ”
You could see 'foggy' as an attribute of the window. In which case your perception (foggy = false) is different from mine (foggy = true) If this is indeed the same, it doesn't even have to imply that there is a transverse route between your perception and mine. Since we both observe. It could very well be, that our perceptions are irreconcilable and that we are can doubt the terminology of ' having seen the same window'. This is a fundemental propery of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. (CIQM)

I see no flaw in what you say, not in any way does it contradict what I think. (Your darkness light argumentation)
Simply even in CIQM this is evident, particles simply exist in contradictive properties at the same time! (and no this isn't contradictory to the above paragraph)

I find it amusing that when I say that I am real, you empathise the I. In the other cases where I might be real, or am not real. I can only wonder, would I be able to use this forum? In case of the unexistence of this writer. I'd say no. In the case that maybe the writer is existing, it means that somewhere somehow he is not. And until that is found I am neither. In my opinion it is safe to assume (for myself) that I am real. In the sense of an object of reality. Not in the sense of an I or ego. I see myself as a sub-group of the parent-group 'reality'.

I am sorry I over judged buddhist by stating they want to change people, I know better. Please accept my apologies.

I am not religious, nor my parents or any part of my life. Personally I simply do not see the use of anything alike a god. And create my own world daily. So. Why a god really?
Though I understand your frustration (for I share it regularly) about people assuming that god is existant and omnipotent etc. etc. etc. Very, very frustrating.

The last paragraph:

Okay I make this specially for you shadowmonkx because it is you who have so much trouble with what I say, but are also patient enough to reply.

My reasoning goes as follows. (in intuistionistic logic)

prime statement: 1. I can prove my reality is real.
1 –> false –> I cannot prove my reality is real 2.
1 –> Maybe –> I might be able to prove my reality but don't know how 3.
1 –> True –> please show it to us! because you would win the nobel prize.

in cases 2 and 3. I am not yet able to prove my reality is real or not. Hence I make assumptions upon it. in case 3. Naturally this is the buddhist super position. (remember the term)
Either way, It would require and argument of solipsism to say that other have in the end the same assumptions.
If you do, there is no use talking to you, because you are blind for arguments.
If you don't (which most normal people do)
You find yourself in the position where you can only say there are multiple assumptions for realities! Disregarding what the content of that reality might be. (thereby avoiding claims of existence)

My only question on this forum would be.
Are the number of those assumptions discrete, or continues (infinite)?

Love to hear your input.

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

Hi, Domus,

Yes, I too find it frustrating when people try to convert you or convince you that their god is the best and that you need their salvation, without evidence.

Your premise of looking AT the window is flawed.. it's what you're seeing THROUGH the window that is reality.  You're looking through one window – which is fogged, and let's say that the one I'm looking out of is clear and clean.  We're seeing the same single reality, but different interpretations or perception of it.

In any case, you bringing up quantum mechanics raises an interesting point.. Buddha was apparently the first person to appreciate and teach what amounts to modern science – much of chaos theory, quantum mechanics, etc.  Check out Buddhist Abhidhamma or Abhidharma… phenomenology/psychology.. it'll give you a headache.

Thanks for the apology, and np.

Same with my family.

To answer your question.. ONE objective reality (unless we're talking about parallel universes, multiple dimensions, etc.. in which case, scientists have some insight – such as that we theoretically have a twin in a parallel universe a certain mathematical distance from here – but no one really knows for sure)… and MANY, if not an infinitude, of subjective realities.  The reason I believe this is because it makes sense intellectually, scientifically, and spiritually.  Even if we're all plugged into some kind of thing like The Matrix and each of us has a different version if it we're stuck in – there's still a common reality that we're all plugging in from (that we just need to remove the plug to see).

You are the One.

But, to each person, their reality is “the only one.”  And they sit around theorizing about other realities like we do.. lol.

Hope this helps,

-Rob

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

yes, Rob, nice Domus! Thank you for civilization!

i would only add, Rob, is that even in the event of alternate universes, multiple dimensions, etc., that there is only one thing happening right NOW. If it is expressing through the above, or wherever, that is where IT is. The leading edge of creation is big-banging away, fractalizing to infinity, within and without. It takes any form it wants to! But only one, inclusive of all aspects, all alternates, all dimensions, whatever they happen to be…. NOW.

just because we can't see something doesn't make it nonexistent. Mind is not entirely comfortable with that, preferring speculation to the Vast Unknown.

having stumbled onto this path via study of physics, I have never been indoctrinated in a church or religion, other than my parents' atheism, which reeked of faulty premise to me, even as a child. I was just aware enough to see clearly you can't know what you don't know. What lurks just beyond the edges of the Known. The perimeter of which has been shrinking my whole life, from the grandiosity of the child, so certain she could conquer all the unknowns of the universe, to now, when the mystery fits my mind like a glove…

and from there, only magic!

I am seeing that Mind exhibits perfect correlates to the physical universe. Fascinating! The paradoxical core (the barrier/portal between mind and truth) resembles the singularity of the black hole. Synchronicity resembles neural synapse, in that thought creates potential, like a vacuum, for Nature to fill…. Gravity resembles love, in that it pulls us to center and never reduces to zero, no matter how little mass nor how much intervening space. It appears these two planes: mind and form, obey the same laws, with perhaps a difference in phasing along a spectrum of expanding complexity…

anyway - that's just me, noodling up a good sci-fi ;-) Nothing any actual expert is talking about, i don't think! Nothing to prove - just food for thought…

but you heard it here first!

I can even prove we can't possibly exist! But it is more a comedy routine, with a good point. Even though i firmly suspect it is true, i am no mathematician ;-) But  others are left scratching their heads, unable to find a way to disprove it! So it is good enough for FUN!

be well!

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

Thank you, I think that in general that does answer what I sought.

And to all people, if you ever want Quantum mechanics explained, just post a question in the Quantum group

It happens often that people mess up different aspects of QM that aren't reconcidable.

Re: Questioning the single mindedness of Buddhism

Thanks, Domus.

Thanks, Mary… I agree with your points.  :)

Take care!