GENIUS FORUMS

Hi all, I just left an outlandish thread, but in it I noticed several references to Buddhism. I did read several books about Buddhism, engaging in both practice and theory. In its entirety, I found Buddhism to be partially undeniable, partially incomprehensible or otherwise incohesive; overall, I found Buddhism to have some very neat truth in it.

Would anyone with an interest in Buddhism like to discuss it with me so I can come to understand it a little better? Just out of interest and for friendly conversation, or if you would like to know something about it, I might be able to answer some of your questions.

Buddha is something you get instinctively, no need to study. The tree outside your window is Buddha. The hairs on your arm are Buddha. Lung Cancer is Buddha.

Shave your head
Go to Tibet
You'll end up no wiser,
I bet...

Better to be a first rate organism than a second-rate Buddha.

I think Buddha was more of a great mind than a God. I don't think his teaching claim that he be an object of worship. Although some places hold that he deserves more than esteem, it's this "face" of Buddhism that I don't really understand, all the different states of being. But then again, I don't believe in reincarnation of the "soul", so that's probably why.

organism,

I should be very pleased to discuss Buddhism with you, as I have studied it at great length, along with other Eastern wisdom traditions. Where would like to begin?

Jehu wrote:organism,

I should be very pleased to discuss Buddhism with you, as I have studied it at great length, along with other Eastern wisdom traditions. Where would like to begin?

Hi Jehu, I'm wondering alot about what motivates me lately. Why I actually strive to overcome lifes problems and why I want to do what I do in general. I like certain things in life, like anyone and I realise the anguish of losing something you like or missing out on an opportunity.
It interests me that Buddhist teachings revolve around avoidance of discomfort for the comfort itself. Emotional and intellectual comfort seem to be the way of life and the desired outcome is the eternal restitude of the soul (not being reincarnated again).
I just find it interesting in itself, not necessarily desirable in modern society's ideals, but it's very appealing to my innate self. It seems to ring true, as a better outlook than what has developed in modern society, imho.

What do you think of Buddhism's teaching's of no attachments = no suffering = oneness of the mind, body, and soul?

organism wrote: Hi Jehu, I'm wondering alot about what motivates me lately. Why I actually strive to overcome lifes problems and why I want to do what I do in general. I like certain things in life, like anyone and I realise the anguish of losing something you like or missing out on an opportunity.
It interests me that Buddhist teachings revolve around avoidance of discomfort for the comfort itself. Emotional and intellectual comfort seem to be the way of life and the desired outcome is the eternal restitude of the soul (not being reincarnated again).
I just find it interesting in itself, not necessarily desirable in modern society's ideals, but it's very appealing to my innate self. It seems to ring true, as a better outlook than what has developed in modern society, imho.

What do you think of Buddhism's teaching's of no attachments = no suffering = oneness of the mind, body, and soul?

Indeed, the teachings of Buddhism do “ring true”, and the very fact that you are able to perceive this underlying truth means that you have the capacity to understand it. Fortunately, the philosophical doctrine that underlies the teachings is a rational one; that is to say, it can be arrived at by means of deductive reasoning from self-evident first principles. For this reason, the doctrine is not exclusive to Buddhism, but underlies many of the other great religions of the world: Hinduism, Taoism, Judaism and Christianity, to name but a few. Neither can it be utterly destroyed, for it will crop up again wherever there are rational thinkers – thus it is has been called by some the “perennial philosophy”.

Now, I am not a Buddhist teacher, and if it is the teachings of Buddhism that you wish to explore, there are many excellent teachers out there, and many of them are available on the web. However, before one embarks upon the practices of Buddhism, it is important that they understand the philosophical ground upon which the practices stand, and if this is your what you wish to accomplish here, then I will happily assist you.

Jehu wrote:Fortunately, the philosophical doctrine that underlies the teachings is a rational one; that is to say, it can be arrived at by means of deductive reasoning from self-evident first principles. For this reason, the doctrine is not exclusive to Buddhism, but underlies many of the other great religions of the world: Hinduism, Taoism, Judaism and Christianity, to name but a few. Neither can it be utterly destroyed, for it will crop up again wherever there are rational thinkers – thus it is has been called by some the “perennial philosophy”.

Now, I am not a Buddhist teacher, and if it is the teachings of Buddhism that you wish to explore, there are many excellent teachers out there, and many of them are available on the web. However, before one embarks upon the practices of Buddhism, it is important that they understand the philosophical ground upon which the practices stand, and if this is your what you wish to accomplish here, then I will happily assist you.

G'day Jehu,
I'm not sure if I understand the underlying principles completely. As I understand it Buddhism seeks enlightment in letting go of all attachments in life, except for happiness?! It's a good ideal to live by, it shows that life has more meaning when there are less complications.

I'm not sure how the soul is deduced, for example, or other concepts like reincarnation. I see the basis of Buddism as a sort of existential description/explanation and many of the meditations are a sort of allusion or allegory for the truth, more like contemplations for the bigger picture.

organism wrote:I'm not sure if I understand the underlying principles completely. As I understand it Buddhism seeks enlightment in letting go of all attachments in life, except for happiness?! It's a good ideal to live by, it shows that life has more meaning when there are less complications.

Enlightenment, which is an awakening to one’s true nature, brings about a liberation from the endless cycle of birth and death that is the lot of all sentient beings who are ignorant of their true nature. Liberation gives rise to an innate joy that is completely different from the happiness or pleasure we get from worldly experiences, and unlike the worldly variety, this joy never diminishes.

I'm not sure how the soul is deduced, for example, or other concepts like reincarnation. I see the basis of Buddism as a sort of existential description/explanation and many of the meditations are a sort of allusion or allegory for the truth, more like contemplations for the bigger picture.

The principle element of the path to enlightenment is to hold the correct metaphysical view, and primary aim of most Buddhist practices is to break down those habitual tendencies that prevent our attaining the correct view. In a nut shell, the Buddhists hold that the vast majority of people believe that which is not real to be real, and that which is real to be not real. In fact, the doctrine of emptiness is a form of absolute or objective idealism, and so stands in direct opposition to the commonly held view – realism. To put it another way, Buddhism holds that all phenomena (dharma) are devoid of any inherent reality (i.e., self), and that the nature of reality is essentially cognizant, as apposed to substantive.

organism wrote:I'm not sure if I understand the underlying principles completely. As I understand it Buddhism seeks enlightment in letting go of all attachments in life, except for happiness?! It's a good ideal to live by, it shows that life has more meaning when there are less complications.

Jehu wrote:Enlightenment, which is an awakening to one’s true nature, brings about a liberation from the endless cycle of birth and death that is the lot of all sentient beings who are ignorant of their true nature. Liberation gives rise to an innate joy that is completely different from the happiness or pleasure we get from worldly experiences, and unlike the worldly variety, this joy never diminishes.

I think I understand this. The happiness experienced without worldly attachemnt or subjective elements (in the way of reaalisation / changing perception). It's comparable with the concept of inner piece and the peace and quiet you might have in your house where you can physicallly relax.

I'm not sure how the soul is deduced, for example, or other concepts like reincarnation. I see the basis of Buddism as a sort of existential description/explanation and many of the meditations are a sort of allusion or allegory for the truth, more like contemplations for the bigger picture.

Jehu wrote:The principle element of the path to enlightenment is to hold the correct metaphysical view, and primary aim of most Buddhist practices is to break down those habitual tendencies that prevent our attaining the correct view. In a nut shell, the Buddhists hold that the vast majority of people believe that which is not real to be real, and that which is real to be not real. In fact, the doctrine of emptiness is a form of absolute or objective idealism, and so stands in direct opposition to the commonly held view – realism. To put it another way, Buddhism holds that all phenomena (dharma) are devoid of any inherent reality (i.e., self), and that the nature of reality is essentially cognizant, as apposed to substantive.

Thanks for sharing this with me. I agree with the view that perceived reality isn't the truth of it. And that views on the world are fabrications or non-reality, I also think it's a wise way of life to break these down and recognise them and their influence. Symbols, cultural views, other concepts and so-called "common sense" anecdotes that get bunched up in heap as "motivational fodder", etc; these are all doing peoplle a disservice to their individual freedom, autonomy*(as though it were entirely achievalbe lol), and these can be in place to the betterment of other's wishes/goals.

organism wrote: Thanks for sharing this with me. I agree with the view that perceived reality isn't the truth of it. And that views on the world are fabrications or non-reality, I also think it's a wise way of life to break these down and recognise them and their influence.

It is good that you agree, but it does not serve one well to simply accept the Buddhist view, for whenever we come to a conclusion with respect to some matter, our enquiry into that matter comes to an abrupt end. In such cases, one’s faith in the correct view is no more stable than is the faith of those who hold erroneous views. In other words, if one’s faith is to endure, it must be based upon a thorough personal enquiry into the matter, and not merely upon the testimony of others – no matter how plausible their view might sound.

Would you not agree?

Jehu wrote:

organism wrote: Thanks for sharing this with me. I agree with the view that perceived reality isn't the truth of it. And that views on the world are fabrications or non-reality, I also think it's a wise way of life to break these down and recognise them and their influence.

It is good that you agree, but it does not serve one well to simply accept the Buddhist view, for whenever we come to a conclusion with respect to some matter, our enquiry into that matter comes to an abrupt end. In such cases, one’s faith in the correct view is no more stable than is the faith of those who hold erroneous views. In other words, if one’s faith is to endure, it must be based upon a thorough personal enquiry into the matter, and not merely upon the testimony of others – no matter how plausible their view might sound.

Would you not agree?

Haha, good one Jehu. The way I see it is similar to how I think you do. I once heard/read that "once an idea is reached, that idea is wrong". I tend to remember this every time I begin to enjoy an idea or view just a little too much. One of which is avoiding coming to conclusions, I found that to never arrive at some type of conclusion meant that I had no foot-hold (no raft/crutch) to work from. I think it's important to find a middle ground, sometimes holding a position on something while frequently letting others go and to always being ready to abandon an idea as better ones become available. So I have another wise quote which works as a sort of antidote to the avoidance of forming conclusions, but I'll leave that one for later.

:smiley:

Do not misunderstand me, I’m am not apposed to conclusions so long as they are arrived at rationally; however, what I am apposed to is the blind acceptance of a conclusion merely because it conforms with our preconceived notion of how things are.

Jehu wrote:Do not misunderstand me, I’m am not apposed to conclusions so long as they are arrived at rationally; however, what I am apposed to is the blind acceptance of a conclusion merely because it conforms with our preconceived notion of how things are.

I think you're right in both respects. I also think that a conclusion should never be permanent.

organism wrote:I think you're right in both respects. I also think that a conclusion should never be permanent.

Very well, so where would you like our enquiry to begin?

I'm wondering about the cycles of life and death in day to day activities. Is the purpose of attaining Nirvana in the every day cycles faced in life or is it entirely after death and only in being reincarnated, or, is it a metaphor or allegory for refusing to become motivated as there is nothing to strive after once all attachment ceases?
On the surface it would seem like the belief is entirely wrapped up in actual rebirth and actual (physical) death cycles, it seems though that some of the teachings which a Buddhist adheres to in life actually seek to gain a state of Nirvana before dying (physically).
Mostly I'm just amused by what motivation means in this context.

organism wrote:I'm wondering about the cycles of life and death in day to day activities. Is the purpose of attaining Nirvana in the every day cycles faced in life or is it entirely after death and only in being reincarnated, or, is it a metaphor or allegory for refusing to become motivated as there is nothing to strive after once all attachment ceases?

On the surface it would seem like the belief is entirely wrapped up in actual rebirth and actual (physical) death cycles, it seems though that some of the teachings which a Buddhist adheres to in life actually seek to gain a state of Nirvana before dying (physically).
Mostly I'm just amused by what motivation means in this context.

In the Buddhist doctrine all things are created and destroyed instantaneously, and nothing whatsoever persist from one instant to the next. The reason for this is that all ‘things’ partake of only a relative existence, and so are not real, but only apparent. This is true of the body of the sentient being as well, and it is the cognizant awareness (self) behind the sentient mind that links these innumerable separate instances together to give the illusion of a single body extended in time. Therefore, from the ultimate or absolute perspective, there is neither birth nor death, however, there is the appearance of such, and so the ignorant continue to suffer, while the wise do not.

The state known as nirvana is not something that must be attained, but something that is innate, and one need only dispel one's own ignorance in order to dwell in nirvana. This ignorance can only be dispelled by coming to recognize one's true nature or self (i.e., that which is real and which underlies the appearance of the sentient being.” This is best understood through the analogy of the dream state, where in the is the appearance of a persona, complete with body and sense faculties, which interacts and experiences an apparently external and independent world; though none of these things truly exist.

Jehu wrote: In the Buddhist doctrine all things are created and destroyed instantaneously, and nothing whatsoever persist from one instant to the next. The reason for this is that all ‘things’ partake of only a relative existence, and so are not real, but only apparent. This is true of the body of the sentient being as well, and it is the cognizant awareness (self) behind the sentient mind that links these innumerable separate instances together to give the illusion of a single body extended in time. Therefore, from the ultimate or absolute perspective, there is neither birth nor death, however, there is the appearance of such, and so the ignorant continue to suffer, while the wise do not.

Do Buddhists also try to find overall meaning in the context of the whole? I think there's this analysis where meanings are broken down into their parts, but are meanings, ideas, etc being synthesized by "stardard" Buddhists? I wonder because analysis tends to create more pieces while synthesizing tends to establish meanings, etc and I'm not really sure whether Buddhism is about finding a sort of "oneness" with everything, or everything, just the physical attatchment, etc. It's difficult for me to describe because the whole idea is mental :D

Jehu wrote:The state known as nirvana is not something that must be attained, but something that is innate, and one need only dispel one's own ignorance in order to dwell in nirvana. This ignorance can only be dispelled by coming to recognize one's true nature or self (i.e., that which is real and which underlies the appearance of the sentient being.” This is best understood through the analogy of the dream state, where in the is the appearance of a persona, complete with body and sense faculties, which interacts and experiences an apparently external and independent world; though none of these things truly exist.

Does this mean that any Buddhist who wishes to attain a sense of Nirvana must be a student first and foremost? That a Buddhist is always a student even in the state of Nirvana? Is Nirvana about knowing enough to not be influenced by anything or have the mind at piece with everything?
It's a little bitt twisted, In one sense nothing exists at all times and the relationships between things are only relative. On the other Buddhism is about not being moved by things, influenced by them, etc and to eventually not be reborn. hmmm... I think you understand this better than I realkised lol I think it's making sense all of a sudden.
Thankyou for your thought provoking posts.

organism wrote: Do Buddhists also try to find overall meaning in the context of the whole? I think there's this analysis where meanings are broken down into their parts, but are meanings, ideas, etc being synthesized by "stardard" Buddhists? I wonder because analysis tends to create more pieces while synthesizing tends to establish meanings, etc and I'm not really sure whether Buddhism is about finding a sort of "oneness" with everything, or everything, just the physical attatchment, etc. It's difficult for me to describe because the whole idea is mental.

The aim of Buddhism, as with all true religions, is the attaining of ‘at-one-ment’, that is to say, the dissolving of the ego-personality (relative self) into the true self (the absolute); which is the same for all things.

Does this mean that any Buddhist who wishes to attain a sense of Nirvana must be a student first and foremost? That a Buddhist is always a student even in the state of Nirvana? Is Nirvana about knowing enough to not be influenced by anything or have the mind at piece with everything?

Buddhism, like all true philosophies, is not merely an intellectual endeavour, but a way of life. One can derive the doctrine intellectually, through deduction from self-evident first principles, but this is only half the battle, for that which is the ultimate goal – the Absolute itself, cannot be made into an object of mind.

It's a little bitt twisted, In one sense nothing exists at all times and the relationships between things are only relative. On the other Buddhism is about not being moved by things, influenced by them, etc and to eventually not be reborn. hmmm... I think you understand this better than I realkised lol I think it's making sense all of a sudden.
Thankyou for your thought provoking posts.

Yes, it seems most perplexing a first glance, but in the end, all will be crystal clear. Just as in a dream, there is nothing that really happens, nor is there really anyone to whom it is happens, still there is pain and pleasure, and in the end – there is suffering; especially for those who think the dream is somehow real.

So it seems that letting go of all existence puts one's self in alignment with the omnipresent, which is only relative and neither coming to be nor passing away. It is asthough the self is relinquished in order to experience the self in the truest form, that of nothingness and allness at the same time. Attaining Nirvana is the goal yet the goal itself can't exist because nothing exists.
It is almost a contradiction except for the purpose of I, the motivation from the self, and the relinquishment of the bonds which sway the self in the external world. For without the situation of letting go and self realisation how could any of it not exist?
It seems to be purely a state of mind, to say that nothing exists in a permanent state in the mine would be true, but for a shared collective experience to hold as truth throughout history is something which cannot be ignored as empty or imagined only through experience. These are just my thoughts.

that's what you think :)

organism wrote:These are just my thoughts.

Kunga wrote:that's what you think :)

What I think was meant, I was really paraphrazing.

organism wrote: So it seems that letting go of all existence puts one's self in alignment with the omnipresent, which is only relative and neither coming to be nor passing away. It is asthough the self is relinquished in order to experience the self in the truest form, that of nothingness and allness at the same time. Attaining Nirvana is the goal yet the goal itself can't exist because nothing exists.

While it is true that no ‘thing’ really or truly exists, it does no follow that they are completely non-existent; it simply means that they partake of different mode of existence than does that which is real. And again, there is no need to attain that state called ‘nirvana’, for it is our birthright, all we need do is realize our true self or nature.

It seems to be purely a state of mind, to say that nothing exists in a permanent state in the mine would be true, but for a shared collective experience to hold as truth throughout history is something which cannot be ignored as empty or imagined only through experience. These are just my thoughts.

Ponder, if you will, the case of the dream state, and you will see that the unconscious mind is capable of putting in place everything that is required to make the experience seem real, including ‘external causes’ and even a history, when required. I say that it is unconscious, for we have no recollection of our having created the dream world, or the dream objects that inhabit it; nevertheless, it cannot be completely unaware, else it would not be able to cause the dream to unfold in a relatively logical fashion. For, example, if we slip off our chair in our dream, our dream body is bound to the floor, and does not rise up to the ceiling – generally speaking.

Jehu wrote: Ponder, if you will, the case of the dream state, and you will see that the unconscious mind is capable of putting in place everything that is required to make the experience seem real, including ‘external causes’ and even a history, when required. I say that it is unconscious, for we have no recollection of our having created the dream world, or the dream objects that inhabit it; nevertheless, it cannot be completely unaware, else it would not be able to cause the dream to unfold in a relatively logical fashion. For, example, if we slip off our chair in our dream, our dream body is bound to the floor, and does not rise up to the ceiling – generally speaking.

I understand what you mean about the experienced reality, the experience itself, as impermanent; however, the expererienced world in a dream is like a memory you have when you're awake. Your mind doesn't just create an entire world while you're asleep, without having been exposed to such a reality during a conscious state. In a way dreams are based on the residual impressions, etc of the external world.
When you mentioned earlier of attaining true self, free from anything but the "raw" self, I was forced to think about what it means to be motivated toward non attachment. Is it the pursuit of the true self in Nirvana that is the goal? Is that a form of attachment?
I'm thinking there's an inherrent flaw to my thinking.

organism wrote: I understand what you mean about the experienced reality, the experience itself, as impermanent; however, the expererienced world in a dream is like a memory you have when you're awake. Your mind doesn't just create an entire world while you're asleep, without having been exposed to such a reality during a conscious state. In a way dreams are based on the residual impressions, etc of the external world.

This is true, in a dream the cognizant awareness that underlies the mind of the sentient being operates on its own subjective knowledge, that it has accumulated over the course of its life; whereas, in the waking state, it operate upon objective knowledge, which, although it may be influenced by the sentient being, it accessible to all sentient beings.

When you mentioned earlier of attaining true self, free from anything but the "raw" self, I was forced to think about what it means to be motivated toward non attachment. Is it the pursuit of the true self in Nirvana that is the goal? Is that a form of attachment?

Indeed it is, and one of the most powerful of all the attachments. This is why it is said that the way to enlightenment is not through attainment, but through renunciation. Still, there must be some measure desire and effort involved, else no one would ever seek to free themselves.

Kunga:

You have mentioned an interest in Buddhism.

Do you know of Khandro Rinpoche?

Here is a video of her spontaneously speaking ... a trained mind manifesting.

Meeting her would be an enriching experience, don’t you think?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_36UK2p89U