If the Buddha discovered....

[moseslmpg]

Buddhism (the dharma) is meant to be "rational" and therefore "scientific" I suppose. Scientific research has leant support to changes in the brain as a result of meditation, but what this means for the dharma is another matter. I don't suppose physical science lends support to Buddhist cosmology though? I know the Dalai Lama has said that where the dharma is in conflict with scientific finding then the dharma needs to be re-evaluated.

Well, they were referring to rebirth as being obviously true because peope have had past life experiences. I heard that about the Dalai Lama, but science is too relative to re-evaluate things constantly IMO. It really depends on what you mean by science, I guess.

I suppose I will try to stop to categorize Buddhism, as it's getting me nowhere. I just have a need for some kind of narrative or mythological aspect to it, perhaps to justify it as a religion in comparison to the others. I guess in the end it's not about what you believe or know, and I'm approaching it from the wrong angle. Old habits die hard...thank not-God for the Dharma.

 

[Snoopy]

Well, they were referring to rebirth as being obviously true because peope have had past life experiences. I heard that about the Dalai Lama, but science is too relative to re-evaluate things constantly IMO. It really depends on what you mean by science, I guess.

I suppose I will try to stop to categorize Buddhism, as it's getting me nowhere. I just have a need for some kind of narrative or mythological aspect to it, perhaps to justify it as a religion in comparison to the others. I guess in the end it's not about what you believe or know, and I'm approaching it from the wrong angle. Old habits die hard...thank not-God for the Dharma.

No, the dharma would need to be re-evaluated; not the science.

Past life experiences are still a moot point I think, from the POV of science.

By science I would mean the scientific method, the approach of "objective" investigation using such things as theorising, experimentation and observation, with a view to (where possible) prediction and control. (Control not always possible or appropriate of course, eg examining distant galaxies). If you're interested you'll find stuff on Buddhism and science on the websites of both Tricycle and Shambhala Sun magazines. For example:

http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1284&Itemid=243

Buddhism has been made into a religion, but it's purpose is educational and philosophical IMO. Perhaps the same has happened with the teachings of Jesus, but I wouldn't want to make that more than a tentative suggestion on my part.

Snoopy.

 

[jiii]

I don't see why things can not always have been, seeing as there has always been the constant changing of everything.

Also, slightly more OT, I keep finding more stuff saying that Nirvana is permanent because it exists outside of time and space. What the deal with that? This is really frustrating to me.

Well, has there always been the constant changing of everything? If so, where has it always been? Presumably, if there has "always been" nothing but flux and change, then there must be some unchanging place or location in which one can say it has always been. There is no such thing...as all things are subject to flux and change. One cannot intellectually grasp this because when you reach for a hand-hold, there isn't one there. There is only change, there is no place that is unchanging in which this change takes place...furthermore, who is it that knows that all is change? You can't really say, because there is no fixed "you", no self, that is standing outside this change. The moment you try to say, one way or the other, it has already slipped away.

In the sense that the "self" which can be constrained or graduated by time is transcended with Nirvana, Nirvana is permanent...not subject to space and time in which it could arise or decay. In another sense, though, when attaining Nirvana, one realizes that space and time were, in fact, illusions deduced from the preconceptions of an illusory self. In that way, Nirvana, too, is flux and change, because there is no space and time in which its permanence might be gauged. Thus, there isn't any reason to believe that Nirvana has the quality of permanence, or that it has the quality of impermanence.

As you may or not know, a big problem here, moseslmpg, is that language...which is to say, concepts about the world...imply an inavoidable dualism. You can only talk about "this" in terms of "that", you can only see "this quality" in terms of "that quality". This means that so many attempts at "pinning down" the middle path result in one-sided descriptions, instead. You know, there can be perfectly logical arguments posed against anything that is said...ANYTHING. But this harsh relativism really only exists in our ideas and concepts of world, which rely on relativism to describe things. This can only be unnerving and nihilistic to the extent that a person mistakenly identifies themselves with their ideas. The 'self' is just an idea. Thus...

I mean, obviously the self does exist in come capacity, even if it is relative, so there's no reason to always point out that it doesn't exist.

No, there is no reason to always point out that there is no self...except to correct a wrongview that insists there is. Maybe the self does exist in some capacity, but what is that self? Who is it that knows that the self exists in some capacity? What self is standing outside that self to confirm it does?

A sort of OT question: The Buddha never said that his way was the right way did he? I was just reading some stuff on that BuddhaNet website and that's sort of the way I feel it was presented. They were justifying Buddhist beliefs because they are supported by scientific "facts."

Well, everybody wants to justify their religion with scientific facts, don't they? I mean, who doesn't? You will find a canon of science that claims to back up just about any religion. I don't really think that's key to Buddhism, at all, really. It's something people like to do, because science is like a seal of approval for modern culture. You know, "can it pass the test of science?" That's the big question that everyone is always interested in.

However, to a certain extent, Buddhism is sometimes particularly "compatible" with science. In my opinion, this is because "belief" is not so much a key element in Buddhism as at is in many traditions. Science doesn't stand to find itself in many conflicts with Buddhism because Buddhists don't have anything that science or knowledge can really take away from them.

Another note, by the way: There are many different ways that your questions can be answered. Take the responses with a grain of salt, including my own. There is no single, correct way to discuss the Buddha's doctrine. Have a look at it this way...what if I were to ask you to define 'green'? You could reference a thing that is green and say," It's the color of grass." You could express scientific ideas and say," It's the wavelength between yellow and blue in the electromagnetic spectrum." You could talk about it in terms of art and say," It is a secondary color created by mixing blue and green." All of these are correct, but none of them are actually green, at all. There is no color in these abstractions, and they are bare of that which they speak. Such are so many descriptions of Nirvana to Nirvana, itself. The color green is only conceptual to the extent that a name can be put upon it, but all you can really do if someone wants to experience green is point the way to the lawn.

 

[moseslmpg]

Yeah, I think I would just have to experience whatever it is. Intellect has failed, and for right now, that's all I got. Yes, I, me. It just bothers me that certain things are put forth as absolute doctrines, even though they are pragmatic instructions. But I suppose it would be pointless and tiresome to put "relative" in front of every sentence, in the same way that explicitly denouncing the self is tiresome and confounding. If nothing else (and I'm not saying there is nothing else), Buddhism affords one more freedom in belief than other religions.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

good discussion thus far.

several questions have been raised and though i think that they have been answered sufficiently, i would like to offer my own, as well.

1. Is Buddha Shakyamuni the first Buddha?

unequivocally no. the Suttas relate a teaching given by the Buddha to the Sangha wherein he relates that he was, in a previous arising, waiting to meet the Buddha Dipankara and, at this meeting, Buddha Dipankara propheised that the mendicant Sumeda would arise as the Buddha Shakyamuni. The Suttas relate that there have been countless previous Buddhas which have arisen in this world system and there will be countless more.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.32.0.piya.html

2. proclaiming of the Dhamma/Dharma as the "correct path".

Yes, without question Buddha Shakyamuni extolled the path of Doctrine and Discipline as the only path capable of complete and total liberation. there are several terms which are used to describe beings in various stages of the path, the Sanskrit term for complete and total unbinding is Annutara Samyak Sambodhi and it is this state which is the aim of Buddhas teachings.

a famous passage of the Dhammapada states:

They go to many a refuge, to mountains, forests, parks, trees, and shrineseople threatened with danger.That's not the secure refuge,that's not the highest refuge,that's not the refuge,having gone to which, you gain release from all suffering and stress.But when, having gone for refugeto the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha,you see with right discernmentthe four Noble Truths — stress, the cause of stress, the transcending of stress, and the Noble Eightfold Path, the way to the stilling of stress:That's the secure refuge,that, the highest refuge,that is the refuge,having gone to which, you gain release from all suffering and stress.— Dhammapada, 188-192

3. If there are other deities, why no Creator deity?

This is a very good question. Many modern commentators think that the reason the Buddha taught as he did was due to a lack of understanding of monotheism. they often have the, incorrect view, that the Sanatana Dharma is a polytheistic tradition when in actuality it is not. it is, in fact, monotheistic with a very interesting permutation. Muller has termed this "Henotheism" which means, essentially, that there is one God but that aspects of this being are manifest and given their own due, like Mercy, and Compassion et al.

the term "creator god" is rendered as issara-nimmana-vada Pali and it is this which we are discussing. a belief in a Creator deity is classified as a "wong view" of a morally destructive kind since they deny the consequences of karma and presume certain other wrong views, such as the existence of Atman and so forth.

the Buddha Shakyamuni explained the lack of a Creator Deity in many ways..along with the idea that Nibbana/Nirvana is not permenent either. these are both examples of "clinging to views" which directly impedes ones progress along the path.

here is a Sutta where the Buddha repudiates the prevailing Samhkya philosophical tradition of the time..

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html

in the Digha Nikaya (the Long Discourses) 24 it is said like this:

"There are some ascetics and brahmins who declare as their doctrine
that all things began with the creation by a god, or Brahma."

And this god is characterized so:

"That Worshipful Brahma, the Great God, the Omnipotent, the
Omniscient, the Organizer, the Protection, the Creator, the Most
Perfect Ruler, the Designer and Orderer, the Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be, He by Whom we were created, He is permanent, Constant,
Eternal, Unchanging, and He will remain so for ever and ever."

"There is none other God but Thee, the Almighty, the Most Exalted,
the All-Powerful, the All-Wise".

*The notion of creator is rejected in terms of the Buddha in satirically retelling the creation story of the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad. This not "a discreet silence about the First Cause," it is not indifference. Though the Buddha's particular rejection is not a philosophical argument against a creator god, per se, it is rather a religious statement that is consistent with the underlying ontology of becoming that characterizes what the Buddha taught. What is clear, in the broader context, is that this rejection is not tied to a particular god-notion, but addresses the notion of a "single supernatural Being" from which "all things began," given that such a notion is invariably grounded in a radically different ontological basis than what the Buddha presents.

(*indebted to Bruce Burrill)

metta,

~v

 

[moseslmpg]

I see, that's helps a lot. So the lack of a supreme creator deity is to make sure that everyone takes responsibility for their own actions and does away with many other problems of monotheism. I thought as much. It's more like an evolution of consciousness rather than some guy saying "let there be people! (and lo, there were people)" etc. Makes sense to me...so I'm not even going to ask where everything came from...

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste moseslmpg,

thank you for the post.

I see, that's helps a lot. So the lack of a supreme creator deity is to make sure that everyone takes responsibility for their own actions and does away with many other problems of monotheism.

hmm. this statement seems somewhat problematic. it is not that Buddha Dharma teaches the lack of a creator deity to ensure that beings take responsibility for their actions, it is that a belief in a creator deity leads beings to believe that this is not so. if that makes sense.

I thought as much. It's more like an evolution of consciousness rather than some guy saying "let there be people! (and lo, there were people)" etc. Makes sense to me...so I'm not even going to ask where everything came from...

yes, that is pretty fair summation.

where "everything" came from is, however, rather easily answered in the Buddhist paradigm. our teaching is called "Interdependent Co-Arising" and basically means that "this is because that is and that is because this is". what we mean to be saying is that phenomena arise in mutual dependence upon their causes and conditions and when those change, the phenomena will cease as it was. there is no discernable beginning to this as these things all arise in mutual dependence upon each other.

metta,

~v

 

[moseslmpg]

Yeah, I think the first part makes sense, seeing as how the Buddha did not just sit down and seek to create a religion.

Second part makes as much sense as any other explanation of the genesis of things.

 

[bodhi_mindisfree]

Forgive me if this has already been said, since I read only the first post. As described by my Eastern Religions teacher, imagine two balls laying ten feet apart. One starts rolling and hits the other. The one moving to begin with stops while the second takes its place. This is the effect of Kamma. It's not a soul that continues, much like the first ball didn't continue. Hope this helps...

SABBE SATTA SUKHITO HONTU!

 

[17th Angel]

I see, that's helps a lot. So the lack of a supreme creator deity is to make sure that everyone takes responsibility for their own actions and does away with many other problems of monotheism. I thought as much. It's more like an evolution of consciousness rather than some guy saying "let there be people! (and lo, there were people)" etc. Makes sense to me...so I'm not even going to ask where everything came from...

Does not the "flow" of all at that time make the world? What we are, who we are how we act, this molds the world does it not? What changes the world? The "flow" of events that unfold? Or jah?

Indeed take responsibility... Doesn't that seem right? If you walk in error... Realise this and fix it, do not wait for someone to come and hold your hand... You are your salvation... You are also your demise. You are what you make of it.... Don't look for examples of how to live, give example of how to live.. If you do not realise your own error from "evil" acts sorrow grows.. And should help you to realise what you have done and continue to learn and try to wake from dream...

Just the thought, of blaming something like "satan" for all I do wrong... And praising jah for all I do that is right... Isn't. If I do something wrong it's me I am doing it, I am then punished by what I've done... If I do something that is right... Thank me/praise me/be appreciative/ whatever to me... not to something else. Anyway... My thought.

 

[Francis king]

no self... anatta... really though... its' anatma... no self/soul...

what is this self/soul?

not all buddhists think that nothing remains... some buddhists think that there is something which again experiences, and to them karma becomes like a trap, something which if bad, will see u experience pain and misery all over again, next lieftime, but if Buddha taught all products (including humans) are impermanent, then this contradicts the doctrine...

that u experience the results of karma in successive lifetimes, I feel, is a way to fool peasants into thinking they must behave in a certain way and reassure them that if they do not receive merit now they will get it next time round...

maybe enlightenment is not a "state of bliss", although "nirvanam" is translated as "bliss", maybe "nirvana" is a bad translation of nir- varna, "without colour", or "na-ravana", "not of the demon Ravana", or maybe- nir vana, "not of the forest", or of delusion...

nothing cannot experience bliss...for there to be bliss, there has to be a feeling, and for that feeling to occur there needs to be a body and a mind, etc, etc... without the potter, the clay is not a pot...

sunyata, translated as emptiness, or empty-ness, is inadequate..

instead, try su, (own, ones own), anya, (without), ta... his..

so, sunyata, is to- be without self... and to be truely without self, while still breathing, and alive, is not as easy as it seems... perfectly empty... devoid of cognizing, devoid of physical sensation, devoid of the laws of physics, suspended in the void, which, far from empty is actually full, full of something so right it needs no comprehension, as there is literally no-thing to experience, and no experiencer to experience...

or so I have heard...

 

[Tariki]

To get back to my Buddhist roots and away from ecumenical dialogue, just to address the original question...(and my apologies if some of this ground has been covered by previous posts, I must admit I have only skimmed through many of them.................maybe others can get their "own back" by skimming thorugh this one ..............though I must say that getting one's own back is not considered very "Buddhist" )

Anyway, Majjhima Nikaya sutta 2, regarding wise and unwise attention according to the Buddha....

This is how he attends unwisely:"Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what did I become in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I become in the future?" Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the present thus:"Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where will it go?"

When he attends unwsiely in this way, one of six views arises in him. The view 'self exists for me' arises in him as true and established; or the view 'no self exists for me' arises in him as true and established; or the view 'I perceive self with self' arises in him as true and established; or the view 'I perceive not-self with self' arises in him as true and established; or the view 'I perceive self with not-self' arises in him as true and established; or else he has some such view as this: 'It is this self of mine that speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions; but this self of mine is permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and it will endure as long as eternity.' This speculative view.......is called the thicket of views, the wilderness of views, the contortion of views, the vacillation of views, the fetter of views. Fettered by the fetter of views, the untaught ordinary person is not freed from birth, ageing, and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair; he is not freed from suffering, I say.

My understanding is that any attempt to uncover the mechanics of "rebirth" will involve us in some sort of allegiance and "understanding" of a false view of "self", and therefore into such a "fetter of views". Instead of such a search, it seems better to watch the "mechanics" within the present life. Samsara - birth and death - can be seen now. In Buddhist symbolism, in a moment of anger we are a"titan", in a moment of foolishness an "animal", in a moment of greed and grasping a "hungry ghost"..............within moments of peace we are in "heaven", and in moments of suffering in "hell" - with the intent to be aware of such changing states, with mindfulness and with non-discrimination, not identifying with them as being the possessions of "self".

To a certain extent, "reality" will look after itself when our "views" concerning it evaporate!

Udana 8:3..............For one who clings, motion exists; but for one who clings not, there is no motion. Where no motion is, there is stillness. Where stillness is, there is no craving. Where no craving is, there is neither coming nor going. Where no coming nor going is, there is neither arising nor passing away. Where neither arising nor passing away is, there is neither this world nor a world beyond, nor a state between. This, verily, is the end of suffering.

To my mind, all this remains a "template", to be converted by upaya - skilfull means adapted by Reality-as-is to the capacity of each unique individual - into a path that we can actually follow.

 

[Snoopy]

Hi,

I think this is broadly how I "view" (sorry!) rebirth; as a moment to moment re-becoming; whilst being open minded "agnostic?" about the more literal understanding of the term.

s.

 

[Tariki]

P.S. Ref should be Udana 8:4, not 8:3.

Snoopy,

Glad to find a fellow "agnostic"! Are you familiar with the writings of Stephen Batchelor?

Derek

 

[Vajradhara]

Namatse all,

perhaps this will be of some interest.

Visuddhimagga (Chap. XIX):

Everywhere, in all the realms of existence, the noble disciple sees only mental and corporeal phenomena kept going through the concatenation of causes and effects. No producer of the volitional act or kamma does he see apart from the kamma, no recipient of the kamma-result apart from the result. And he is well aware that wise men are using merely conventional language, when, with regard to a kammical act, they speak of a doer, or with regard to a kamma-result, they speak of the recipient of the result.

No doer of the deeds is found,
No one who ever reaps their fruits;
Empty phenomena roll on:
This only is the correct view.

And while the deeds and their results
Roll on and on, conditioned all,
There is no first beginning found,
Just as it is with seed and tree...

No god, no Brahma, can be called
The maker of this wheel of life:
Empty phenomena roll on,
Dependent on conditions all.

metta,
~v

 

[Snoopy]

Snoopy,

Glad to find a fellow "agnostic"! Are you familiar with the writings of Stephen Batchelor?

Derek

Hi Derek,

I read Buddhism Without Beliefs a long time ago, leant it to someone and never got it back (as you do). I can’t say it had a great impact on me, but maybe a more in depth book would have been interesting (or maybe I should re-read it, it was a long time ago). However, I have considered going to the Sharpham Centre but thought it was a little pricey.

As an “agnostic” Buddhist do you think Stephen Batchelor represents the Navayana (the New Vehicle) for the West? After all, the dharma has always adapted as it has travelled around the globe and interacted with new cultures…literal translations of other religious tenets are not always the most…er…helpful, are they?

s.