How do Buddhists reconcile the doctrines of anatman and of reincarnation? If there is no self, who is it that reincarnates?
How do Buddhists reconcile the doctrines of anatman and moralfaggotry? If there is no self, who can commit or be victim to bad deeds?
How do Buddhists reconcile the doctrines of anatman and of enlightenment? If there is no self, who is there to enlighten?
Other urls found in this thread:
accesstoinsight.org
accesstoinsight.org
accesstoinsight.org
audiodharma.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
bookfi.net
globethics.net
twitter.com
Veeky Forums - literature
Yes, I'm asking the lads here who've read sutras and the like. I know they're around from previous threads.
Here's your answer - your questions are invalid.
accesstoinsight.org
in addition you may read the Buddha's sermons to Vacchagotta, where he dismantles the views behind your questions.
accesstoinsight.org
Critically:
>"And suppose someone were to ask you, 'This fire that has gone out in front of you, in which direction from here has it gone? East? West? North? Or south?' Thus asked, how would you reply?"
>"That doesn't apply, Master Gotama. Any fire burning dependent on a sustenance of grass and timber, being unnourished — from having consumed that sustenance and not being offered any other — is classified simply as 'out' (unbound)."
>"Even so, Vaccha, any physical form by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of form, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply.
further reading
the flame and candle stuff
if you prefer to listen rather than read then here is a good, entertaining talk from Leigh Brasington on the topic you are discussing.
Dunno about the second one, OP. I've wondered that myself. However, as to the first one:
It is precisely the atman who reincarnated. The word reincarnate literally means something like become physical again. The atman is the ground of being, and we are each but an incarnation of this ground of being. Thus there are not individual selves who reincarnate, but one self incarnated in many forms.
As to the third one:
When one becomes enlightened, what is really happening is the atman comes to know itself.
>How do Buddhists reconcile the doctrines of anatman and of reincarnation? If there is no self, who is it that reincarnates?
>How do Buddhists reconcile the doctrines of anatman and moralfaggotry? If there is no self, who can commit or be victim to bad deeds?
>How do Buddhists reconcile the doctrines of anatman and of enlightenment? If there is no self, who is there to enlighten
Doctrine of the two truths
this is Hinduism, not Buddhism
That sounds pretty Parmenidesque
I've not read a lot of buddhist literature yet but it does seem to have some fairly fundamental flaws but you don't understand the idea of self I don't think. I'll answer what I can.
The part of you that reincarnates is not your self you have layers of self. The gross self, subtle self and then another I dont rememeber the name of. It is the most subtle one that is reborn it doesnt contain your memories but certain attributes of a living being I think it means like how easy to anger etc. How prone you are to good and bad, innate nature etc.
We commit deeds and they can be good or bad. Just because a being is stuck in sansara doesn't mean it's okay to hurt it or encourage it deeper into sanara.
Enlightenment is achieved roughly by purifying all the layers of self until there is only the most subtle one or indeed something else which only a buddha or bodhisattva would understand. You have dispelled all illusion and achieved unlimited patience, understanding and compassion. Even if you had no self then there would be other selfs to help along the way.
What I want to know is where are all the Buddhas? Who/what is keeping score of karma? Is it possible to stop the wheel? If Buddhas were capable of all they were supposed to be why do they leave, why don't they stay and guide all life away from sansara and towards enlightenment. And others but I can't remember them right now.
Oops, you're right. My apologies OP.
I don't know much about Parmenides, but I'd be interested if you wanted to elaborate a bit.
Now you're starting to get it!
yeah there are definitely some parallels that can be drawn there
Thanks for the helpful posts so far lads
Mahayana a shit.
Heretical views desu
reincarnation takes place in samsara. once nirvana is realized, which includes no self, you are no longer affected by samsaric elements.
...
>If Buddhas were capable of all they were supposed to be why do they leave, why don't they stay and guide all life away from sansara and towards enlightenment.
because hedonists who love hedonism will do anything to stay as hedonist as they can, in compromising the dhamma with hedonism until they no longer can.
there is no self, there is no reincarnation, there is no enlightenment
there is no spoon XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
>Dunno about the second one, OP. I've wondered that myself. However, as to the first one:
>How do Buddhists reconcile the doctrines of anatman and moralfaggotry? If there is no self, who can commit or be victim to bad deeds?
there is no morality as you think of it in the dhamma.
in the dhamma, there is a polarization of thoughts, speech, act:
-you have the pole of the material hedonist
-you have the pole of the spiritual hedonist
-you have the pole of nibanna
the goal is to understand
-that you begin as material hedonist
-that material hedonism is just here to support spiritual hedonism [=the jhanas, samatha]
-the jhanas are here to support the vision of the dhamma
-so far you have pure faith and you try to understand the dhamma (and fail)
-once you see the dhamma, you lose faith to gain certainty, you stop reflecting on all the dhamma and start practicing the dhamma
you go deeper into tranquility and paramitas, precisely because you know that what you feel and think is rubbish to be happy (and that rituals will never get you anything by themselves, that you must do the work yourself]
-then you have nibanna
what people call morality is ''the tranquility and paramitas towards what they think *is not* their self'' and what people call meditation is ''the tranquility and paramitas towards what they think *is* their self''.
keep your illusions.
"Having approached the brahmans & contemplatives who hold that... 'Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by what was done in the past,' I said to them: 'Is it true that you hold that... "Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by what was done in the past?"' Thus asked by me, they admitted, 'Yes.' Then I said to them, 'Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of what was done in the past. A person is a thief... unchaste... a liar... a divisive speaker... a harsh speaker... an idle chatterer... greedy... malicious... a holder of wrong views because of what was done in the past.' When one falls back on what was done in the past as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my first righteous refutation of those brahmans & contemplatives who hold to such teachings, such views.
>skellies from the 4th edition monster manuel
interesting choice of image
bump
>escape reincarnation and achieve the nothingness of nirvana
why?
infinitely reincarnating sounds better to me
>Who/what is keeping score of karma?
I'unno, who makes sure the laws of nature are followed?
>If Buddhas were capable of all they were supposed to be why do they leave, why don't they stay and guide all life away from sansara and towards enlightenment.
A Buddha is only one man, he can't live your life for you.
well how can you tell if you havent tried?
> (OP)
>Here's your answer - your questions are invalid.
>accesstoinsight.org
>
>Mahayana a shit.
>Heretical views desu
In reference to this comment: does anyone else have a hard time differentiating which views in buddhism are considered doctrine? I still can't seem to determine what is widely believed and what is a fringe heretical viewpoint.
>does anyone else have a hard time differentiating which views in buddhism are considered doctrine?
Mahayana is confusing because it is so internally diverse itself. This is pretty clear on the parallel Buddhist forums dharmawheel.net (Mahayana) and dhammawheel.net (Theravada).
On the Theravada forum you get quite in depth philosophical discussions because almost everyone on the forum is working from the same basis - the Pali canon.
On the Mahayana forum discussions often dissolve into mystical bullshit or total impasse because the discussants dont hold the same assumptions, don't hold the same texts as authoritative - eg. Zen guys talking with Tibetan guys talking with Japanese Pure Land guys talking with oldschool ethnic Chinese eclectics - their differences are just as big as those between Theravada and Mahayana.
So before you get on to which school is 'truest' or most useful, just from an intellectual point of view discussions within the Theravada tradition are more interesting because they are easier to follow.
All of your questions are flawed. It's not that there is no self. It's that there is one transpersonal self that includes us all.
Your question, OP, was always thorny issue. There's no single answer, because there's also no single Buddhism. However the most sophisticated answer comes from Yogacara philosophy.
In the Theravada there are a number of replies. One of the most prominent would be the candle and flame metaphor from the Milinda Panha. That is, consciousness is like a flame - it can spread into multiple reincarnations just like a candle can light other candles. It's simultaneously singular and multiple. That's a pretty ingenious way around the problem.
Mahayana Buddhism has two quite opposite philosophical schools within it. The Madhyamakins did not answer this question - their system is no holds barred logical deconstruction and never ventured into metaphysics. The Yogacarin's, however, did answer the question with the doctrine of Alyavijnana, often translated as "storehouse consciousness."
In the alya consciousness theory, all phenomena (dharmas) are "seeds" (bijas) which are planted in the storehouse consciousness. Depending on which seeds one waters, some will manifest while others will stay latent. If we manifest the seeds which tie us to samsara, we will be reincarnated.
Now the "we" doing the "watering" are actually just karmic assemblages of these seeds, so it's not a "self" which reincarnates, so to speak.
The alaya consciousness was thought of as a super subtle level of consciousness which persists through reincarnation. So, to critique the yocarins, it's basically just moving the problem of the atman up another level. The alaya persists no matter what, it is the yogacarin's job to let the seeds of samsara wither away and lie latent, however, while watering the seeds of liberation.
In China there was no concept of an atman in the first place, so things got really whacky there when they were trying to bring in yogacara. Basically, Buddhism imported the idea of atman into China so that they could refute it. It never made sense to the Chinese though, which is part of why the Indian divisions of Buddhist philosophy didn't persist in China past the Tang dynasty.
Void is form and form is void.
It's a hard concept to intellectualize and yields no spiritual benefits once intellectualized/conceptualized.
Buddha tried avoiding questions such as is there a self... because he will inevtiably lead to both extremes (there is no self; there is a self). What he taught was "non-self".
I like Thanissaro Bikkhu's explanation of it. Again, it yields no spiritual fruits through by reading alone, without application or through realization, its almost useless.
Forgot my link:
accesstoinsight.org
Some noteworthy clips:
> instead of answering "no" to the question of whether or not there is a self — interconnected or separate, eternal or not — the Buddha felt that the question was misguided to begin with. Why? No matter how you define the line between "self" and "other," the notion of self involves an element of self-identification and clinging, and thus suffering and stress
>If you develop the path of virtue, concentration, and discernment to a state of calm well-being and use that calm state to look at experience in terms of the Noble Truths, the questions that occur to the mind are not "Is there a self? What is my self?" but rather "Am I suffering stress because I'm holding onto this particular phenomenon? Is it really me, myself, or mine? If it's stressful but not really me or mine, why hold on?"
Buddhism doesn't need to be made complex, the initial frameworks are ENOUGH to bring you to liberation (Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path). The rest, "non-self", dependent origination naturally stems from increased spiritual accomplishments and should be discussed with a teacher in relation to a meditation practice.
Otherwise, its like being a Buddhist scholar; you may have read all of the Dhamma and understand its intricacies but that doesn't make you enlightened.
I knew chinese people didn't have souls
bimp
Not OP, but thank you for sharing. Good post.
Hence why I feel Hinduism makes more sense than what I've seen of Buddhism.
Are you an ubermensch?
But the laws of nature can be revealed to some extent. I know it's all supposed to be delusion etc. but what stops karma from being a delusion especially when it is so wishy washy and impossible to trace. Where does a river begin/end where is it not a river metaphor etc.. At what point does karma mature into cosmic benevolence or downfall. If I poison a stream and kill a village of people but in time that village would have become a warmongering nation if they were left to survive for 200 years but I robbed those people of 199 years of peace and prosperity where some of them may have learned and spread dharma and achieved good in the world what did my action ultimately achieve.
To my understanding a Buddha is more than a man even if that is the vessel which he is in at that time. If he truly attained Buddhahood he may well have been able to live my life for me. He may already have been me at some point in the cycle and seen it.
Because life is ultimately suffering (everything you love will fade/rot/die etc.) and the more compassionate you become the more aware of that you are supposed to become and the more you would wish to see an end to suffering. When it all comes crumbling down you start to let in more of the bad stuff like fear/anger/greed and this affects your rebirth so become something which is scared and hungry like a gazelle and get you and your kids' asses ripped off by a lion and so spiral lower on the rebirth scale until you become a vile bacteria that produces an enormous fatal wart on the bellend of some child molestor and then you might get to be human again and have another shot at Buddhism and escaping because you have gone through this cycle forever as it has no beginning or end. I like the idea of being compassionate and simply learning to weather the storm of decay better. Learn to suffer for each other. I think buddhism needs to be missing something simply because there seem to be no Buddhas. If there was one he got there without Buddhism. Maybe I'm talking nonsense and too fond of Hesse's Siddartha.
Why is mastering the art of rolling over and taking it with a smile on your face the way out, surely if we truly master acceptance, then nirvana becomes less appealling? Are we letting go of Sansara or is it letting go of us (I guess it might not matter but the bond that apparantly keeps us is interesting)? Where does delusion start and end?
In all the possible ways we could exist does the path stay the same? If we consider the wheel to turn before and after the death and rebirth of our universe at which point the laws of nature as we know them may change all progress is lost. The wheel can't be stopped, someone will always be left behind which begs the question if we can truly leave it even attaining enlightenment. Could you really go and get your lotus on in nirvana when there are other's stuck in sansara, is that compassion?
Think it might be bedtime. Apologies for the great jumbled word vomit.
Phrased in terms of kama, The whole purpose of the dhamma is to stop caring about the kamma.
Only followers of other sects care about the kamma.
To my understandment, karma comes from your intentions, not from the actions' results. Also, your actions don't achieve anything.
>If he truly attained Buddhahood he may well have been able to live my life for me.
He can't make you do things you don't want to do, nothing can.
>Because life is ultimately suffering (everything you love will fade/rot/die etc.)
To say life is purely suffering doesn't paint the whole picture. For things to exist it means they must have come into being, and so there is transcience, and so they will stop being some time. For suffering to exist means there is pleasure, because neither of them stand, nor can stand, on their own. For any process to take place means there must be time passing. Things don't exist in isolation. The realized exist because there are those that aren't realized--if those didn't exist, how could you call them realized?
Do you get it? If, for example, you wanted to stop time (i.e. the absolute sum of all activity) in order to have enough time to do the actions you think imperative to do, that is like trying to bath in a frozen river.
>If there was one he got there without Buddhism.
en.wikipedia.org
>Why is mastering the art of rolling over and taking it with a smile on your face the way out, surely if we truly master acceptance, then nirvana becomes less appealling?
What makes you think those need be different?
>Are we letting go of Sansara or is it letting go of us (I guess it might not matter but the bond that apparantly keeps us is interesting)? Where does delusion start and end?
It's called the Middle Way for a reason, see
your perspective is not limited to the character you have created in this life. you have forgotten most of the things that have happened in your life. you are a different person than your 15 year old self.
1. Put it this way. You get reincarnated but as another person. The new 'You' has no memory of the old 'You'. It's all still you though, so if you hate another you are hating yourself etc..
To quote Schopenhauer on the indestructibility of being:
"Death announces itself frankly as the end of the individual, but in this individual there lies as the germ of a new being. Thus nothing that dies dies for ever; but nothing that is born receives a fundamentally new existence"
Also: it was said that the Buddha when he reached enlightenment was able to commune with the past and future Buddhas.
2. Karma. You can take selves out of the equation and you still have 'positive/negative' karma. That's why they say past events can affect you now. I.e. a person in the past has created such a state of karma that you're now feeling the effects of it. But always remember point 1. when thinking about karma. The West is quite bad at comprehending why 'bad things happen to good people' because they dont realise "cosmic karma" (as I call it) doesnt strictly operate within the bounds of individuality. You hate another you hate yourself, but it could be a past, present of future self. Why act morally? Because 'moral actions' bring cessation of suffering and enlightenment.
3. Enlightenment doesnt require a self, in fact once you're enlightened you realise there is no self. One could say it's a state in which you've fully relinquished the hold of the ego. This can be described as a 'stillness' or 'tranquility', but a lot of these words fall short because of their emotional connotations. Emotions and 'normal' mental states you experience in your non enlightened state give you no real preparation for what you become. But dont forget you never get 'there' because it's not a point.
Enlightenment is more a note in a song, but then again no one note makes a song does it?
Hope that answers your questions, I can go into more detail but I'm trying to keep it brief for people who havent studied buddhism.
does Veeky Forums enjoy eating meat? what's Veeky Forums's views on veganism?
Serious question guys
I'm a vegetarian. I worked in a slaughterhouse for three years before I ducked up my back, never could eat meat again after seeing all that shit. I don't really care what people do, vegetarianism is probably morally and ethically Right but for me it's just because I have meat-PTSD
A lot of excellent answers here.
Beforehand, I apologize for this barbaric rendition of a process that has been better described in a lot of other places (and in more poetic ways).
Here's one train of thought:
1. One could view "Reincarnation" as a metaphor for the transition between objects of perception.
2. Being mindful of such a transition brings the realization that the transition itself can be an object of perception.
3. If one observes mindfully these transitions, one realizes that there is no object of perception that does not interact with another object of perception.
4. Being mindful of the interaction brings the realization that the interaction itself can be an object of perception.
5. Transition as an object of perception and Interaction as an object of perception tie together every other object of perception in a net. This net is the self.
6. Being mindful of this net brings the realization that the net itself can be an object of perception.
7. So, the self reincarnates by "becoming" all these other objects of perception. The net "catches" more things (maybe even creating bigger nets by catching "nets").
8. On a day to day basis this happens to everyone. The difference is that most of us are not conscious of this happening most of the time.
9. If you are capable of staying in a (more or less) constant mindful perception of the net and the things that the net "catches," the difference between what the net is and what the net isn't begins to dissolve, since there is no net without all these other threads and nodes constituting it.
10. Then, at a certain point, if even for an instant, the net will vanish.
Now, after the fact, at least two ways to see this "vanishing" arise:
a) You are "reincarnated" into everything.
b) The "self" is gone.
Both things are the same thing.
And this how I would reconcile the doctrine of reincarnation and the doctrine of anatta.
I recently heard a relatively unusual interpretation of Karma somewhere which explained that the dichotomy of actions within the system isn't between Good or Bad acts but between acts of Attachment or Detachment. It basically said that behaving selflessly wasn't rewarded by the universe or by any deity who wanted to see more good things done (as I've basically heard) but simply because such actions brought about positive mental states. Is this interpretation more accurate than the common western ideas on karma being basically an arbitrary carrot and stick system of the cosmos? I assume there will be divergences between the different traditions so that this answer may not be completely yes or no, but it wouldn't surprise me if everything I've heard on this subject so far has been wrong (I live in America, specifically) because many of the other things I've heard have also been false.
Sorry if that comment seemed incoherent. It's like four thirty where I live and I just left /v/.
do you mean like here?
Yeah, pretty much exactly. Actually reading a thread before asking questions in it is a good idea that I keep forgetting.
Anatman means 'not self' not "no self". The Pali canon never states "there is no self", it simply says that form is not self, feeling is not self, perception, volition, consciousness etc. are each "not self", implying that the self has no essential core.
But the word "self" atman is used repeatedly. It's just the name of a process, not a substance.
"Irrigators regulate the rivers; fletchers straighten the arrow shaft; carpenters shape the wood; the wise control themselves." Dhp80
Seeing the self as a process does not undermine rebirth. The weak point in rebirth is explaining why we should assume that the causal chain of one life should hop from a dead body to a fertilised embryo in a different place. I mean anything's possible, but I don't see any reason to think that it is likely.
Of course, every action we take has causes that ripple out after our deaths. But rebirth implies that your particular process-identity will maintain a certain amount of its individual strength upon your death and hop intact into a dog embryo in China or something, and in some meaningful sense the dog has inherited your individual karma. HIGHLY DUBIOUS.
damn man
You all motherfuckers need U.G. Krishnamurti.
do not forget that this business of the kamma as doing good will bring you good, doing bad will bring you bad, is always
- tied to the good and bad things that happens to you in material hedonism [riches, health, looks], the hedonism tied to the five senses
-is exactly what you must NOT care for, as things in themselves, if you wish to be happy, if you wish to live your life (according to the dhamma), but, if you have them, only as supporting your drive for nibanna.
[health, as in avoiding direct harm, **but without fear*** (always with plenty of tranquility), is the typical thing that you must care for]
>U.G. Krishnamurti.
Tell them that there is nothing to understand.
remember that chuang tzu tale where a guy asks for the way, the one who knows it cant answer, the one close can but doesnt, and the one who doesnt know it does answer.
well that ugk guy has all the right words for it... but this very fact is already a bad sign.
We would still be tied into a form of fate by karma though. If actions don't achieve anything why be Buddhist?
>He can't make you do things you don't want to do, nothing can.
Firstly you need to make a large assumption on what I want/don't want and I wouldn't say we always have free will or at least free choice. We can control our body and mind but there are always limits and pitfalls.
>To say life is purely suffering doesn't paint the whole picture. For things to exist it means they must have come into being, and so there is transcience, and so they will stop being some time...
I'm pretty sure I understand this quite well though probably less often than I'd like. I was being intentionally a little heavy handed in my description but as time passes pleasure ebbs away and suffering takes it's place. I didn't mean that there is only suffering but that anything that brings pleasure will likely lead to suffering as all things come to an end. This is also why I don't really know if I want to escape sansara, maybe there is a good balance of pleasure and deattachment.
Again there are many assumptions made on what happens between death and rebirth. Impossibly known 'truths' seemingly brandished as fact.
>en.wikipedia.org
Again impossibly known assumptions that Buddhism should reappear everytime. The claims of knowledge of past lives and clairvoyance etc. have disappeared in the modern world.
>What makes you think those need be different?
It's like a slow, spiritual form of suicide numbed by something between compassion and apathy. It becomes this loop of everything's just fine because everything's just the way it is but if you're bored of it you can go checkout over here but maybe not and that's just fine. Stoic, smiling defeatism I don't know if that really seems all that valuable to me.
>It's called the Middle Way for a reason
So we if we spend our lives well and nobly we get to spend some of our existence on the zero line of the waveform of existence? That really does not link up to compassion or patience to me. Regardless if we are all one or not having the most educated sit on the sidelines or move to some other realm (again something which I don't find impossible just not something to be passed round as fact) does not seem like an act of love or selfless even if you have conquered your self. Even with all the assumptions and ignorance of alternatives there seems only transience not transcendence in which case does anything ever matter? I believe there are a lot of very wise lessons in Buddhism but I can't reconcile it as the way to go.
I like meat and have killed and eaten animals, over time think I will probably reduce my consumption and/or at least try stick to better treated animals mainly due to ethical concerns but the long term health benefits are a nice bonus too. Veganism seems unnecessary, confused and convoluted.
Who /meditation/ here?
no one. everyone is in the quest of a wiki-elightenment that will provide them with an emotional auto rationalization and auto justification of their current lives as they are. if it demanded actual change and action it would defeat its own purpose.
I do a little and have gone to a few guided ones, I think I did it somewhat unintentionally as a child as well. Mainly just breathing meditation and sometimes I reach a few 'layers' under it but results vary, I find it generally a positive thing to do but not always or even in a particularly discernable way. I haven't done very much with mantras etc. as I'm yet to find a a suitable mantra though I haven't tried that hard to find one. It can be enjoyable but sometimes frustrating. I would like to go live in a cave for a while and see if that's what it's cracked up to be.
>If actions don't achieve anything why be Buddhist?
To obtain nothing.
>I wouldn't say we always have free will or at least free choice. We can control our body and mind but there are always limits and pitfalls.
Physical and mental coercion are both coercion. Eating because you're hungry isn't different from being convinced by words, being sick isn't different to being controlled by ideology.
>as time passes pleasure ebbs away and suffering takes it's place.
Is that a truth or an assumption? How do you know in ten years scientist won't make great discoveries that would alleviate all your pains, for example. How do you even know you're going to die?
>I didn't mean that there is only suffering but that anything that brings pleasure will likely lead to suffering as all things come to an end.
Again, it's a two way track.
>This is also why I don't really know if I want to escape sansara
Well there you have it, no more assumptions about you on my part.
>Impossibly known 'truths' seemingly brandished as fact.
And why does that bother you? Where are the facts you seem to look for? Give me one that can't be contested by anything. You seek security--meaning you don't have it, exactly because you seek it.
>It's like a slow, spiritual form of suicide numbed by something between compassion and apathy.
Do you know a better way to die? One that doesn't imply living in some other way, but really disappearing completely.
>Stoic, smiling defeatism I don't know if that really seems all that valuable to me.
You're absolutely correct, there's nothing to be gained.
>Regardless if we are all one or not having the most educated sit on the sidelines or move to some other realm (again something which I don't find impossible just not something to be passed round as fact) does not seem like an act of love or selfless even if you have conquered your self.
Well to begin with, iirc that's not the case with Buddhism. You're mistaking being a monk with being ascetic, something the Buddha considered not good enough.
There will always be people that don't listen to whatever wise words there are, or listen to them halfly. The point isn't for everyone to become a monk, because 1) that is impossible, 2) the result would mean a paradigm change. You can't make the whole world a temple, like you can't make it a hospital. If you're not becoming a monk, take whatever you can from it and keep going with your life--the monks are there so you can do that.
And you are correct that it is a self-centered point of view. That you think being self-centered is necessarily a bad thing to others, that's another thing.
>does anything ever matter?
No. And it doesn't matter that it doesn't matter either.
>I believe there are a lot of very wise lessons in Buddhism but I can't reconcile it as the way to go.
Nobody is asking you to, and there's no need for you to. I'm not trying to convert you. You seem to be the one that wants to be convinced, not sure what for.
I believe so long as you treat the animals well, there's nothing wrong with eating them. This applies to plants as well. And if we treat our food brutally, that is only a reflection of how we treat ourselves; we are how we eat.
If you don't belong to a particular tradition, just use whatever. Pizza-pizza, Coca-Cola; shouldn't matter too much unless you believe mantras draw upon energetic sources or deities or whatever.
>To obtain nothing.
Fair enough but again that doesn't link up to selflessness in my mind, which seems central. Why focus on selflessness for so long only to run/be pushed out the back door as soon as it opens?
>Physical and mental coercion are both coercion. Eating because you're hungry isn't different from being convinced by words, being sick isn't different to being controlled by ideology.
Then we are all just pawns and if the universe happens to blow in the right direction you might fall out of it and no longer have to experience it. Buddhism can be made somewhat defunct by it's own rules, no?
>Is that a truth or an assumption? How do you know in ten years scientist won't make great discoveries that would alleviate all your pains, for example. How do you even know you're going to die?
I understood that belief in death is a crucial understanding for Buddhist progression. Not just knowing it will happen but believing in it. As long as there is desire there will be suffering and life without desire would die.
>And why does that bother you? Where are the facts you seem to look for? Give me one that can't be contested by anything. You seek security--meaning you don't have it, exactly because you seek it.
The fundamental forces of the universe can be misunderstood but not contested but if that is delusion why isn't dharma delusion. I don't necessarily need security, I don't feel scared by making choices or indeed not I just like to make the best one I can especially when it comes to the essence of my being. If Buddhism was the path for me I would prefer knowledge be the driving factor not hope or fear.
>Do you know a better way to die? One that doesn't imply living in some other way, but really disappearing completely.
Having brought more love and less fear into the world, help others to do the same and with all intention of doing it again if you could. If I could do that why would I want to die?
>Well to begin with, iirc that's not the case with Buddhism. You're mistaking being a monk with being ascetic, something the Buddha considered not good enough...
>No. And it doesn't matter that it doesn't matter either.
I know they can't all be monks but I don't see an end at which point it seems more of a coping strategy until the cosmic joojoo puts you in a life that leads to an exit. I think there are systems of thought that allow for meaning and given the choice I would rather that. I don't think self-centredness is inherently bad but upon having achieved enlightenment I could find more use for myself than just dying. I know I'm making assumptions on enlightenment but if it were to be my goal I would need some expectation of it.
cont.
>Nobody is asking you to, and there's no need for you to. I'm not trying to convert you. You seem to be the one that wants to be convinced, not sure what for.
If enlightenment is possible then I would like to attain it. I hope I'm not coming across antagonistically I find it interesting and don't get much of a chance to ask questions that will be answered. Not trying to upset or irritate and fully appreciate I could be making huge errors so I apologise for that I just want to learn. I would happily be converted if it seemed worthwhile but just as my life is valuable in the sense I can learn and spread dharma if such things were meaningless then I'd rather spend my time well but differently. I would like to find my way and will take my lessons where I can.
These things you speak of are all symbols and abstractions and buddhism is the most redpilled path w/r/t this
I might be confusing it a bit but should it not ideally have some degree of significance to the topic of your meditation or something in it that might encourage your mind down certain avenues? Do you mean using anything just as a vehicle for focus/clarity but not actually the point of focus similar to breathing meditation? I really don't know a lot about it
going to meditate in my bed
mantra without much sense will serve to focus you mind
mantra with sense, like for metta, will serve to focus your mind and develop the feeling that you seek
Animals eat animals. I, an animal, occasionally eat animals.
A lot of traditions operate under the principle that when you repeat a certain mantra you're drawing upon an energy sphere that has built up from use over a period of time by several people, or it almost serves as an incantation for a deity or god.
However, all that spiritual stuff aside, any 'mantra' can serve as a meditation object. Like I said, you can use Coca-Cola and it'll have the same effects - practically speaking.
a good mantra could be "rama, rama, rama," or if you want somthing more congenial, you can use alternativly, "allah,allah, allah," or "jesus, jesus, jesus", speaking nonsence syllobals like "coco cola, or pizza pizza as that one fellow suggested, will give the same results as the ecoh of those words have no relivence and are just silly somthing with substanial meaning that can burrow into your conscious
"will not" give the same results sorry
>Why focus on selflessness for so long only to run/be pushed out the back door as soon as it opens?
What do you mean by this?
>Then we are all just pawns
Pawns to what/who? You say "the universe", what is "the universe"? Does it have plans?
>As long as there is desire there will be suffering and life without desire would die.
What makes you think desirelessness equals inexistence? Do rocks not exist?
>if that is delusion why isn't dharma delusion.
Indeed.
>I don't feel scared by making choices or indeed not I just like to make the best one I can
You're kind of contradicting yourself. You don't mind making choices, *but* you would always choose the "best" choice if you could; meaning you're not neutral to choices, but subject to them.
>I would prefer knowledge be the driving factor not hope or fear.
And if you could go on without a drive at all?
>If I could do that why would I want to die?
Because to dispell fear means there's always fear to be dispelled. The question isn't why you would want to die, but why would you want to go on living?
>I think there are systems of thought that allow for meaning and given the choice I would rather that.
Then do that.
>upon having achieved enlightenment I could find more use for myself than just dying.
Can't you find use for yourself without enlightenment?
>I know I'm making assumptions on enlightenment but if it were to be my goal I would need some expectation of it.
>If enlightenment is possible then I would like to attain it.
You're thinking of it in the wrong terms. Reflect on the first sentence of my post, and what you could do to others with it.
>I hope I'm not coming across antagonistically I find it interesting and don't get much of a chance to ask questions that will be answered.
Not at all, talking to you is a pleasure to me.
>I could be making huge errors
Don't worry about the words, words ain't shit but hoes and tricks. I don't care about teaching you Buddhism nor think of myself as enough of an authority to, anyway. I'm only interested in seeing how you can solve your problems.
>I can learn and spread dharma if such things were meaningless
What do you mean by meaning? What is or would be meaningful?
>I would like to find my way
You're already on it.
Don't worry about it. Just chop wood and carry water.
I'm a vegan but only because its been shown that when its done properly its way healthier and reduces the risk of developing serious health conditions including cancer. I agree that its right morally but that wouldn't be enough to get me to do it on its own probably.
He had some interesting views and he is worth looking into but its silly to imply that he is an authority on Buddhism or that he refuted it or even that someone who wants to understand Buddhism should read him.
I used to be way into it but its been years since I did it often. I plan on starting to get back into it though. Retreats at S.N. Goenka Vipassana centers are free and are good stuff, you don't need to take it too seriously for it to be good, part of why its great is that 99.9% of people would never be able to do that much meditation of their volition.
I can't speak for other religions/traditions but within Buddhism that is a relatively correct description. The common western idea of there being a force that rewards good deeds and punishes bad ones within the lifetime of the person who commits them has nothing to do with Buddhism as Buddha taught it. According to how he taught it, Karma has to do with the two directions of attachment to existence/false sense of self and the detachment and liberation from it. One of the major parts of trying to attain enlightenment in the Buddhist sense is to cease taking any actions or thoughts that generate karmic effects - with that in this case meaning something where you start to have cravings/desire or something that attaches you to the sense of self/existence.
An example would be walking and it starts to rain heavily and one generates karmic effects by thinking "uh-oh I dislike rain, I don't want myself to get wet and cold because its not pleasurable and now I want to be dry". That generates karma because it involves you thinking in terms of your self and desire/dislike/fear. The way to not generate any karma would be to simply accept that its now raining without having anxious thoughts or cravings of dryness.
This is largely where the common misconception comes from of Buddhism being nihilist, about denying/killing the self, or being about no action and not doing anything at all. People who haven't taken the time to read about and understand it don't get that you can still have an active lifestyle and participate in many different sorts of activities while following Buddhist precepts to the letter as long as you go about them and everything else in a way that does not generate karma, and that doing this can be be blissful and liberating rather being miserable and self-denying.
>What do you mean by this?
Having learned and become the embodiment of selflessness it seems odd or counterintuitive to leave everything else behind in sansara. Not to stay in some way and help. A Buddha shouldn't fear sansara and should have immeasurable patience so why go when there is so much to be done? Does nirvana become a desire which is given into and undo a Buddha's efforts?
>Pawns to what/who? You say "the universe", what is "the universe"? Does it have plans?
Pawns was a poor choice of word sorry. I don't mean we are being played or used to some end but that we are somewhat helpless to our fate which is brought about by the machinations of karma, which when factored in across the universe would be highly chaotic and random. By the universe I mean everything that exists. I wouldn't say it has plans but it has more than enough order to it that will heavily dictate and weigh upon an individual's thoughts and actions.
>What makes you think desirelessness equals inexistence? Do rocks not exist?
I mean that life without desire would die as it would have no reason live. It wouldn't eat, drink, breathe to fulfil it's requirements for life never mind more advanced ones. A rock exists but I would say it has perhaps less depth or potential to it's existence than a living being. It can be many things to many people but a person even more so.
>Indeed.
If the truth comes from delusion then everything is delusion. There would be no enlightenment or if so it could come from any source but does that not mean most, or even all, Buddhists could be following the wrong path?
>You're kind of contradicting yourself. You don't mind making choices, *but* you would always choose the "best" choice if you could; meaning you're not neutral to choices, but subject to them.
If I cook too much food for myself that will spoil I could bin it or share it. Whilst there are circumstances that could make sharing it have negative consequences with appropriate consideration I could share it and help people. This seems to me the better choice in most scenarios which doesn't make binning the food wrong but still an inferior choice. To be neutral in all choices seems potentially ignorant, lazy and cruel. Is it not a central idea in Buddhism to make the better choices until they simply become your behaviour? To spend time learning, meditating and helping others.
Cont.
>And if you could go on without a drive at all?
I suppose I would continue on the same but unquestioningly, though to do so seems irresponsible.
>Because to dispell fear means there's always fear to be dispelled. The question isn't why you would want to die, but why would you want to go on living?
To help people find their way. If everyone were fearless and full of love then fear would quickly be extinguished upon it's resurfacing. As the world grew more understanding and less fearful higher rebirth could become increasingly common. There are many things to enjoy in life and more than can be enjoyed in any one lifetime.
>Can't you find use for yourself without enlightenment?
Of course, what I mean is with enlightenment would come a level of understanding that would allow for better choices.
>You're thinking of it in the wrong terms. Reflect on the first sentence of my post, and what you could do to others with it.
Well there are mentions of omniscience and such and with that maybe it all becomes clear but a Buddha would surely have characteristics that would be beneficial to someone or thing.
>What do you mean by meaning? What is or would be meaningful?
Helpful, I suppose. Acts of kindness and those that lead myself and others to higher levels of perception and thinking
>A Buddha shouldn't fear sansara and should have immeasurable patience so why go when there is so much to be done?
The Buddha didn't just go, so again, you're asking him to be more than he was, even though what he was was what you wanted him to be. Your problem is a difference of grade and not kind.
>By the universe I mean everything that exists.
Does that not include you?
>I wouldn't say it has plans but it has more than enough order to it that will heavily dictate and weigh upon an individual's thoughts and actions.
And yet you can still easily subvert those "dictates". You can go hungry if you want, and you can't break the law if you want--that there are consequences to that is another thing, and those consequences are also subject to being changed or stopped.
>It wouldn't eat, drink, breathe to fulfil it's requirements for life never mind more advanced ones.
Requirements and desire needn't be the same thing. A machine does not desire to be plugged, yet it needs it to function. Desire is not a physical thing.
>If the truth comes from delusion then everything is delusion.
>Buddhists could be following the wrong path?
(See pic.)
>To be neutral in all choices seems potentially ignorant, lazy and cruel.
You're again confusing neutrality with aversion and apathy. Your actions in the scenario, though, were perfectly deattached.
>to do so seems irresponsible
How so? Because you lack a justification?
>If everyone were fearless and full of love then fear would quickly be extinguished upon it's resurfacing. As the world grew more understanding and less fearful higher rebirth could become increasingly common.
You are warring for peace, then, thinking that it being for peace makes it not warring.
>what I mean is with enlightenment would come a level of understanding that would allow for better choices.
Better choices for what? There's no absolute "better". Breathing inside water will only kill you faster.
>a Buddha would surely have characteristics that would be beneficial to someone or thing.
Generalities, assumptions, expectations.
How is attaining nothing useful? Think of it. Think, if a man has nothing, and it makes him content, what is happening?
>Acts of kindness and those that lead myself and others to higher levels of perception and thinking
And why would you want to be on a higher level? What do you think is there that you want? Think of it in physical terms first. Don't think "this is necessary", nothing is just necessary (on its own).
1. The "soul" is a stream of karmic consciousness. This carries over between lives, where our false-self dies and we are reborn.
2. You need good karma to achieve enlightenment. Doing bad things gets you sent to hell or reincarnated as shit
3. Your stream of karma becomes free of the reincarnation cycle. This is enlightenment.
Your questions have a very hinayana slant to them so I tried to answer them with that system. I am more experienced with Mahayana theology.
The Buddha said not to bother with metaphysics. What are you newbies arguing about?
>The Buddha didn't just go, so again, you're asking him to be more than he was, even though what he was was what you wanted him to be. Your problem is a difference of grade and not kind.
He died of old age and left sansara and those in it, supposedly he said he could have lived 1000 years if asked to. I had to google difference of grade and it took me to stuff about devas I'm not sure if that's the direction you're pointing?
>Does that not include you?
Of course, I'm not really sure where you're going with that though.
>And yet you can still easily subvert those "dictates". You can go hungry if you want, and you can't break the law if you want--that there are consequences to that is another thing, and those consequences are also subject to being changed or stopped.
>Requirements and desire needn't be the same thing. A machine does not desire to be plugged, yet it needs it to function. Desire is not a physical thing.
How easy it would depend entirely upon my current life and the beings around me and the karma of everything at that moment, which could make things impossible for countless rebirths.
>(See pic.)
I think I understand the concept I just find it unfulfilling and unfounded.
>You're again confusing neutrality with aversion and apathy. Your actions in the scenario, though, were perfectly deattached.
To be completely neutral of all options in all situations could not be functional within the rules of Buddhism. To make a baby stop crying someone could comfort it, feed it, smother it in blankets, shut it in a cupboard or throw it out the window. There are several choices for any situation in which you are a part of and there is a degree of appropriateness to the response. To be completely neutral to any of the options for countless situations suggests a lack of compassion.
>to do so seems irresponsible
>How so? Because you lack a justification?
Yes. To walk the wrong path and lead others down it is no act of kindness. It would be a cult. Questions are probably more important than answers.
>You are warring for peace, then, thinking that it being for peace makes it not warring.
If making effort is warring then even meditation becomes warring.
>Better choices for what? There's no absolute "better". Breathing inside water will only kill you faster.
Better choices of action and as you progress along the path I would say your interpretation of what to do in a situation would improve. There is perhaps no absolute best but there is often a better option.
>a Buddha would surely have characteristics that would be beneficial to someone or thing.
>Generalities, assumptions, expectations.
Upon which Buddhism is built, no?
>How is attaining nothing useful? Think of it. Think, if a man has nothing, and it makes him content, what is happening?
I don't think it is particularly useful. If nothing is a better place for him to be then good for him but him sitting in his nothing does not seem to me to be the point. It might protect him from suffering but it shows no care for others suffering past that which immediately concerns him.
>And why would you want to be on a higher level? What do you think is there that you want? >Think of it in physical terms first. Don't think "this is necessary", nothing is just necessary (on its own).
To put or see an end to sansara or at least achieve more towards that end and the occasional person popping off to nirvana at the end of their life wouldn't change this. Alternatively as I said earlier to bring more love and take some fear from the world. Imagine you were staying a 6* hotel room in Guantanamo bay, could you sleep well if the guy next door was being waterboarded every 15 minutes because he got a shitty rebirth? If nirvana is nothing then it seems a little like just putting in ear plugs and going to sleep which seems a strange way to finish a life that would lead to nirvana or enlightenment. To go from mindfulness and selflessness to what could be construed as reward or ignorance. Then perhaps it's unavoidable.
Idk, I need to read more and think about it but I have more pressing delusions to attend to just now. Thanks for the replies.
then reflect on you life so far: when were you happy? were you thoughts, speeches and actions worth taken seriously back then, just as you take them seriously today?
what fruits do your thoughts, speeches, actions have today?
what fruits do the what fruits do your thoughts, speeches, actions of other people have today, compared to the goals set by these same people?
are your thoughts, speeches, actions today the same as decades ago?
are your likes and dislikes the same as decades ago?
is it worth it to act on these thoughts, speeches, actions ?
it is better to strive to stay equanimous towards your thoughts, speeches, actions ?
Grasshopper ask too many questions. Sit and be still.
>this thread
Can women be buddhist?
>I'm not sure if that's the direction you're pointing?
No. What you're saying is that the Buddha wasn't "good", but that he wasn't "good enough", and by this you're saying he was "good" but not "truly good", which makes no sense.
To echo Max Stirner: you're spooked;
to quote Parmenides: "either it is or it is not";
and if you asked Zhuangzi: "The wise man looks into space and does not regard the small as too little, nor the great as too big, for he knows that, there is no limit to dimensions."
>I'm not really sure where you're going with that though.
You and your physical self aren't separate, and you can choose not to be coerced by it, no? Then you and your physical universe aren't separate, and you can choose not to be coerced by it, no?
>which could make things impossible for countless rebirths.
Well yes. You can't teach a grasshopper to meditate. And again, how to save those that don't want to be saved?
>I just find it unfulfilling and unfounded.
That's because you're trying to fulfill and found something with it (it being NOTHING)! The point is for you to understand that you're doing this even on things which could never do it!
>To walk the wrong path and lead others down it is no act of kindness.
How do you go from no justification to a lack of kindness? Do you consider evil to be justified? What would you do if you found reality to be a lie?
>If making effort is warring then even meditation becomes warring.
It can be. But you're confusing effort with action.
>There is perhaps no absolute best but there is often a better option.
And if for reaching for the best option, you avoided the easy second best, failed, and got the worst? Knowing isn't always better.
>Upon which Buddhism is built, no?
Yes. Which is why the Buddha stressed that people should see for themselves.
>It might protect him from suffering but it shows no care for others suffering past that which immediately concerns him.
Again, a man has limits. You can't reach those people that are at the other side of the universe. Concentrate on what you can do, not on what-ifs. And second, a man does not exist in isolation. If one man stops suffering then that is still one man less, and the world is holistically change--this is a difference of kind, as any real difference is.
>could you sleep well if the guy next door was being waterboarded every 15 minutes because he got a shitty rebirth?
I would help him if it was in my power; otherwise, nobody is helped by me feeling bad about it--asking the impossible of myself would be like asking it of anybody else, and that would be prejudice, because my person is a person just like any other.
>If nirvana is nothing then it seems a little like just putting in ear plugs and going to sleep which seems a strange way to finish a life that would lead to nirvana or enlightenment. To go from mindfulness and selflessness to what could be construed as reward or ignorance. Then perhaps it's unavoidable.
Not sure what you mean by this.
>I need to read more and think about it
You don't need to do anything! Stop. thinking. like. that. Just try it.
>Thanks for the replies.
Thanks for the questions.
That is one adorable cat. Looks a lot like mine.
...
Not with that attitude!
>You can't teach a grasshopper to meditate
If you are interested in more than just a popular viewpoint on Buddhist ethics, I'd suggest checking out the Journal of Buddhist Ethics:
globethics.net
Note that it is an open access journal, which means that the articles are free and online, though they are typically somewhat scholarly. I read some papers from it back in the '90's when I was in Zen priest training and interested in the topic. As I recall, at a very high level, one difference between Buddhist ethics and traditional Judeo-Christian-Islamic ethics is that Buddhist ethics is situational while JCI ethics is very much normative.
