tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5043003269935490917.post3702719988573113585..comments2024-02-14T08:44:41.513+00:00Comments on Progressive Buddhism: Rebirth, ReassessedMyeong Jin Eunsahn http://www.blogger.com/profile/10324409234993116264noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5043003269935490917.post-1334295344233413872007-12-24T12:45:00.000+00:002007-12-24T12:45:00.000+00:00The key thing to keep in mind here, I think is tha...The key thing to keep in mind here, I think is that in Buddhism, philosophy is just a provisional means. And that all philosophy at all times - no matter what position the philosopher is taking - is conventional. So, in terms of what can be expressed or even conceived of, we have reached the brink. And yet that philosophy, like all things, is a reflection of ultimate reality and can be used to indicate that ultimate reality. <BR/><BR/>The key errors I think are to mistake a conventional truth (any conventional truth) for ultimate reality or to imagine that there is an ultimate reality that exists independently of conventional/dependent reality<BR/> <BR/>This is what Nagarjuna said about this:<BR/>"The Buddha’s teaching of the Dharma<BR/>Is based on two truths:<BR/>A truth of worldly convention<BR/>And an ultimate truth.<BR/><BR/>Those who do not understand<BR/>The distinction drawn between these two truths<BR/>Do not understand<BR/>The Buddha’s profound truth.<BR/><BR/>Without a foundation in the conventional truth,<BR/>The significance of the ultimate cannot be taught.<BR/>Without understanding the significance of the ultimate,<BR/>Liberation is not achieved.<BR/><BR/>By a misperception of emptiness<BR/>A person of little intelligence is destroyed.<BR/>Like a snake incorrectly seized<BR/>Or like a spell incorrectly cast.<BR/><BR/>For that reason—that the Dharma is<BR/>Deep and difficult to understand and to learn—<BR/>The Buddha’s mind despaired of<BR/>Being able to teach it.<BR/><BR/>Whatever is dependently co-arisen<BR/>That is explained to be emptiness.<BR/>That, being a dependent designation,<BR/>Is itself the middle way."<BR/><BR/>I asked Master Taiun about the relationship between conventional and ultimate and this is what he said:<BR/>"Buddha lives only ultimate truth. We, Bodhisattvas, see the world through our eye of flesh, chase our desires without knowing it, take our dreams for reality. It is thus necessary to hear the teaching that takes our state into account, that adapts to it, and changes according to our state, thus this teaching is provisory. Even if we go towards a state that is freed of the "me", freed from the distortions of the "me", as long as we are still prisoners of it, the provisory teaching is still necessary to guide us towards the absolute state, the state of Buddha." <BR/><BR/>This is about all I have time for. I'm off on holiday for the next 2 1/2 weeks.Shoninhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03635409886545725801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5043003269935490917.post-2058173384368522332007-12-23T19:37:00.000+00:002007-12-23T19:37:00.000+00:00Another wrinkle.In the book I'm reading, the Dalai...Another wrinkle.<BR/><BR/>In the book I'm reading, the Dalai Lama's 2000 book, "Buddha Heart, Buddha Mind", HH comes down fully on John Schwinn's side in The Sopranos discussion.<BR/><BR/>Y'all might want to read the chapter "The Path to Ultimate Omniscience."<BR/><BR/>This, from a few pages into the chapter, starting mid-sentence at the very top of 118 in the hardcopy edition:<BR/><BR/><I>Bhavaviveka and his successors have shown that, in a certain middle way, what we presently perceive as forms and other phenomena, these appearances of independent realities, do indeed exist on the conventional level, as if they had an objective existence.<BR/><BR/>It is the nature of these appearances that the three masters call independent reality, existing reality. The mind that perceives these independent realities is not in error with respect to essentially real appearances. What do they mean by that? That these "independent" realities exist perfectly well on the conventional level.<BR/><BR/>By contrast, for Buddhapalita and Chandrakirti this kind of independent reality does not exist at all, so to perceive it is an error. On the one side we hear of true knowledge, and on the other of a mistake. This shows how they define the object of refutation, and we perceive that there is a difference of subtlety in the oject that each side refutes.<BR/><BR/>Within the Middle Way, then, some assert an independent reality on the conventional level, and others do not. It would be better, however that there be no logical criticism of the view we are presently explaining, which denies the independent reality of everything, even at the conventional level.</I><BR/><BR/>He goes on to quote several sources, including this from Ratvatnoli's The Jewelled Necklace:<BR/>"As long as belief in the aggregates endures, belief will endure in the reality of the 'I'."<BR/><BR/>If you by chance have the book handy, by all means, read the chapter. I have now read it a couple of times and fear I will spontaneously combust at any moment -- but in actual-factual reality, nothing at all will have happened.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13718601770472939313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5043003269935490917.post-3014046270460120212007-12-19T18:09:00.000+00:002007-12-19T18:09:00.000+00:00Hi Tom, I like Hokai's emphasis on moving away fro...Hi Tom, I like Hokai's emphasis on moving away from karma and into action and responsibility. I take this to be a necessary step in our moral/'Buddhic' development. <BR/><BR/>And I do think the Buddha was pretty 'hip' with his new spin on karma. By equating it with cetana (volition) he out-foxed 2000+ years of Western thinking by saying that we really need a rich understanding of pyschology if we are to get morality.<BR/><BR/>Yet until we modern-day progressive bodhisattvas come up with something better to teach the foundations of responsibility, I'm happy to think in terms of 'karma.' As I see it, karma and responsibility are mutually supportive: I am where I am due to my actions (karma), in the future I'll reap the benefits or sorrows of my actions (karma). In fact I may go so far as to call karma the teaching of responsibility <I>par excellence</I>. <BR/><BR/>Regarding rebirth I'm a happy agnostic. Sometimes its nice to think 'I' knew my fiancee in a past life, or that 'I' may be able to help more people in a future one. Sometimes such fanciful thoughts spur me to meditate more, to cultivate more of the virtues. Sweet. At the same time I cringe when people get overly wrapped up in past-life mumbo-jumbo, spending untold time and money 'unlocking the secrets of their past lives...' <BR/><BR/>There is unending metaphysical speculation that can be done around this subject. For now though, I have other things to do.Buddhist_philosopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14246929532585980356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5043003269935490917.post-77359616391840743702007-12-19T11:49:00.000+00:002007-12-19T11:49:00.000+00:00I think he would have gotten a kick more out of Pa...<I>I think he would have gotten a kick more out of Pauli's last statement than anything from Mr. Schwinn.</I><BR/><BR/>LOL. Yeah, maybe so.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately I'm now left with an image of the Buddha speaking in a New Jersey accent.Shoninhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03635409886545725801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5043003269935490917.post-48543738732563628762007-12-19T06:22:00.000+00:002007-12-19T06:22:00.000+00:00As you two Justins know, I am sniffing around for ...As you two Justins know, I am sniffing around for awards-worthy blog stuff and tonight, serendipitously, I have stumbled on a nifty multi-part post by Hokai in Hokai's Blogue, last summer, that deals with karma: <A HREF="http://hokai.info/2007/07/drop-karma.html" REL="nofollow">Drop Karma</A>, <A HREF="http://hokai.info/2007/07/drop-karma-2.html" REL="nofollow">Drop Karma (2)</A> and <A HREF="http://hokai.info/2007/08/karma-of-excellence.html" REL="nofollow">Karma of excellence</A>.<BR/><BR/>In the first of his posts, Hokai makes the claim that Buddha reframed the conception of karma in his time, all of which dovetails with the post here and our comments discussion.<BR/><BR/>Hokai cites sanskrit terms and ideas, but not sources.<BR/><BR/>In his second post, he raises the idea of the moral implications of understanding karma, and then instructs that, in our modern day, we should 'drop karma'.<BR/><BR/>In his third post, Hokai has left the conception of karma as it is generally understood to speak of performing excellently at the tasks in front of us and pursuing doing those things we are best at.<BR/><BR/>I would be curious to know, from you J. scholars, if Hokai's ideas seem valid. <BR/><BR/>I do like the idea, here, in "Rebirth, Reassessed," that Hokai's thoughts seem to buttress, of a karma conception for the 21st Century. But it would be good to know that Buddha was more hip in his thinking than that old-fashioned Hinduism-inspired idea of karma.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13718601770472939313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5043003269935490917.post-19426022626538570202007-12-18T16:05:00.000+00:002007-12-18T16:05:00.000+00:00Interesting thoughts, Justin, and thanks for the p...Interesting thoughts, Justin, and thanks for the post. I tend to agree with you (or perhaps more Tom) that these beliefs are somewhat preliminary. I take them to be very important to cultivating the moral (sila) foundations of practice (samadhi) and wisdom (pañña). At some point, these views, like others, will simply fail to be of importance in our lives. <BR/><BR/>Until then, they can serve as helpful constraints on our behaviour. Using a Pragmatic definition of Truth, then: since they are useful, they are true. As Tom points out, jumping to the (truthier?) truth of interdependence can be confusing, and hense not so helpful. <BR/><BR/>Most of the time when the Buddha taught to average folks he gave a very basic 'step-by-step' discourse focusing on generosity and nonviolence; he left the more metaphysical stuff to discussions with learned ascetics; and the most metaphysical (i.e. speculative) stuff he simply ignored. I think he would have gotten a kick more out of Pauli's last statement than anything from Mr. Schwinn.Buddhist_philosopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14246929532585980356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5043003269935490917.post-50533112135777816322007-12-16T20:12:00.000+00:002007-12-16T20:12:00.000+00:00Yes you're right. Entities are separate in their o...Yes you're right. Entities are separate in their oneness and one their separateness. The world of Tony and Pauli is the world of linguistic and conceptual convention. It is a very pragmatic world, but we can become philosphically confused and existentially anguished if we apply conventions outside of their natural realm or if we become fixated with them as if they were reality itself. <BR/><BR/>On the other hand, Schwinn's description and Buddha's doctrines, and Nagarjuna's and Dogen's philosophy are based on convention too. We mustn't become fixated with these ideas or impute them as being the essence of reality. And we mustn't ignore the ordinary level as if it was false or inferior.<BR/><BR/>There comes a point where we cannot speak, but someone who is wise enough can still point the way.Shoninhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03635409886545725801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5043003269935490917.post-903221193850991272007-12-16T19:21:00.000+00:002007-12-16T19:21:00.000+00:00I worry that the idea of interconnectedness can be...I worry that the idea of interconnectedness can be made too much of. Tony and Pauli are fully as much right as John Schwinn in the dialogue you post. There isn't a secret universe that is more real, that is totally chaotic, that we should strive for.<BR/><BR/>There ARE two separate boxers. They DO punch and hurt each other. The molecular level of things isn't more descriptive -- i.e., truthier -- than the 'ordinary' level where we have all sorts of meaningful, useful categories.<BR/><BR/>While as individuals we could never exist apart from matter and others' minds, a profound intellectual sense of interconnectedness, how ever much compassion that engenders, would not relieve us, or others, of suffering. Enlightenment is something else, still, and remains the aim of Buddhism, as Buddha reminded us, constantly.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13718601770472939313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5043003269935490917.post-8427213978782900342007-12-16T09:25:00.000+00:002007-12-16T09:25:00.000+00:00We're very much on the same page Tom. I'm not sure...We're very much on the same page Tom. <BR/><BR/>I'm not sure if the fictional Schwinn was a materialist or not, he was describing things in primarily physical terms, but I don't that that means all that much. Zen masters do the same sometimes. Mind cannot be fully described in terms of matter, but then mind is not separate from matter either. For me, mind and matter are interdependent aspects of one whole reality, subject and object. So-called Big Mind(c) is the disidentification with the subject to realise the unity of the whole.Shoninhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03635409886545725801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5043003269935490917.post-28180364300508729692007-12-16T08:14:00.000+00:002007-12-16T08:14:00.000+00:00Justin,Fascinating topic.I don't have any set beli...Justin,<BR/><BR/>Fascinating topic.<BR/><BR/>I don't have any set beliefs on any of this, but look at it this way: I think that small-s self is not so much a delusion as a misunderstanding. There is a capital-S Self, that each of us are; from this the idea of there being in every pool the reflection of the whole of the moon.<BR/><BR/>We are each a reincarnation from the whole of consciousness and karma is instant. What hurt we give to others is karmic. We directly hurt our Self. <BR/><BR/>If I disagree with John Schwinn, it is in that I wince at any idea that seems to presume matter is primary (and always at any premise where matter is all). I cannot conceive of matter explaining consciousness. [In terms of matter, the experience of the color green cannot be explained.] If consciousness cannot be fully captured in terms of matter, then consciousness is "other," and we should take care not to suppose we can describe it and its functions in terms of "stuff." It can have continuity in a manner that is not matter-like.<BR/><BR/>With the way I look at things, the traditional teachings on rebirth and karma aren't "wrong," They are just preliminary; they don't go far enough. The traditional linear chains of reincarnation, is too 'simple'; We is One Mind.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13718601770472939313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5043003269935490917.post-39694275299047412622007-12-15T21:04:00.000+00:002007-12-15T21:04:00.000+00:00Welcome Mike. Axiomatic, yes. Buddha nature? Buddh...Welcome Mike. Axiomatic, yes. Buddha nature? Buddha nature is just all of our inherent unity with the Buddha's state of awakening; our inherent emptiness and interdependence with the whole universe. Buddha nature is only a problem for the Hindu-influenced interpretations - the Tathagatgarbha doctrine - taken literally - in other words, an Atman.<BR/><BR/>"However, it is important not o mispresent the Mahāyāna Buddhism with the false view of Buddha-nature. The Buddha-nature is not to be viewed like a permanent substance, such as ātman, Brahman or Soul. Fundamentally, the Buddha rejects the existence of a permanent substance in the human personality or in any phenomenon of the empirical world. The Law of Dependent Co-arising and the Doctrine of Non-self state that everything is dependently co-arisen from conditions and devoid of any permanent substance or intrinsic nature. Buddha-nature is merely a representative concept to convey the notion of non-self or emptiness of the five aggregates. It is merely a pedagogical device or means to interpret the Three Universal Characteristics and Dependent Co-arising. It appeals to those worldlings who are more comfortable with the concept of noumenon behind all phenomena. In this sense, the notion of Buddha-nature is utilized merely as a skillful means to convey the suchness of Emptiness. Buddha-nature is not to be regarded as a permanent substantive entity. Nothing can exist as an independent separate entity. All things are related or inter-connected with one another. "<BR/>http://www.buddhistdoor.com/DeerPark/iss03-Faith_in_Mind_eng.htmlShoninhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03635409886545725801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5043003269935490917.post-11199491958645984402007-12-15T20:50:00.000+00:002007-12-15T20:50:00.000+00:00I think it's reasonable to say that the Buddha did...I think it's reasonable to say that the Buddha didn't teach rebirth so much as he accepted it as axiomatic, simply because that was the understanding of the day. It shouldn't be much of a problem to the Western practitioner, but I wonder what your thoughts are on Buddha nature? That seems like it could be problematic too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com