What is it to "hear"?

[cyberpi]

"crossing over, not for grasping"... the implication is still that: a) something can change, and b) words or communication can help guide the change. Otherwise, there is no Buddhism because there is no student. Same for other religions. If words can not define a path or provide guidance then it is like saying my words are useless to someone because they can't define anything. They surely might be useless, but they do define something... they reveal what they came from.

I submit that is similar to saying the Earth orbits the Sun... it is not in hearing it or believing it that a person truly learns how the words were obtained, but in repeating the experiment. I see other religions there as the same, but that people do become hooked on the words or knowledge.

Since I'm somewhat ignorant of Buddhism, please correct me... I'm no teacher there. I mostly speak from my own mind and experiences which has thus far been in science and Abrahamic.

 

[Tariki]

Cyberpi,

My experience on Buddhist forums has convinced me that I'm not particularly orthodox. I find some of what you say difficult to truly understand - perhaps a failure of intellect (mine!), but anyway, for a variety of reasons I have no inclination to "correct".

Ideally all people and events and experiences are my own "mentor" or "teacher". Explicit choosing can imply/involve merely reaching from the known and therefore can encougrage a circular path, rather than what is often called the "straight" path of liberation. One who has proved to be a mentor, Shinran, who initiated the form of Pure Land Buddhism I seek to understand at the moment, speaks of the necessity of a "sideways" leap, rather than a gradual - upwards - learning. As I understand it, such a sideways leap - when not initiated/calculated by ourselves - involves that which is beyond the intellect. Here, Christianity breaks into grace, Buddhism into "all things are empty from the beginning", all is already as it needs to be. Whatever, all is given, all is gift. In such a context, learning, comparison, judgement - or whatever - can only "fall away" (having reached the end of its scope) rather than lead to "salvation".

Hopefully what I have said does not appear too muddled. I think I know what I mean!

 

[17th Angel]

I submit:
If a person hears only his own voice, then he does not learn anything true that he did not already know.

Then "he" learns no wrong... ?

 

[cyberpi]

Tariki, thank you for bringing to light and exploring that divide between Buddhism and Abrahamic religion. I have considered that divide before, albeit still with quite a bit of ignorance of Buddhism. I have seen how it is hard to hear (sense) while talking to oneself loudly within the mind, and within the mind a lot is seen by learning how to slow that activity with meditation or biofeedback relaxation. However, the key question I have then for the Buddhist is to what or who a person listens to if anything is heard, seen, or otherwise experienced as enlightenment from an otherwise allegedly empty bucket. If a gift is received, from where does the gift come?

I submit that NOT all is given... if it were true then the cause of sins that a person has were also given, which denies responsibility for them. In other words if wisdom, knowledge, and good behavior is given, then so is ignorance, falsehoods, and sinful behavior. To deny all responsibility in the obtaining of one is to deny the free-will... and yes, for me it points right back to the soul.

Another approach I think related to this thread would be to ask if within Buddhism meditation if anyone seeks to recall (see, hear) their earliest memory?

Then "he" learns no wrong... ?

I would say if a baby hears nobody else and is innocent like an empty bucket with no wrong pre-existing... then yes. If the bucket already has wrong, then ignorance is bliss, right?

 

[Tariki]

Cyberpi,

As I hinted before, I would not like to speak for "Buddhism". "Buddhism" is as vast as Christianity, with many mansions. I speak from out of Dharma practice, which in a sense is "Buddhism" converted into Upaya - skilful means - appropriate to the individual. Many Buddhists would question a lot of what I say, even suggest that many Pure Land teachings corrupt the "true" Buddhist teachings. Anyway, in effect, I "work out my own salvation in fear and trembling".

I used the word "given" - and the phrase "all is given" - in the sense of "enlightenment/salvation". Grace is pure gift, though it may need to be refreshed and affirmed within each succeeding moment of time.............we can stray! Enlightenment is not the end result of knowledge, not the accumulation of knowledge. "Truth" is not the end result of a gradual ascension. The object distinguishing consciousness will just involve us in a labyrinth of interminable complexities. As I said before, Shin (Pure Land) Buddhism speaks of a "transcendent leap to the side" as opposed to a seeming progress forward which is, in reality, without end and therefore is ultimately futile. All IMHO of course!

And speaking generally, Buddhism is deeply empirical. Ehipassiko............"come and see for oneself". One or two of the foundational texts drawn from the Pali Canon of scripture speak of what is wise to reflect upon, and what is unwise to reflect upon; of just what the Buddha declares and what he does not declare. "I speak of this alone, suffering and the ending of suffering". The Buddha himself spoke of the teachings he gave as representing a handful of leaves - yet what he knew as the leaves of the entire forest. And the Kalama Sutta has often been quoted on various forums..........

Do not be satisfied with hearsay or with tradition or with legendary lore or with what has come down in scriptures or with conjecture or with logical inference or with weighing the evidence or with liking for a view after pondering over it or with someone else's ability or with the thought "The monk is our teacher." When you know in yourselves: "These things are wholesome, blameless, commended by the wise, and being adopted and put into effect they lead to welfare and happiness," then you should practice and abide in them.....

As far as the use of the word "empty" is concerned, I would advise you to go onto a Buddhist forum for an indepth understanding from a Buddhist perspective. My own head quickly turns to jelly when such things are spoken of and discussed. I would just say that the use of the word empty has absolutely no nihilistic overtones..............."all is not" is rejected as much as "all is". Once again, the Buddha sought not to give a final speculative answer but to be free of all theories and to know, by experience, "the nature of form and how form arises and how form perishes." He wanted "not a third position lying between two extremes but a no-position that supercedes them both". (Merton, drawn from his Journals) The Buddha sought to overcome the world, not by mere denial, but by showing forth its true nature..........In effect, "reality" will look after itself, and be itself, when our "views" concerning it fall away as being found to be superfluous.

And I would say, in light of this, that the gift IS. It has no need to come from anywhere.

Hopefully I have not confused things further.