Consciousness and quantum theory

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between consciousness and quantum theory, particularly the idea that the wave function collapses upon observation. Participants debate whether consciousness is necessary for this collapse, with some arguing that it is an illusion created by the nature of consciousness, while others assert that quantum mechanics functions independently of consciousness. The conversation touches on various interpretations of quantum mechanics, including Wigner's Friend and the many-worlds theory, highlighting the complexity and ongoing debates in the field. Despite differing views, there is a consensus that the mathematics of quantum mechanics can accurately describe particle behavior without invoking consciousness. The relationship between wave collapse and observation remains a contentious and unresolved topic in theoretical physics.
  • #91


Originally posted by Rader
Human consciousness seems to be aware and know, by its expression through all religions and philosophies', that there is one commandment, that incluids all commandments. It is expressed in different ways. The expressions are as different as the races and cultures. The expression, awareness and knowing, is also different on the individual level of consciousness. Thou shalt love they neigbor as thyself. The problem is putting it into practice. In my humble opinion, once put in practice, enlightnment should come there after. Gloria in Excelsis Deo

Human consciousness 'seems' to be aware and know about one commandment?

There were human consciousness' before any commandments were ever conceived by mankind and not one human knew of the precept you quoted erroneously.

The commandment actually says: Do Unto Your Neighbor As You Would Do Unto Yourself!There is no law that says you should love your neighbor as yourself. It is not the intent to love but the deed to understand that if you want to be treated properly and kindly, that you have to DO the same to your neighbor.

There is no problem putting this Commandment into practice, as all it takes is Free Choice (Freewill) to make any and all decisions to follow the path for good or the path for evil.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
Originally posted by onycho
Buddhism is atheistic the way Chemistry is atheistic. Non-theistic is a better description. As far as I know, Buddha didn't make statements about the creation of the universe. That's not what Buddhism is about. It's about commoning to know, at the absolute most basic level, who you are.

Questions:

1) If the Budda didn't make statements or concerns about creation, then how can one (the individual) know who they are without having knowledge of being created?
Since when does who you are have anything to do with the origin of the universe? Even if Buddha had said it, why would that dictate me believing it. He was a teacher. A great teacher, but still just a teacher. Do you believe everything your teachers tell you?
2) If Buddhism is non-theistic by definition, why did the Buddhist Mahayanists as apposed to Theravada Buddists believe in Buddha as a trinity of gods?
I am a Mahayana Buddhist [Zen/Rinzai sect]. The reference you have isn't from a Mahayana Buddhist school. Do you get most of your information about Christianity from Jewish Scholars?
My teacher has said, on more than one occasion, that if you are doing this (our Buddhist practice) to escape [the world, your troubles, etc.] then your better off doing drugs. Buddhism isn't an escape. Nothing that engenders the pain that Buddhist retreats do, could ever be confused with escape, anymore than considering Marine boot camp 'escaping from reality'. The only thing Buddism could be said to teach you to escape is suffering.
Questions:

1) Is suffering innate in the Buddhist belief of reality that must necessarily be a part of each earthly existence?
Didn't you read anything I said? Pain is part of life, suffering is optional.
2) Is Buddhist 'escaping from suffering' comparable to those who escape their own world of suffering by joining the French Foreign Legion?
No, again, you didn't even read what I wrote. If these questions are to learn something, or to understand what I'm saying, then perhaps you should actually read them.
Enlightenment and Nirvana, have been misinterpreted by Westerners, early on, as some form of heaven or mindless escape. Humans are constantly conflicted by disparate goals of different parts of the mind. You know you shouldn't smoke, but want another cigarette; you know a juicy cheeseburger will raise your cholesterol, but your mouth waters; you want to be faithful to your spouse, but are attracted to your neighbor's spouse...
Do the Tantric Buddhists believe in using drugs, eating dung, etc to escape suffering as opposed to Theravada Buddhism?
I've never studied tantra. I am not the best authority to answer questions on Tantric Buddhism, so I'll leave that to someone who is.
Enlightenment, or self-realization, among other things is having the disparate parts of your mind come to an understanding. There is a Buddhist book out by the title 'Nothing Special'. It refers to enlightenment. And old Zen saying is: "Before enlightment, you chop wood and fetch water, after enlightenment, you chop wood and fetch water". Westerners, and most anyone that's not familiar with it, have a very skewed view of it.
Is 'Enlightenment' or self-realization attained by intuition or by intellectualization?
Meditation, [hopefully] leading to an experience of self-realization. Intuition could be considered a very strong part of it, in my school. Intellectualization would be an extremely hazardous path to enlightenment.
How does Zen Buddhism compare with Tantric or Theravada Buddhism in obtaining an escape from 'suffering?'
All seek an escape of suffering. Not of the pain that is thought to cause the suffering. The methods are different, the goal is the same.
It is a very profound experience, don't get me wrong, just not in the way you think. I've had a kensho experience (sort of a glimpse of enlightenment), while everything is quite ordinary at the same time it's like finding out you've been extremely tense all your life and all of a sudden you're completely, utterly relaxed.
Is the ultimate enlightnment of Buddhism the equivalent of being under general anesthesia of surgery where a level of consciousness is acheieved with a total loss of 'suffering' and while reaching a true level of understanding or Kensho?
Not in my understanding of what your asking.

Some terminally ill people have been introduced to LSD. Some, after the experience, find the pain of their illness, no longer matters. It's still there, it just doesn't control their lives any longer. This is analogous, though the cause is different.
You aren't escaping pain, hunger, etc. What you come to realize is that pain doesn't equal suffering. Pain is inescapable in life, suffering is optional. Attachment to desire is what generates suffering, attachment to desire for freedom from pain, attachment to the desire to have new Red Rider BB gun on Christmas morning and only getting a bicycle. Sitting in a doctors office a long time, a minor headache could cause a lot of suffering, yet the same person may barely notice the pain of getting burned while trying to save their child from a burning building.
Do you not experience pain or suffering immediately after being shot or as I am told when one is blown to smithereens by a bomb blast? A level of true enlightenment is achieved so to speak without meditation.
You haven't even read the paragraph - pain yes, suffering no. The two aren't equivalent.
Enlightenment can be reach via paths that don't include meditation. But as I understand, they have an extremely low percentage of folks that can attain it, via that path. I know of one that attained it by being poisoned and almost killed. Not a path I'd opt for first.
You learn you do not have to suffer. You learn that you are not part of the whole, but are the whole. You don't harm others anymore than you harm yourself. You have compassion for others, just as you care for your own body parts. This isn't learned from something someone tells you, but from what you discover during your practice of meditation.
A thought just came to me in a moment of meditation. As an example, the millions of innocent men, women and children in the Nazi concentration camps suffered mightly but according to Buddhism could simply have escaped this suffering by simply meditating with an understanding that they were a part of the whole. I guess that they didn't discover this fact in time as their suffering was based on their beliefs in a G-d. I guess they weren't enlightened.
Ah, is this a little abuse? Does your creed say it's ok to try to verbally antagonize someone, simply because they believe differently? I guess it's an easier path than logical discussion.

There are so many argument flaws in your paragraph, I'm not sure where I'd start to list them. Straw-man, to be sure, Ad-hominem, obviously, non-sequituir and Red-herring, yep, they are their too. Appeal to the masses, yes. Appeal to the weak, yep. I didn't think anyone could fit that many flaws in that small a paragraph, you should be proud.
"Part of the Mahayana vow is to save (lead to enlightenment) all sentient beings."
If you are a Mahayana Buddhist, do you vow to save all sentient beings? Is meditation enough to do this or must you actually do something active in this world to act on your vow?
Action and meditation.

By the way, meditation is an active process. It's active and fairly difficult to do well. If you think it's easy, try sitting without any thoughts coming into your head for five minutes. If one does, start the five minute timer over. Repeat until you go the entire five minutes without a thought.
If you are a Mahanyana Buddhist, are you a trinitarian (Trikaya)?
Yes and no, respectively. In fact I know of no one that would answer yes to the latter. It sounds like a Theravaden misinterpretation of something in a Mayahana sutra.
Unlike other religions, there is no concept of sin or hard, fast rules. The behaviour falls out of the practice. There are rules set up to follow until you get to the place where practice shows you how to behave. Usually these are called precepts and are considered a type of vow - an intention to adhere to them.
You say there are no hard or fast rules but there are precepts or vow to attempt to adhere to. Since there is no G-d, why should you obtain enlightenment since it ultimately serves no purpose?
Well, if you start with the assumption that any action serves no purpose, without serving god, then I can see how you would believe that. However, your premise since it ultimately serves no purpose is flawed.
These precepts (commandments) seem to maintain the appearance of a true religion even if denied.
I never said it wasn't a religion. Just that some in the west may not consider it so.

Breaking commandments is punishable by a deity. Who, but oneself, punishes you if a precept is broken? Certainly not god. Not your priest. Who?

The four noble truths aren't commandments or vows. Just what is believed to be so.

The eightfold path are ways toward enlightenment. To not follow them means, only, that you have a harder, if not impossible journey to enlightenment. I don't see these as sins. Do you?
 
Last edited:
  • #93


Originally posted by onycho
Human consciousness 'seems' to be aware and know about one commandment?

There were human consciousness' before any commandments were ever conceived by mankind and not one human knew of the precept you quoted erroneously.

I was referring to the present, but since you mention also the past. Does something have to be written down to be known? Is not humaness that commandment? Did free will just leap into reality or was it a lesser thing that evolved into human free will? Is anything erroneous or is it just the interpretation of it?


Read this quote from scripture.
http://www.topical-bible-studies.org/24-0003.htm

The commandment actually says: Do Unto Your Neighbor As You Would Do Unto Yourself!There is no law that says you should love your neighbor as yourself. It is not the intent to love but the deed to understand that if you want to be treated properly and kindly, that you have to DO the same to your neighbor.

Translation from language to language the words may change some, but not a meaning, only the interepretion. Someone who understands something does not always put it into practice, through love and compassion good can be practiced. For me what you write means the same. To me the word commandment pertains more to the moral or spirtual side of things and laws are manmade.

There is no problem putting this Commandment into practice, as all it takes is Free Choice (Freewill) to make any and all decisions to follow the path for good or the path for evil.

Yes but if all us humans have free will, then the question could be asked, if we are all conscious aware humans why do some practice good and others evil? Do all humans have the same awareness? Is there more good done in the world than evil?

To answer all these questions, it could be said that thoughts and meanings have an undivided fied of movement. All eventualities have a previous choice and ordination of synchronous events. Clear ideas have there roots in a caotic state but that is only the perspective of the present.
 
Last edited:
  • #94
consciousness does not equal perception
 
  • #95
Originally posted by onycho

1) If the Budda didn't make statements or concerns about creation,
He did. Cfr. the Tathagata Womb in the Lankavatara Sutra.
About that sutra: http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lankavatara_Sutra
The text: http://www.buddhistinformation.com/lankavatara_sutra.htm

The essence: "Emptiness is the word, really, which is better to use than God, because with God we start feeling there is some person. So Buddha never uses God, he always uses shunyata ? emptiness, nothingness. In the center you are a non-being, nothingness, just a vast space, eternally cool, silent, blissful." http://www.purifymind.com/EmptyCup.htm

The essence of the Universal Womb as explained in the Anuradha Sutta
To Anuradha: STRESS.
Buddha: "Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn22-086.html

If you take the time to understand my multi-layered spacetime membrane you will find out that Prior-Geometry (Das "Feld" of Einstein) is the empty Tathagata Womb with is ruled by 'stress' , and by this stress-dynamic can create and start the Karmatic wheel of matter, energy and life.
That Tathagata Womb is omnipresent in all, since it is the gravity-membrane that is the essence of everything: interconnective stress.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #96
Originally posted by onycho
Questions about Buddhism... (I am not being factious or trying to be disrespectful)

If Buddhism is not atheistic as described below then from where does the Buddha say that the creation of universe and everything originate?
From emptiness.

Is Buddhism basically concerned with escapism from all 'worldly ills' in order to eventually get to Nirvana or the world to come as stated below?
Sort of. Nirvana is not really a world to come. It is the rest state, the limit case, of consciousness, in which 'self' ceases to be and there is just being/non-being (emptiness/fullness etc).

What does Buddhism say about the need for 'being here' or is there some greater purpose to living on earth.
There is if you give it a greater purpose.

Does Buddhism give any reason of why we just couldn't have stayed in Nirvana while being pure intellect in the highest place as espoused by Buddha?
I'd say a state of Nirvana is an absence of intellect. We depart from it as a result of desire and confusion. (I'm not a Buddhist but this is how I see it).

Does Buddha say anything about relationship to helping our fellow beings or just about self realization in a higher state where we can get away from the pain, hunger, lust and all the other experiences of life on this planet.
Buddhist ethics, lifestyle, behaviour etc., derive from their ontology. In other words the practice of compassion, detachment etc. follow logically from an understanding of the fundamental emptiness that underlies existence. On the one hand the practice of these things helps one achieve a state of eternal bliss (emptiness), and on the other the experience of emptiness (bliss) leads one to practice them. As I understand it to a Buddhist nothing exists but consciousness in the final analysis. This is how Buddhism escapes the endless regressions of substances entailed by physicalist ontologies.
 
  • #97
Originally posted by radagast
Buddhism is atheistic the way Chemistry is atheistic. Non-theistic is a better description. As far as I know, Buddha didn't make statements about the creation of the universe. That's not what Buddhism is about. It's about commoning to know, at the absolute most basic level, who you are.
I'm not sure that this is right. As I understand it Buddha talked of little else but the creation of the universe. But it was by implication rather than explicitly.

My teacher has said, on more than one occasion, that if you are doing this (our Buddhist practice) to escape [the world, your troubles, etc.] then your better off doing drugs.
I find that too black and white. Perhaps escapism is not a good reason for doing it but it's an ok reason for making a start.

Buddhism isn't an escape. Nothing that engenders the pain that Buddhist retreats do, could ever be confused with escape, anymore than considering Marine boot camp 'escaping from reality'. The only thing Buddism could be said to teach you to escape is suffering.
What pain of Buddhist retreats? What do you do on your retreats that causes pain?

Surely Buddhism is in very much about escaping the eternal cycle of death and rebirth?

Enlightenment and Nirvana, have been misinterpreted by Westerners, early on, as some form of heaven or mindless escape. Humans are constantly conflicted by disparate goals of different parts of the mind. You know you shouldn't smoke, but want another cigarette; you know a juicy cheeseburger will raise your cholesterol, but your mouth waters; you want to be faithful to your spouse, but are attracted to your neighbor's spouse...

Enlightenment, or self-realization, among other things is having the disparate parts of your mind come to an understanding. There is a Buddhist book out by the title 'Nothing Special'. It refers to enlightenment. And old Zen saying is: "Before enlightment, you chop wood and fetch water, after enlightenment, you chop wood and fetch water". Westerners, and most anyone that's not familiar with it, have a very skewed view of it.

It is a very profound experience, don't get me wrong, just not in the way you think. I've had a kensho experience (sort of a glimpse of enlightenment), while everything is quite ordinary at the same time it's like finding out you've been extremely tense all your life and all of a sudden you're completely, utterly relaxed.
It goes without saying that enlightment cannot be explained. However it's definitely a lot more than this.

(Agree with the rest of what you said)
 
  • #98
Sorry to post so much but I feel radagast's reply to this was misleading. (Probably this will be as well).

Originally posted by onycho
Buddhism is atheistic the way Chemistry is atheistic. Non-theistic is a better description. As far as I know, Buddha didn't make statements about the creation of the universe. That's not what Buddhism is about. It's about commoning to know, at the absolute most basic level, who you are.
The Buddha's teachings are all about the creation of the universe. They explain its existence, or at least they explain how to understand its existence.

Questions:

1) If the Budda didn't make statements or concerns about creation, then how can one (the indvidual) know who they are without having knowledge of being created?
Very good question. In fact the Buddha did discuss how existence arises from emptiness at length, and the practice of Buddhism is very much about understanding this natural and inevitable creative process.

2) If Buddhism is non-theistic by definition, why did the Buddhist Mahayanists as apposed to Theravada Buddists believe in Buddha as a trinity of gods?
The reference to Gods in Buddhism is a bit confusing. I think the answer is partly that Gods in a Buddhist view of reality are not fundamental, in other words they are not Gods in a Christian sense. I suspect that they are best seen as explanatory metaphors for natural forces, or didactic tools. I'm not too clear about this. Certainly Buddhist ontology does not ultimately rest on Gods of any kind.

1) Is suffering innate in the Buddhist belief of reality that must necessarily be a part of each earthly existence?
Yes. But by suffering they do not necessarily mean great pain or tragedy. It is simply that if one exists as a 'self' in time then suffering is inevitable, since all things are impermanent, including any state of non-suffering. Whatever you value that is impermanent you must lose, whatever pleasure you have must cease, all good things come to end etc.

2) Is Buddhist 'escaping from suffering' comparable to those who escape their own world of suffering by joining the French Foreign Legion?
No, not at all. Ultimately one seeks to escape suffering by transcending the cycle of death and rebirth. In the meantime one practices detachment and desireless enjoyment. Buddhists seek permanent escape, an eternal lack of suffering, not a brief period of military service.

Do the Tantric Buddhists believe in using drugs, eating dung, etc to escape suffering as apposed to Theravada Buddhism?
Not as far as I know. Drugs are usually frowned upon, and eating dung is unnecessary.

Is 'Enlightenment' or self-realization attained by intuition or by intellectualization?
I think 'intuition' is the wrong word. Experience is the thing. Buddhism is not irrational so it helps to think about it, and thinking is encouraged. However non-thinking is also encouraged. Ultimately enlightenment comes from experience and cannot be achieved by reason alone. In the same way no amount of thinking about the colour red would allow you to know what red is, the experience of red it is what 'red' is.

Is the ultimate enlightnment of Buddhism the equivalent of being under general anesthesia of surgery where a level of consciousness is acheieved with a total loss of 'suffering' and while reaching a true level of understanding or Kensho?
No. Emptiness is not exactly unconsciousness.

Do you not experience pain or suffering immediately after being shot or as I am told when one is blown to smithereens by a bomb blast? A level of true enlightenment is achieved so to speak without meditation.
Escape from suffering is a side affect of enlightenment, not the definition of it.

If you are a Mahayana Buddhist, do you vow to save all sentient beings? Is meditation enough to do this or must you actually do something active in this world to act on your vow?
Only the most skilled reach a point where they might make such a vow, and I suspect only the very skilled fully understand the meaning of it.

If you are a Mahanyana Buddhist, are you a trinitarian (Trikaya)?
I would say no. The reference to Gods in some schools of Buddhism is very self-contradictory. I feel they are there as a way a helping people to make progress and see beyond them to the truth, but I'm not sure.
 
  • #99
Originally posted by Canute
I'm not sure that this is right. As I understand it Buddha talked of little else but the creation of the universe. But it was by implication rather than explicitly.
Can you specify. As I understand it, it wasn't the creation of the universe, but self-realization that he talked about. What would the creation of the universe, whether the big bang arose from a singularity or the universe was breathed out by a turkey while standing the back of a turtle, have to do with enlightenment?
I find that too black and white. Perhaps escapism is not a good reason for doing it but it's an ok reason for making a start.
It's doomed to failure. The problem is that if you are trying to escape the pain of reality, most Buddhist practice simply rubs your face in reality - rather painfully, especially once you start attending retreats.
What pain of Buddhist retreats? What do you do on your retreats that causes pain?
LOL, no offense intended but that's spoken like someone that's never attended one.

Try sitting with your legs crossed for about ten hours a day. Even though it's not all at one time, after a few days your legs become convinced your trying to kill them, and the rest of your body is very sore. In our retreats, movement during meditation is prohibited (given it's often a method the mind uses to escape the boredom that your mind initially experiences, it also distracts others trying to meditate). One of the people I sit with mentioned that sitting in a 'Lazy Boy' recliner for 10 hours, without moving would also make you very sore.

Why do you think I have the tagline I do?

I believe it was Steven Batchelor (Author of Buddhism without Beliefs) who stated that the closest thing, in American experience, to a Zen Buddhist retreat, was Marine Boot camp.
Surely Buddhism is in very much about escaping the eternal cycle of death and rebirth?
Some consider this literal, some metaphorical. If you take it to be literal, then fine - it's escaping the literal death of the body, then rebirth in another life. But Buddhism doesn't have dogma, as you yourself mentioned (if memory serves), so this is a personal belief. It's common among some Buddhists, it arose from beliefs of the Ancient Indians, and is very strong in certain schools. But it's still a belief.

Another interpretation is a little harder to explain in this type of forum. I'll only say that the birth and death it refers to have more to do with the birth/death of simple experiences, and the marks they make on your psyche [karma]. It's touched on, peripherally, in one of the last chapters of Novice to Master.
It goes without saying that enlightment cannot be explained. However it's definitely a lot more than this.
Agreed. No matter what is said about it, it would be incomplete, and easily open to misinterpretation.
 
  • #100
Originally posted by Canute Very good question. In fact the Buddha did discuss how existence arises from emptiness at length, and the practice of Buddhism is very much about understanding this natural and inevitable creative process.

I think if you examine the teachings, they discuss how form IS emptiness. That's not the same as existense arising from emptiness. The latter has only to do with the origination of the universe, which affects people in their everydays lives, very little. The nature of form being emptiness, and emptiness being form is the very crux of our own existence. Perhaps we are trying to say the same things, but I do have to say that trying to explain emptiness to someone that's never experienced it is doomed to misunderstanding.
The reference to Gods in Buddhism is a bit confusing. I think the answer is partly that Gods in a Buddhist view of reality are not fundamental, in other words they are not Gods in a Christian sense. I suspect that they are best seen as explanatory metaphors for natural forces, or didactic tools. I'm not too clear about this. Certainly Buddhist ontology does not ultimately rest on Gods of any kind.
I would agree.
 
  • #101
Originally posted by radagast
Can you specify. As I understand it, it wasn't the creation of the universe, but self-realization that he talked about. What would the creation of the universe, whether the big bang arose from a singularity or the universe was breathed out by a turkey while standing the back of a turtle, have to do with enlightenment?
It has everything to do with it. Self-realisation leads to an understanding of reality, including how it comes to exist. In a way one could say (I'll stick my neck out on this) that enlightenment is this understanding. But enlightenment is not an all or nothing thing, so it would be better to say that enlightenment eventually includes this understanding, but can be less than this and more.

It's doomed to failure. The problem is that if you are trying to escape the pain of reality, most Buddhist practice simply rubs your face in reality - rather painfully, especially once you start attending retreats.
LOL, no offense intended but that's spoken like someone that's never attended one.

Try sitting with your legs crossed for about ten hours a day. Even though it's not all at one time, after a few days your legs become convinced your trying to kill them, and the rest of your body is very sore. In our retreats, movement during meditation is prohibited (given it's often a method the mind uses to escape the boredom that your mind initially experiences, it also distracts others trying to meditate). One of the people I sit with mentioned that sitting in a 'Lazy Boy' recliner for 10 hours, without moving would also make you very sore.
Well, no offense, but if you think sitting still for a while is like being in boot camp then you also haven't attended one of them, and may qualify as a bit of a softy. :smile:

I believe it was Steven Batchelor (Author of Buddhism without Beliefs) who stated that the closest thing, in American experience, to a Zen Buddhist retreat, was Marine Boot camp.
Assuming you can sit still then what else is painful?

Some consider this literal, some metaphorical. If you take it to be literal, then fine - it's escaping the literal death of the body, then rebirth in another life. But Buddhism doesn't have dogma, as you yourself mentioned (if memory serves), so this is a personal belief. It's common among some Buddhists, it arose from beliefs of the Ancient Indians, and is very strong in certain schools. But it's still a belief.
All skilled Buddhists 'believe' in the possibility of escape from the eternal cycle of life and death. An understanding of this, a direct knowledge of this possibility, is an inevitable consequence of becoming enlightened. There is nothing metaphorical about the assertion that samsara can be swapped for eternal bliss.

There is no dogma because having dogma would contradict the very essence of Buddhist practice, which is about finding the truth out for yourself. Thus the term 'Buddhist dogma' is an oxymoron. However all Buddhists agree on the basic nature of reality, (quite a coincidence really), and what they agree on they regard as the truth. They can be quite dogmatic about asserting this truth, but it is not a dogma.
 
  • #102
Originally posted by radagast
I think if you examine the teachings, they discuss how form IS emptiness. That's not the same as existense arising from emptiness. The latter has only to do with the origination of the universe, which affects people in their everydays lives, very little. The nature of form being emptiness, and emptiness being form is the very crux of our own existence. Perhaps we are trying to say the same things, but I do have to say that trying to explain emptiness to someone that's never experienced it is doomed to misunderstanding.
Quite agree. Emptiness is not a concept, but a state of being.

It is what solves the old 'problem of attributes' from western philosophy, which seems to suggest that physical objects have no core substance. This bothers western philosophers but is not a problem in Buddhism, it's taken for granted that substance is inherently empty in the final analysis.

I'm not sure what you mean by the rest. I would say that that an understanding of emptiness entails an understanding of how existence arises. Not all the details of course, but the principles. It explains how something can come from nothing, and thus solves the physicalist paradox of the 'creation'.

The issue arose because someone said the Buddha did not discuss ontology and cosmic origins. But all discussion of 'emptiness' (bliss ,nirvanah, fullness, etc) in Buddhism is about ontology and origins.
 
  • #103
Originally posted by Canute
Quite agree. Emptiness is not a concept, but a state of being.

It is what solves the old 'problem of attributes' from western philosophy, which seems to suggest that physical objects have no core substance. This bothers western philosophers but is not a problem in Buddhism, it's taken for granted that substance is inherently empty in the final analysis.

I'm not sure what you mean by the rest. I would say that that an understanding of emptiness entails an understanding of how existence arises. Not all the details of course, but the principles. It explains how something can come from nothing, and thus solves the physicalist paradox of the 'creation'.

The issue arose because someone said the Buddha did not discuss ontology and cosmic origins. But all discussion of 'emptiness' (bliss ,nirvanah, fullness, etc) in Buddhism is about ontology and origins.

Understanding of emptiness comes from experiencing it. Ontology and cosmic origins that arise from such experiences are interpretations of such experiences, all such interpretations are based on prior experiences, ideas, and prejudices.

I am firmly of the opinion that some Christians, Jews, and Muslims experience a form of Kensho, but interpret it within the context they understand - calling it the experience of God. Their experience is no less valid than a Buddhists, but their interpretation is different. It's the interpretations that are on shaky ground. Rather than come up with a ornate description of something, based on the experiences we have, just sticking to what we know is the experience of the beginners mind. IMO, all else starts to wander into the realm of belief.
 
  • #104
Originally posted by Canute
It has everything to do with it. Self-realisation leads to an understanding of reality, including how it comes to exist. In a way one could say (I'll stick my neck out on this) that enlightenment is this understanding. But enlightenment is not an all or nothing thing, so it would be better to say that enlightenment eventually includes this understanding, but can be less than this and more.
I can only say that we disagree on this point. I've studied Buddhism for thirty years and been sitting regularly for close to ten. My study hasn't shown me what your's has shown you.

Well, no offense, but if you think sitting still for a while is like being in boot camp then you also haven't attended one of them, and may qualify as a bit of a softy. :smile:

I guess it's a little more than that. We are held in a monastary like setting - no chairs, no leaning against the walls, no rest for our legs, no lying down until lights out (midnight). Our schedule starts at 4AM and runs until Midnight. All sitting, whether meditation, eating, or free periods are on the floor. Given most are like me, in that we live most of our lives with chairs, sitting on the floor is hard on the knee and hip joints, at least by the second full day. I find it worse than most, given my knees are quite inflexible and a lotus position is something I can barely imagine. Attempting it would likely result in a call for ambulance services, with a high probability of power tool involvement. :smile:

Have you ever attended a multi-day retreat?

Assuming you can sit still then what else is painful?
This isn't the forum for me to go into this. If you are curious, read Ambivalent Zen. I will say that on my first retreat - only a short three day affair. By the afternoon of the first full day, being I was my instructors first student to attend (and my walking out would be an embarrassment to her), plus the fact I had non-refundable tickets and thought I'd be spending the next few days in the airport if I left, I felt extremely trapped. I even contemplated 'accidentally' tripping down the stairs, in hopes that I would break something and have an honorable way out. At the end of that retreat I was more certain I'd never come back to one of them, than I have been of anything else in my life.

I came back to the next one, six months later. I haven't missed but one since, and that was for surgery.

All skilled Buddhists 'believe' in the possibility of escape from the eternal cycle of life and death. An understanding of this, a direct knowledge of this possibility, is an inevitable consequence of becoming enlightened. There is nothing metaphorical about the assertion that samsara can be swapped for eternal bliss.
All, hmmm, don't tell my teacher. I'm hoping to be ordained in the coming year and I'd hate for him to find out I'm not skilled. :smile:

I do not know what sect you belong. It doesn't sound as if you've read much outside your sect, though. Zen literature is replete with many who would disagree with you. Batchlor's Buddhism without Beliefs is an obvious one. I believe it was Suzuki that said, when asked what happened after death - "I wouldn't know, I am not a dead zen master".

Some sects, such as Tibetan and Theravaden, are strong believers in the life/rebirth cycle, but this isn't universal.

There is no dogma because having dogma would contradict the very essence of Buddhist practice, which is about finding the truth out for yourself. Thus the term 'Buddhist dogma' is an oxymoron. However all Buddhists agree on the basic nature of reality, (quite a coincidence really), and what they agree on they regard as the truth. They can be quite dogmatic about asserting this truth, but it is not a dogma.
I'd be real careful about saying 'anything' about all Buddhists. For almost anything you can say there is, at least, one sect or school that will disagree. Shinsho, Pure Land, Theravaden, Chan, the Zen schools of Viet Nam, Korea, Japan, Okinawa, Nicherin, Tibetan, Indian - they all have some quite diverse views on virtually all aspects of Buddhism. Virtually all have concepts of enlightenment, emptiness, overcoming samsara, some idea concerning karma, but each has a distinct view on all of these. The Tibetans views on rebirth are almost the same as the reincarnation views of the Hindu while the Japanese the ideas of Karmic transfer after death to be much more along the lines of simple cause and effect - that your life actions affect others. Believe what you wish, but in my reading, I've found that there are a couple of core threads that connect all Buddhists, but to make carte blanc statements about them is almost a guarantee of being incorrect.
 
Last edited:
  • #105
Originally posted by radagast
Understanding of emptiness comes from experiencing it. Ontology and cosmic origins that arise from such experiences are interpretations of such experiences, all such interpretations are based on prior experiences, ideas, and prejudices.

I am firmly of the opinion that some Christians, Jews, and Muslims experience a form of Kensho, but interpret it within the context they understand - calling it the experience of God. Their experience is no less valid than a Buddhists, but their interpretation is different. It's the interpretations that are on shaky ground. Rather than come up with a ornate description of something, based on the experiences we have, just sticking to what we know is the experience of the beginners mind. IMO, all else starts to wander into the realm of belief.
There's certainly a lot of truth in what you say. But I'd argue that our ability to experience directly is sufficient to ultimately transcend differences of interpretation. A Buddhist would assert this from experience. I can't do that unfortunately, but I believe it's true. However I also agree that it's very easy to mistake an interpretation for the thing itself. As you know Buddhists avoid this problem by never asking or answering direct questions about it.
 
Last edited:
  • #106
Originally posted by radagast
I can only say that we disagree on this point. I've studied Buddhism for thirty years and been sitting regularly for close to ten. My study hasn't shown me what your's has shown you.
Hmm, I didn't expect a practitioner to disagree. Do you really not agree that Buddhist practice is about understanding reality? Or have I misunderstood?

I guess it's a little more than that. We are held in a monastary like setting - no chairs, no leaning against the walls, no rest for our legs, no lying down until lights out (midnight). Our schedule starts at 4AM and runs until Midnight. All sitting, whether meditation, eating, or free periods are on the floor. Given most are like me, in that we live most of our lives with chairs, sitting on the floor is hard on the knee and hip joints, at least by the second full day. I find it worse than most, given my knees are quite inflexible and a lotus position is something I can barely imagine. Attempting it would likely result in a call for ambulance services, with a high probability of power tool involvement. :smile:
I see what you mean. I'd call that unnecessary cruelty, except for those used to doing it. I'd go somewhere else. As far as I know the Buddha did not advocate pain as means to enlightenment, merely self-discipline.

Have you ever attended a multi-day retreat?
No. I know those who do however. Not quite the same but I don't know anyone who finds it this bad.

This isn't the forum for me to go into this. If you are curious, read Ambivalent Zen. I will say that on my first retreat - only a short three day affair. By the afternoon of the first full day, being I was my instructors first student to attend (and my walking out would be an embarrassment to her), plus the fact I had non-refundable tickets and thought I'd be spending the next few days in the airport if I left, I felt extremely trapped. I even contemplated 'accidentally' tripping down the stairs, in hopes that I would break something and have an honorable way out. At the end of that retreat I was more certain I'd never come back to one of them, than I have been of anything else in my life.

I came back to the next one, six months later. I haven't missed but one since, and that was for surgery.
Interesting. Why did you go back?

All, hmmm, don't tell my teacher. I'm hoping to be ordained in the coming year and I'd hate for him to find out I'm not skilled. :smile:
I'm still confused about this. Are you saying that you think Nirvana has only a metaphorical existence?

I do not know what sect you belong. It doesn't sound as if you've read much outside your sect, though. Zen literature is replete with many who would disagree with you. Batchlor's Buddhism without Beliefs is an obvious one. I believe it was Suzuki that said, when asked what happened after death - "I wouldn't know, I am not a dead zen master".
Not a member of any sect I'm afraid. But I thought all sects of Buddhism held to the same non-dual affirmation, even if they differed in the details. Is this not true?

I'd be real careful about saying 'anything' about all Buddhists. For almost anything you can say there is, at least, one sect or school that will disagree. Shinsho, Pure Land, Theravaden, Chan, the Zen schools of Viet Nam, Korea, Japan, Okinawa, Nicherin, Tibetan, Indian - they all have some quite diverse views on virtually all aspects of Buddhism. Virtually all have concepts of enlightenment, emptiness, overcoming samsara, some idea concerning karma, but each has a distinct view on all of these. The Tibetans views on rebirth are almost the same as the reincarnation views of the Hindu while the Japanese the ideas of Karmic transfer after death to be much more along the lines of simple cause and effect - that your life actions affect others. Believe what you wish, but in my reading, I've found that there are a couple of core threads that connect all Buddhists, but to make carte blanc statements about them is almost a guarantee of being incorrect. [/B]
Very true, and thanks for pointing it out so politely. :smile:

I'm not a budhhist scholar so must be wary of arrogant blanket statements like the one I made. All the same, I thought, correctly or not, that I was talking about what all Buddhist sects had in common, what makes them Buddhist as opposed to non-Buddhist. But perhaps I'm wrong about even that.

I have some trouble understanding why there should be any fundamental difference between Buddhist sects.
 
  • #107
Originally posted by Canute
There's certainly a lot of truth in what you say. But I'd argue that our ability to experience directly is sufficient to ultimately transcend differences of interpretation. A Buddhist would assert this from experience. I can't do that unfortunately, but I believe it's true. However I also agree that it's very easy to mistake an interpretation for the thing itself. As you know Buddhists avoid this problem by never asking or answering direct questions about it.

Dismissing origins, I would agree that many who've attained sufficient self-realization would be less 'argumentative' than those of use lower down on the path.
 
  • #108
Originally posted by Canute
Hmm, I didn't expect a practitioner to disagree. Do you really not agree that Buddhist practice is about understanding reality? Or have I misunderstood?
This is from what I've read and experienced, so you have to take it with that large grain of salt. Much of what I've come to understand is that the ultimate reality we learn about, as Buddhist, concerns the reality that starts at our senses and proceeds through our consciousness. When it really boils down, that is the only reality we can truly experience. We all have to make certain agreements as to what we believe each other is experiencing, but there's little or no way of knowing that for certain. IMO, this is the reality and most important understandings we strive to know.
I see what you mean. I'd call that unnecessary cruelty, except for those used to doing it. I'd go somewhere else. As far as I know the Buddha did not advocate pain as means to enlightenment, merely self-discipline.
Our's isn't for everyone. That said, until you've attended a multiday retreat, do not expect them to be all easy and etheric affairs.

As for the pain: We learn as Buddhists that pain isn't suffering. You know this as an intellectual idea. Have you experienced it. This is an important function, IMO, of the pain of sesshin [retreat]. Having gotten deep enough into the meditation [indeed, the pain is a good motivator], so that the pain isn't an important factor, I've experienced this first hand. This can teach you a lot about dealing with the things which cannot be avoided in life.
[answering about attending retreats] No. I know those who do however. Not quite the same but I don't know anyone who finds it this bad.
I don't usually speak of it, myself. Not in many years. Because the pain is no longer suffering, at retreats.

Everyone will view the 'discomforts' of retreats differently. If it's part of a strongly spiritual pursuit, it's less likely you'll view it as important or that notably either. Considering that I started this after I was forty, that my limbs had all the flexibility of uncooked linguini, and that I was a little apprehensive, it hit me much harder than most. Still, I've attended retreats with other zen groups [those not near as ascetic as ours], and the discomfort is still there. I still left with a soreness as if I had dug ditches for three days, after years of physical inactivity.
Interesting. Why did you go back?
The million dollar question. I, and many I've known that attend these things, can tell you all the ghastly reason you wouldn't want to go, yet we have little way of putting into words the spiritual benefits we get from sesshin.

I've noted many changes in my habits and reaction patterns over the years. Some due to my daily sitting, some more easily attributed to the deep affects of sesshin. This isn't something I could tell you. If you have a chance to attend one, please do. You won't regret it (at least not after the fact ).
I'm still confused about this. Are you saying that you think Nirvana has only a metaphorical existence?

Most Zen schools would not interpret Nirvana as a place or existence outside of our everyday lives. Your school may interpret it differently. Until I die, I certainly couldn't answer anything about what happens after my life.
Not a member of any sect I'm afraid. But I thought all sects of Buddhism held to the same non-dual affirmation, even if they differed in the details. Is this not true?

Yes.

I view each school as being a different path toward enlightenment. Some are more suited to one type of person, other schools suited to other types of people.
I'm not a budhhist scholar so must be wary of arrogant blanket statements like the one I made. All the same, I thought, correctly or not, that I was talking about what all Buddhist sects had in common, what makes them Buddhist as opposed to non-Buddhist. But perhaps I'm wrong about even that.
I have to be careful myself. I've been known to make blanket statements about Buddhism being non-theistic, and others that are more reflective of my experiences. We all do this.

I suspect that most Buddhist teachers would find that all Buddhism is alike. Not necessarily in it's method, but in it's goals. I have seen much difference in a lot of the details that would almost form a cosmology or view of reality. I don't know if this is all metaphorical in nature, or they all accept basically different things. I'm just not that knowledgeable. I tend to think that many of the scholars are even more deluded on these points, in that it's often easy to take metaphor as real.
I have some trouble understanding why there should be any fundamental difference between Buddhist sects.
I think, on the points that really count (as viewed by someone enlightened), they probably don't. Not having arrived at such a place, I can only compare what I experience, read, and see. I tend to think of the different sects much as I would view the differences between karate and aikido - they don't look alike, they have different philosophies (some almost diametrically opposed), and have different methods, yet they are both valid arts of self-defense and both can be spiritual paths (if practiced correctly). Not a great analogy, but hopefully it get's my point across.

I don't want you to take anything I've said as gospel. practice with some groups and see which harmonizes with you. As my teacher tells me, believe what you experience, not what's been said here.
 
  • #109
Radagast

You say that all Buddhist schools assert non-duality. This is what I understood to be the case.

To be clear this is how I see it. Non-duality is an assertion about the nature of reality, not metaphorical in any way, and knowable with certainty through practice (albeit supported by reason). It is not a belief but direct knowledge, hence it is usually called an 'affirmation' rather than a philosophy or theory. It has been asserted over thousands of years by everyone from Lao Tsu to Wu Wu Wei, and is the source of the 'middle way', the transcendence of polarities.

While there is some disagreement about the details of cosmogeny etc in Buddhism I did not think that there was any disagremeent about this basic ontological assertion. The non-dual nature of underlying reality makes it impossible to conceive or discuss properly, but I see all references to brahman, bliss, emptiness, fullness, nirvana etc., as being to the ultimate non-dual substrate of existence. It has recently been christened the 'zero ontology' by some philsopher or other whose name I've forgotten.

I take this for granted but perhaps, if as a Buddhist you don't agree, I'm wrong to do this. I'm going to do a bit of checking around just in case, but nothing I've ever read or experienced so far has contradicted this view (until this conversation).
 
Last edited:
  • #110
avalokiteschvara

is avalokiteschvara (avalokiteshvara?) a buddhist concept? what is avalokiteschvara all about?

can it be defined or would defining (not to mention naming something) represent a contradiction of nonduality? is it an entity, a state, a being, an aspect in the "field" of consciousness, all of the above, none of the above?

what is the relationship between avalokiteshvara and existence?

reincarnation question. upon "reaching" a state of nonduality (nirvana?), does the reincarnation cycle end?
 
Last edited:
  • #111


Originally posted by phoenixthoth
is avalokiteschvara (avalokiteshvara?) a buddhist concept? what is avalokiteschvara all about?

As far as I know Avalokiteshvara was a lord who achieved enlightenment.
 
  • #112
In Tibetan Buddhism the Avalokiteshvara is also called Tschenresi. It incarnates in Bodhisattva's. The Dalai Lama is also considered such re-incarnation.
 
  • #113
Originally posted by radagast

Since when does who you are have anything to do with the origin of the universe? Even if Buddha had said it, why would that dictate me believing it. He was a teacher. A great teacher, but still just a teacher. Do you believe everything your teachers tell you?

Then you are saying that you do not believe Buddha the great teacher? The origin of the universe is directly on point when you have no idea of who you are in relationship to the particles from the beginning of it all.

I am a Mahayana Buddhist [Zen/Rinzai sect]. The reference you have isn't from a Mahayana Buddhist school. Do you get most of your information about Christianity from Jewish Scholars?

Really? It may be that it is you who do not know the basic teachings of Buddha. You may have been given understandings of Buddhism by your teacher who is not aware of the Buddha and his actual beliefs. You understanding of Buddha may be taught by an atheist and not a Mahayana Buddhist.


Questions:

1) Is suffering innate in the Buddhist belief of reality that must necessarily be a part of each earthly existence? [/quote]
Didn't you read anything I said? Pain is part of life, suffering is optional.

No, again, you didn't even read what I wrote. If these questions are to learn something, or to understand what I'm saying, then perhaps you should actually read them.

Maybe it is you who do not read what you write. The statement that 'pain is part of life' while 'suffering is optional' is like the Buddha being either a great teacher or he cleared his mind of all intellect and became the emptiness in his head.

Do the Tantric Buddhists believe in using drugs, eating dung, etc to escape suffering as opposed to Theravada Buddhism?

I've never studied tantra. I am not the best authority to answer questions on Tantric Buddhism, so I'll leave that to someone who is.

It appears that bringing on your own Mahayana emptiness of both thought and intellect has left you unable to think about the three trinity bodies of the Buddha which consist of Dharma-kaya (Truth body), Sambhoga-kaya (Enjoyment body), and Nirmana-kaya(Manifestation body).

Is 'Enlightenment' or self-realization attained by intuition or by intellectualization?

Meditation, [hopefully] leading to an experience of self-realization. Intuition could be considered a very strong part of it, in my school. Intellectualization would be an extremely hazardous path to enlightenment.

Yep it certainly appears you are correct on this point.

All seek an escape of suffering. Not of the pain that is thought to cause the suffering. The methods are different, the goal is the same.

So you feel 'pain' but by meditation and emptying your head of all thought you escape the suffering? This sounds like the ole biofeedback therapy of ridding oneself of pain and the resuliting suffering. Is this Buddha's secret?

Is the ultimate enlightnment of Buddhism the equivalent of being under general anesthesia of surgery where a level of consciousness is achieved with a total loss of 'suffering' and while reaching a true level of understanding or Kensho?

Not in my understanding of what your asking.

Maybe there are other ways of achieving Kensho without working and working and working on it during many reincarnations. It is my contention that humanity is nothing more than consciousness in a super holograph where all humans assume that we exist in this place called reality. Perhaps there is actually rhyme and reason to SUFFERING and not something to be avoided.

Some terminally ill people have been introduced to LSD. Some, after the experience, find the pain of their illness, no longer matters. It's still there, it just doesn't control their lives any longer. This is analogous, though the cause is different.

So you admit that there might be drug induced enlightenment to avoid that old problem of SUFFERING!

Do you not experience pain or suffering immediately after being shot or as I am told when one is blown to smithereens by a bomb blast? A level of true enlightenment is achieved so to speak without meditation.

You haven't even read the paragraph - pain yes, suffering no. The two aren't equivalent.

Then please enlighten the rest of us about the differentiation between suffering and pain. There are many people who would disagree with you and Buddha. They have significant pain in their bodies which causes suffering beyond most people's experience.

Enlightenment can be reach via paths that don't include meditation. But as I understand, they have an extremely low percentage of folks that can attain it, via that path. I know of one that attained it by being poisoned and almost killed. Not a path I'd opt for first.

Actually there is a method by which the highest level of enlightenment and loss of suffering can be reached without meditation and emptying one's head of intellect. The human brain when exposed during neurosurgery, can be electrically stimulated in an area of the motor cortex which releases neural hormones giving each individual a form of leaving one's body and moving into a total peaceful light and Nirvana.
----
A thought just came to me in a moment of meditation. As an example, the millions of innocent men, women and children in the Nazi concentration camps suffered mightly but according to Buddhism could simply have escaped this suffering by simply meditating with an understanding that they were a part of the whole. I guess that they didn't discover this fact in time as their suffering was based on their beliefs in a G-d. I guess they weren't enlightened.

Ah, is this a little abuse? Does your creed say it's ok to try to verbally antagonize someone, simply because they believe differently? I guess it's an easier path than logical discussion.

Why do you perceive any abuse in my statement? When you say that others 'believe differently' are you intimating that Buddhist belief is a form of faith in the teachings of Buddha.

There are so many argument flaws in your paragraph, I'm not sure where I'd start to list them. Straw-man, to be sure, Ad-hominem, obviously, non-sequituir and Red-herring, yep, they are their too. Appeal to the masses, yes. Appeal to the weak, yep. I didn't think anyone could fit that many flaws in that small a paragraph, you should be proud.

You have used the ultimate prosyllogism when you feel that your Mahayana beliefs are threatened.

If you are a Mahayana Buddhist, do you vow to save all sentient beings? Is meditation enough to do this or must you actually do something active in this world to act on your vow?

Action and meditation. By the way, meditation is an active process. It's active and fairly difficult to do well. If you think it's easy, try sitting without any thoughts coming into your head for five minutes. If one does, start the five minute timer over. Repeat until you go the entire five minutes without a thought. Yes and no, respectively. In fact I know of no one that would answer yes to the latter. It sounds like a Theravaden misinterpretation of something in a Mayahana sutra.

How can Buddhist action sound like anything when you sit around actively without any thoughts in your head for five minutes or sixty-years? Your statement sounds like a total misunderstanding of the Buddha's lack of thoughts.

Well, if you start with the assumption that any action serves no purpose, without serving god, then I can see how you would believe that. However, your premise since it ultimately serves no purpose is flawed.

Explain how my no purpose statement is flawed. Simply stating flaws exist requires some logical coherent proof.

I never said it wasn't a religion. Just that some in the west may not consider it so.

Then what are you saying? Is Buddhism a religion or how do the people of Western civilizations interpret your equivocation?

Breaking commandments is punishable by a deity. Who, but oneself, punishes you if a precept is broken? Certainly not god. Not your priest. Who?

Who said that breaking precepts or commandments are punished by oneself? The fear of punishment was used for centuries by certain religions to hold believers from losing their faith. Who punishes Buddhists from not achieving enlightenment? Who?

The four noble truths aren't commandments or vows. Just what is believed to be so.

By whom and for what reasons?

The eightfold path are ways toward enlightenment. To not follow them means, only, that you have a harder, if not impossible journey to enlightenment. I don't see these as sins. Do you?

Yes of course as ultimately all consciousness has no difficulty in their end-journey to enlightenment no matter how many times one empties one's head of thought or how many reincarnatons one has to reach for a return to the flow of the ultimate truth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #114
Originally posted by Canute
Radagast

You say that all Buddhist schools assert non-duality. This is what I understood to be the case.

To be clear this is how I see it. Non-duality is an assertion about the nature of reality, not metaphorical in any way, and knowable with certainty through practice (albeit supported by reason). It is not a belief but direct knowledge, hence it is usually called an 'affirmation' rather than a philosophy or theory. It has been asserted over thousands of years by everyone from Lao Tsu to Wu Wu Wei, and is the source of the 'middle way', the transcendence of polarities.
Duality itself is a product of the mind. A mental construct to make dealing with reality easier. Science and Buddhism are in complete agreement when it comes to non-duality, since there's no way to demonstrate one thing as being completely distinct from another, via science.

Non-duality is more a recognition of the way the mind is deluding us when we assume everything is separate. Buddhism demonstrates that duality a the product of the mind, not inherently real.
 
  • #115
Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by radagast

Since when does who you are have anything to do with the origin of the universe? Even if Buddha had said it, why would that dictate me believing it. He was a teacher. A great teacher, but still just a teacher. Do you believe everything your teachers tell you?

Then you are saying that you do not believe Buddha the great teacher? The origin of the universe is directly on point when you have no idea of who you are in relationship to the particles from the beginning of it all.
Believe, hell no! I don't Believe, as in faith type belief, anything.

I accept many things that Gautama Sidhartha taught, but I certainly wouldn't accept what he says about the beginnings of the universe, anymore than I'd accept Genesis's version. Why the hell should I?!? He didn't have a lot of information about the early universe, nor much accurate information about the present one to logically induce early conditions.

As far as the part about origins of the particles and who I am - what do those have to do with each other.

Please explain the direct relationship between the early origins of the particles of the universe and what this has to do with my striving for self-realization?
 
Last edited:
  • #116
Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by radagast
I am a Mahayana Buddhist [Zen/Rinzai sect]. The reference you have isn't from a Mahayana Buddhist school. Do you get most of your information about Christianity from Jewish Scholars?

Really? It may be that it is you who do not know the basic teachings of Buddha. You may have been given understandings of Buddhism by your teacher who is not aware of the Buddha and his actual beliefs. You understanding of Buddha may be taught by an atheist and not a Mahayana Buddhist.


An atheist, as defined as one who has no belief in a god, isn't inconsistent with most Buddhist schools and is almost required (by
some peoples views) within the Zen school of Mahayana Buddhism.

I do not know if my teacher is atheist or not - it's not come up. My intellectual understandings of the Buddhism have come thru thirty some odd years of reading books on it, plus the ten years of intense practice of it. Just some of the books that would back up the things I've said are Buddhism without Beliefs, The Three Pillars of Zen, Novice to Master, Instructions to the Cook, Nothing Special, The Wisdom of No Escape,A Flower Does Not Speak, One Arrow, One Life, Zen Mind, Beginners Mind, and Fudochi Shimmyo Roku. There are others, but these were off the top of my head.

Do you follow any practice of Buddhism, if so what kind? Otherwise, what is your source of information?
Questions:

1) Is suffering innate in the Buddhist belief of reality that must necessarily be a part of each earthly existence?
Didn't you read anything I said? Pain is part of life, suffering is optional.

No, again, you didn't even read what I wrote. If these questions are to learn something, or to understand what I'm saying, then perhaps you should actually read them.

Maybe it is you who do not read what you write. The statement that 'pain is part of life' while 'suffering is optional' is like the Buddha being either a great teacher or he cleared his mind of all intellect and became the emptiness in his head.
Suffering and pain are related - hence my statements. In the west, most don't know the difference in the two.

Buddha being a great teacher or a empty headed person is both a bifurcation flaw (being their are infinitely more possibilities than those) and a flawed analogy - since it doesn't relate to what I've been trying to say.

If you are contesting that pain is part of life and suffering is optional, then state this clearly, plus why you disagree - otherwise I have no idea what you're trying to say.
Do the Tantric Buddhists believe in using drugs, eating dung, etc to escape suffering as opposed to Theravada Buddhism?

I've never studied tantra. I am not the best authority to answer questions on Tantric Buddhism, so I'll leave that to someone who is.[

It appears that bringing on your own Mahayana emptiness of both thought and intellect has left you unable to think about the three trinity bodies of the Buddha which consist of Dharma-kaya (Truth body), Sambhoga-kaya (Enjoyment body), and Nirmana-kaya(Manifestation body).
This doesn't address my answer. I stated I'm not qualified to answer questions on Tantra and you run off on a perpendicular path.

You're thoughts are not clear - certainly not in relation to the argument at hand.

Insults are non-productive to this discussion.

As to the trinity of bodies - these are fine ways of conceptualizing three types of existence. To assume that they have to infer a three-part 'diety' is incorrect. In zen, these would be see as types of existence we all experience, at some time or another. This is certainly my interpretation of Buddhist intellectualism. Either they refer to dogma, something antithetic to every Buddhist school I've read much on, or it refers to someones belief, and can be taken or left by the practitioner.

All seek an escape of suffering. Not of the pain that is thought to cause the suffering. The methods are different, the goal is the same.

So you feel 'pain' but by meditation and emptying your head of all thought you escape the suffering? This sounds like the ole biofeedback therapy of ridding oneself of pain and the resuliting suffering. Is this Buddha's secret?
It isn't a cause and effect type of thing. Meditation doesn't cause you not to feel pain or not to suffer.

When a mother enters a burning house to save her child, she barely notices the pain from the serious burns she receives. I assume you've heard of this type of occurence. When the child is safe, even though know the pain would be less (because the injury isn't as fresh), the suffering would typically come upon her full force.

This is an unconscious and natural way in which the typical suffering reaction is overriden.

The more I've meditated, the more I've understood how to make sure the pain I've felt isn't turned into suffering by my mind. Having passed some 30 kidney stones, this has come in handy.

Is the ultimate enlightenment of Buddhism the equivalent of being under general anesthesia of surgery where a level of consciousness is achieved with a total loss of 'suffering' and while reaching a true level of understanding or Kensho?

Not in my understanding of what your asking.
Maybe there are other ways of achieving Kensho without working and working and working on it during many reincarnations. It is my contention that humanity is nothing more than consciousness in a super holograph where all humans assume that we exist in this place called reality. Perhaps there is actually rhyme and reason to SUFFERING and not something to be avoided.
Then don't let me stop you.

Some terminally ill people have been introduced to LSD. Some, after the experience, find the pain of their illness, no longer matters. It's still there, it just doesn't control their lives any longer. This is analogous, though the cause is different.
So you admit that there might be drug induced enlightenment to avoid that old problem of SUFFERING!
I would hardly consider that enlightenment, but certainly there are cases where enlightenment has occurred thru other than meditative means, possibly including drugs, and a least one case, poison. Buddhism is but one path, not the only path.
Then please enlighten the rest of us about the differentiation between suffering and pain. There are many people who would disagree with you and Buddha. They have significant pain in their bodies which causes suffering beyond most people's experience.
It doesn't seem that it's the rest of you, just you questioning me, but I'll answer just the same. Why is it that some times you have a small pain and it bothers the hell out of you, yet other times (say playing a sport) a much greater pain is ignored?

This is the difference between suffering and pain. Pain is the physical sensation, suffering is when it effects you negatively.

I saw a great example when I took my cat to the vet. He needed to get a shot, which the vet gave him. He was highly unnerved by all the sounds and smells of other animals (dogs specifically), so barely noticed the shot. Had I tried to give him the same shot, at home, when he wasn't worrying about being eaten by large dogs, he would have screamed bloody murder and tryed to remove the arm giving him the shot. This is a small difference between pain and suffering.

Have you ever been in a fight when you were angry? You barely notice the pain when you're fighting, but it hurts like hell afterwards.

Are you old enough to remember the Buddhist monks that set themselves on fire, in Viet Nam, protesting the war. These monks were able to overcome the suffering of being emolated, until they died.

Enlightenment can be reach via paths that don't include meditation. But as I understand, they have an extremely low percentage of folks that can attain it, via that path. I know of one that attained it by being poisoned and almost killed. Not a path I'd opt for first.
Actually there is a method by which the highest level of enlightenment and loss of suffering can be reached without meditation and emptying one's head of intellect. The human brain when exposed during neurosurgery, can be electrically stimulated in an area of the motor cortex which releases neural hormones giving each individual a form of leaving one's body and moving into a total peaceful light and Nirvana.

Emptying one's head of intellect?? Where the hell did you get that? The use of intellect to attain enlightenment is doomed to failure, but it's hardly the same thing as emptying ones head. I get the feeling you haven't a clue what we've been talking about. The experience of Emptiness isn't emptiness in your head. Christ! Where the hell have you been getting your information about Buddhism, the back of a Cheerio's box?

I'm certain that the experiences that are felt by someone enlightened can be duplicated by artificial means - I am under no delusion that enlightenment is some magical or metaphysical condition. Just because the feelings can be duplicated, doesn't yield the more important aspects of self-realization. The deep down, true understanding of your mind and how it works - why you feel certain ways, act certain ways, and and the ability to overcome the knee-jerk mental reactions that occur when someone acts a certain way (antagonistic or otherwise) toward you.
 
Last edited:
  • #117
Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by radagast
----
A thought just came to me in a moment of meditation. As an example, the millions of innocent men, women and children in the Nazi concentration camps suffered mightly but according to Buddhism could simply have escaped this suffering by simply meditating with an understanding that they were a part of the whole. I guess that they didn't discover this fact in time as their suffering was based on their beliefs in a G-d. I guess they weren't enlightened.
Ah, is this a little abuse? Does your creed say it's ok to try to verbally antagonize someone, simply because they believe differently? I guess it's an easier path than logical discussion.
Why do you perceive any abuse in my statement?

You are attempting to use a straw man argument, misrepresenting what I've said, to riducule my arguments - without directly addressing them, then using the horrid events in history to sway the audience (via pity), even though this had nothing to do with the argument.

Had it been a simple statement or question, then that would have been different.

Had all those people who entered the concentration camps been highly skilled at meditation and had learned to overcome suffering, to a great degree, then yes they would not have suffered as much. They would still have felt the pain and would still have died - just not had to deal with the suffering as much.
When you say that others 'believe differently' are you intimating that Buddhist belief is a form of faith in the teachings of Buddha.
No, are you going to use this as a forum to debate the ideas I've presented, or use semantics to try and win a verbal victory?

If I have no beliefs, and you do, then we believe differently. Does that satisfy you question?
There are so many argument flaws in your paragraph, I'm not sure where I'd start to list them. Straw-man, to be sure, Ad-hominem, obviously, non-sequituir and Red-herring, yep, they are their too. Appeal to the masses, yes. Appeal to the weak, yep. I didn't think anyone could fit that many flaws in that small a paragraph, you should be proud.
You have used the ultimate prosyllogism when you feel that your Mahayana beliefs are threatened.
My beliefs haven't been presented - since I have none. What I've experienced, and what I've read I've used to counter certain unsupported statements made by you.
How can Buddhist action sound like anything when you sit around actively without any thoughts in your head for five minutes or sixty-years? Your statement sounds like a total misunderstanding of the Buddha's lack of thoughts.
And yours a straw man argument. I've never said meditation was sitting around without thoughts in your head - this is your claim.

Most will say that meditation is the process of calming your thoughts and observing how they arise. Understanding how they arise, understanding the gap between trigger and reaction [within the mind], and understanding the relationship between the cortical and the emotional is critical to self-realization.

The more I read from you the more I get the feeling you're on some form of crusade, against what exactly I'm not sure, only that you've designated me to be on the other side.
Well, if you start with the assumption that any action serves no purpose, without serving god, then I can see how you would believe that. However, your premise since it ultimately serves no purpose is flawed.
Explain how my no purpose statement is flawed. Simply stating flaws exist requires some logical coherent proof.

If you need me to.

  • 1) you say
    Since there is no G-d, why should you obtain enlightenment since it ultimately serves no purpose?

    2) This implies that god is required for a purpose, and the without god there is, ultimately, no purpose served.

    3) Implied, but not stated, is that purpose must come from without (apparently from god).

    4) Performing an action, to get a benefit, can be seen as a purpose for said action.

If you are assuming that attaining enlightement serves no purpose beyond death, then I take this to be a misunderstanding and withdraw my response.

Otherwise the assumption (3) is unstated, and is unsupported from what I can tell. This means it has to be accepted as true by all parties, supported by other evidence, or it cannot be used to derive the conclusion. Same with (2).

Since many, myself included, consider the benefits of enlightenment to be the purpose of working toward it, it has a purpose. If you mean, as in a purpose in life, this is what a person designates it to be. My purposes in life are my own, they may mean nothing to you, but they are still valid purposes to me.
I never said it wasn't a religion. Just that some in the west may not consider it so.
Then what are you saying? Is Buddhism a religion or how do the people of Western civilizations interpret your equivocation?
This is a point of semantics. I consider Buddhism a religion because of the definitions I choose.

If you consider religions to require (a) diety(s) and strong beliefs, then Buddhism would not be considered a religion. If you consider a religion to be a strongly spiritual practice, having many of the typical trappings associated with religions (temples/churches, priests/pastors, monks, nuns, et. al.) then it is.

If you choose definition one, you don't consider it a religion, definition two, you do. I would have thought this was fairly obvious.

The most commonly accepted usage, even in the west, is the Buddhism is a religion. I believe it was Canute that was saying it wasn't a religion (for reasons of definition 1).

Breaking commandments is punishable by a deity. Who, but oneself, punishes you if a precept is broken? Certainly not god. Not your priest. Who?

Who said that breaking precepts or commandments are punished by oneself? The fear of punishment was used for centuries by certain religions to hold believers from losing their faith. Who punishes Buddhists from not achieving enlightenment? Who?
No one, aside from yourself, possibly. I would have thought that was self-evident.
The four noble truths aren't commandments or vows. Just what is believed to be so.
By whom and for what reasons?
Certainly by most Buddhists. I am aware of many others that accept it as true or at least highly probably.

Why? Because they make sense to those that accept them.
 
Last edited:
  • #118
Originally posted by onycho
...[/B]

In the debate/dialogue we've engaged in, I cannot see any coherent rhyme or reason your posts.

You've presented many things about Buddhism that don't seem to be reflective of what I've seen as common to most Buddhism.

Where do you get your information?

You seem to have something against either, Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism, or me in particular. If so, perhaps it's best to articulate these specifically, rather than tangentially in responses to my posts.

You seem to believe I am lying, with respect to relating certain things I've experienced. If you consider my words or me to be dishonest, why continue to debate?

I guess it boils down to this, you seem to have some particular axe to grind, it's just not clear what.
 
  • #119
Originally posted by radagast
Duality itself is a product of the mind. A mental construct to make dealing with reality easier. Science and Buddhism are in complete agreement when it comes to non-duality, since there's no way to demonstrate one thing as being completely distinct from another, via science.

Non-duality is more a recognition of the way the mind is deluding us when we assume everything is separate. Buddhism demonstrates that duality a the product of the mind, not inherently real. [/B]
I'm sorry but there's almost no truth at all in any of that, and it's very misleading indeed. This is not a Buddhist view, or even a non-dual one. I say this bluntly because you are making a lot of assertions here which you have no right to make.

If you're going to keep going please back your words up with some references. I doubt that you'll find any to support what you've said here.
 
  • #120
Originally posted by radagast
Believe, hell no! I don't Believe, as in faith type belief, anything.

I accept many things that Gautama Sidhartha taught, but I certainly wouldn't accept what he says about the beginnings of the universe, anymore than I'd accept Genesis's version. Why the hell should I?!?

You have not understood Buddhism then.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Prof Mike Wiest's proposed link between quantum and consciousness
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
992
High School Are Schrodinger's cat and the double slit experiment the same idea?
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
5K
Undergrad Would this experiment prove consciousness causes collapse
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Undergrad Why don't we bury Schrodinger's Cat?
  • · Replies 143 ·
5
Replies
143
Views
11K
Graduate Can particles appear and disappear "with" a cause?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Feedback on Educational Script: What's a particle in QFT?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Undergrad How non-conscious can an Observer be and cause wave function collapse?
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
7K
High School Question about quantum superposition
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate Measurement in QFT: Mapping Fields to Theory's Math Formalism
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
High School Quantum entanglement and simultaneity
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K