|
Post by Reefs on Jul 24, 2020 8:26:47 GMT -5
Yes, the way I tend to use the phrase 'mind' there would be no real difference between that and intellect, or at most, intellect might be a subset of mind - mind being an umbrella term including thought etc, with intellect perhaps pertaining more specifically to something like conceptualisation. If I can make that distinction. So, I think you're right about his translation, because the description given of buddhi is clearly something other than that anyway, something more primary, more subtle and refined, hence him at least putting it prior to mind in his ordering. Actually that definition of buddhi you've found is very interesting, and describes something that doesn't seem to come up that often on the forums. That would be similar to how I use the terms mind and intellect. Intellect is usually seen as what distinguishes humans from animals. But then again, there are parrots that can do simple arithmetic. Going back to prana briefly, the first two definitions that came up when googled are as follows; (Obviously that latter part of that second definition might be contentious ), but as I mentioned before, I would've considered prana as potentially being somehow finer than the others, or at least considering those definitions, it's hard to fathom how he's positioned it where he has, i.e. between body and mind. I am assuming prana is the Hindu equivalent to the Chinese Qi (Chi) and that can have a whole range of meanings. In everyday language it just refers to the physical breath, or the air (or the wind) or even just a gas in general. And as such it would rank rather low in order. But prana (or Qi) in a metaphysical context would refer to what Seth calls Vitality or maybe what the mystics in the West call Ether. It's not really what we would call consciousness, but it's very close. In modern, plain English terms, the best term would be something like energy. But not energy the way the physicists define the term, as some blind natural force. This energy has its own intelligence, it is a (self-)conscious 'force'. Here's what the Sanskrit dictionaries say:
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 24, 2020 8:44:40 GMT -5
Just briefly weighing in on samadhi, I'd noticed in Buddhist circles they seem to mostly talk about it in relation to meditation, and specifically single pointed focus. So it tends to be associated with concentration, and usually in the context of vipassana meditation, which is about seeing things as they really are. They also talk in terms of absorption, and as an abiding, i.e. that it's an auspicious state toward that end (vipassana). In fact, in Buddhism it's considered as essential. Samadhi is the eighth step in the Noble Eightfold Path, also known as 'right concentration'. It seems to come about through the quieting of 'the monkey mind'. It's cultivation is synonymous with the jhanas (meditative absorptions). Accordingly, it's also considered there are varying degrees of the state of samadhi, with the highest being Nirodha-Samapatti, (nirodha meaning cessation; disbanding; stopping, ... and samapatti frequently used as a synonym for samadhi). This appears to be equivalent to NS. So overall I agree with you guys' characterisation. The issue I have with trying to map out all kinds of spiritual experiences and putting them into a hierarchy where one trumps the other is that it makes it seem as if one has to go thru these experiences in that specific order of succession in order realize Self. I'm not sure if that's the actual intention of those teachings. But people might get the idea that their mind has to progress thru a set number of stages that get more an more subtle and sublime with SR waiting at the end of the road. That's not how I see it. The way I see it, mind gets sidestepped altogether in SR. And that's the end of it. So maybe we should consider these different kinds of samadhis as just cherries on top of that. And just to be clear, by SR I mean kensho plus satori, i.e. seeing into your true nature plus seeing thru the SVP (because sometimes by SR some other people here only mean seeing thru the SVP).
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 24, 2020 8:59:11 GMT -5
9th jhana? I think Steve is the expert on that one. (I'm sure Peter will remember)
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Aug 12, 2020 4:06:22 GMT -5
Yes, the way I tend to use the phrase 'mind' there would be no real difference between that and intellect, or at most, intellect might be a subset of mind - mind being an umbrella term including thought etc, with intellect perhaps pertaining more specifically to something like conceptualisation. If I can make that distinction. So, I think you're right about his translation, because the description given of buddhi is clearly something other than that anyway, something more primary, more subtle and refined, hence him at least putting it prior to mind in his ordering. Actually that definition of buddhi you've found is very interesting, and describes something that doesn't seem to come up that often on the forums. That would be similar to how I use the terms mind and intellect. Intellect is usually seen as what distinguishes humans from animals. But then again, there are parrots that can do simple arithmetic. Sorry, I wandered off, and didn't see there were further replies in this thread. Yes, I think there are many instances of what could be seen as 'intellect' in animals, often in the way they are using 'tools' for a set purpose, and actually pass this knowledge down the line, in a rudimentary form of culture. The one I like is the one where the bird gets hold of a chunk of bread and trades it up to catch small fish with it, off the end of the jetty. I suppose the notion of 'what separates us from the animals' really can only ever be used in terms of a matter of degree. Yes, as a (more subtle) form of consciousness is how I was viewing prana, and (self-)conscious force as you put it works well for me. A kind of 'life-force' in the Buddha-nature sense, which is why it's hard for me to envisage it as subsequent to mind and intellect in that scale, which if I remember correctly what the original motivator to that line of conversation. In fact it's hard to imagine why it might be placed there, with any of the interpretations.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Aug 12, 2020 4:19:27 GMT -5
Just briefly weighing in on samadhi, I'd noticed in Buddhist circles they seem to mostly talk about it in relation to meditation, and specifically single pointed focus. So it tends to be associated with concentration, and usually in the context of vipassana meditation, which is about seeing things as they really are. They also talk in terms of absorption, and as an abiding, i.e. that it's an auspicious state toward that end (vipassana). In fact, in Buddhism it's considered as essential. Samadhi is the eighth step in the Noble Eightfold Path, also known as 'right concentration'. It seems to come about through the quieting of 'the monkey mind'. It's cultivation is synonymous with the jhanas (meditative absorptions). Accordingly, it's also considered there are varying degrees of the state of samadhi, with the highest being Nirodha-Samapatti, (nirodha meaning cessation; disbanding; stopping, ... and samapatti frequently used as a synonym for samadhi). This appears to be equivalent to NS. So overall I agree with you guys' characterisation. The issue I have with trying to map out all kinds of spiritual experiences and putting them into a hierarchy where one trumps the other is that it makes it seem as if one has to go thru these experiences in that specific order of succession in order realize Self. I'm not sure if that's the actual intention of those teachings. But people might get the idea that their mind has to progress thru a set number of stages that get more an more subtle and sublime with SR waiting at the end of the road. That's not how I see it. The way I see it, mind gets sidestepped altogether in SR. And that's the end of it. So maybe we should consider these different kinds of samadhis as just cherries on top of that. And just to be clear, by SR I mean kensho plus satori, i.e. seeing into your true nature plus seeing thru the SVP (because sometimes by SR some other people here only mean seeing thru the SVP). Hmmmm this is an interesting one. I personally don't subscribe to the notion that all the various teachings are necessarily pointing to the same thing anyway, the Buddhists for example are adamant that ultimately buddhism and advaita are incompatible. I agree about caution when it comes to hard and fast hierarchy because there is overlapping, and as I've said before, ultimately, any lines drawn are necessarily malleable. In Buddhism, you tend to find conflicting positions about the rigidity of the pathless path, even in the suttas. I tend to take the view that ultimately the path, or at least the markers along the path, are fairly set, but that there is no end to the devaitions or meanderings one can take, and so those markers can be expressed or manifest innumerable ways. Often unrecognisably so, or at least unacknowledged.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Aug 12, 2020 4:21:16 GMT -5
9th jhana? I think Steve is the expert on that one. (I'm sure Peter will remember) Ah ok I didn't know that. But I seem to recall him popping up briefly around the time that conversation was going on ... perhaps in some synchronous fashion, hehe
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 16, 2020 11:47:14 GMT -5
Hmmmm this is an interesting one. I personally don't subscribe to the notion that all the various teachings are necessarily pointing to the same thing anyway, the Buddhists for example are adamant that ultimately buddhism and advaita are incompatible. I agree about caution when it comes to hard and fast hierarchy because there is overlapping, and as I've said before, ultimately, any lines drawn are necessarily malleable. In Buddhism, you tend to find conflicting positions about the rigidity of the pathless path, even in the suttas. I tend to take the view that ultimately the path, or at least the markers along the path, are fairly set, but that there is no end to the devaitions or meanderings one can take, and so those markers can be expressed or manifest innumerable ways. Often unrecognisably so, or at least unacknowledged. Well, that's new to me. At the core, I never considered Buddhism and Advaita at odds with each other. Maybe you can go into more detail. But I have to admit that I'm no expert on Buddhism (not even Zen). And Buddhism seems to be a rather big tent. There are certain experiences on the path that a lot of individuals seem to share to varying degrees, even in terms of sequence, so the idea of using them as markers on the road to enlightenment is tempting. However, to me, creating some kind of spiritual manual or itinerary only promotes the erroneous idea that there is some kind of separate volitional entity that eventually gets enlightened and that there is some kind of universal spiritual mechanics at work here, that you only have to pull the right lever and push the right button and then you've made it. I think this is what's at the core of this widespread competitiveness in spiritual circles. As A-H keep saying, comparison is your death trap!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 16, 2020 17:34:23 GMT -5
Hmmmm this is an interesting one. I personally don't subscribe to the notion that all the various teachings are necessarily pointing to the same thing anyway, the Buddhists for example are adamant that ultimately buddhism and advaita are incompatible. I agree about caution when it comes to hard and fast hierarchy because there is overlapping, and as I've said before, ultimately, any lines drawn are necessarily malleable. In Buddhism, you tend to find conflicting positions about the rigidity of the pathless path, even in the suttas. I tend to take the view that ultimately the path, or at least the markers along the path, are fairly set, but that there is no end to the devaitions or meanderings one can take, and so those markers can be expressed or manifest innumerable ways. Often unrecognisably so, or at least unacknowledged. Well, that's new to me. At the core, I never considered Buddhism and Advaita at odds with each other. Maybe you can go into more detail. But I have to admit that I'm no expert on Buddhism (not even Zen). And Buddhism seems to be a rather big tent. There are certain experiences on the path that a lot of individuals seem to share to varying degrees, even in terms of sequence, so the idea of using them as markers on the road to enlightenment is tempting. However, to me, creating some kind of spiritual manual or itinerary only promotes the erroneous idea that there is some kind of separate volitional entity that eventually gets enlightened and that there is some kind of universal spiritual mechanics at work here, that you only have to pull the right lever and push the right button and then you've made it. I think this is what's at the core of this widespread competitiveness in spiritual circles. As A-H keep saying, comparison is your death trap! Their ostensible bottom lines seem different: "no ultimate self" / "ultimate self". Also, the history of Buddhism as a sort of wave though the Indian subcontinent, involving that particular conclusion. The Buddha's story involved him visiting the spiritual teacher's of his day, and my understanding is that the Veda's are thought to potentially predate him. From what little I've read about it, his teaching could be characterized as somewhat reactionary. He pointed to absence, and you can contrast that, say, to what Niz used to say about "The Supreme".
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Aug 18, 2020 14:41:28 GMT -5
Hmmmm this is an interesting one. I personally don't subscribe to the notion that all the various teachings are necessarily pointing to the same thing anyway, the Buddhists for example are adamant that ultimately buddhism and advaita are incompatible. I agree about caution when it comes to hard and fast hierarchy because there is overlapping, and as I've said before, ultimately, any lines drawn are necessarily malleable. In Buddhism, you tend to find conflicting positions about the rigidity of the pathless path, even in the suttas. I tend to take the view that ultimately the path, or at least the markers along the path, are fairly set, but that there is no end to the devaitions or meanderings one can take, and so those markers can be expressed or manifest innumerable ways. Often unrecognisably so, or at least unacknowledged. Well, that's new to me. At the core, I never considered Buddhism and Advaita at odds with each other. Maybe you can go into more detail. But I have to admit that I'm no expert on Buddhism (not even Zen). And Buddhism seems to be a rather big tent. Okay, well that’s a lot even to summarise, and much of it I've actually gone into a bit more detail on at various times in the past. But I'll give it a go, and as Laughter has touched on, it's perhaps worth first giving a little background on the path of the Shakyamuni himself, and then I'll try to outline what I see as some of the key differences between the two 'doctrines'. I should also mention again, I'm no expert on Buddhism either, (and less so on Advaita). As you rightly say, buddhism is rather a big tent, ranging through various traditions which tend to be coloured by the place, time, and culture in which they sprang up. Hence my own preference being that of Theravada, which by my understanding is as close to getting it 'from the horse's mouth', as possible. In conjunction with my own invaluable insight of course, hehe I guess similar can be said of advaita, with the traditional/neo split, and most of what I have to go on is from reading here on the forum, where the contributors seem to have quite a varied takes/ interpretations of the source material too. As well as perhaps varying degrees of insight into it. Well, that is the Buddhist way!, the Dhamma is very much 'marker' based, and actually the very meaning for the phrase Dhamma is akin to "universal spiritual mechanics" as you put it, insofar as it's posited as timeless, placeless Truth. Additionally, the Buddha was very much 'pro-volition', as well as advocating a number of other issues which seemingly are commonly discounted here on the forum, which I'll attempt to outline. Having said that, I've found some of the contributors here, the likes of sat and more recently sifty, taking stances on some issues that seem to align more closely with the buddhist perspective than perhaps had previously. But still with some majorly different interpretations, and glaring omissions. So it can get a bit confusing in that respect. We'll see.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Aug 18, 2020 14:50:36 GMT -5
Well, that's new to me. At the core, I never considered Buddhism and Advaita at odds with each other. Maybe you can go into more detail. But I have to admit that I'm no expert on Buddhism (not even Zen). And Buddhism seems to be a rather big tent. There are certain experiences on the path that a lot of individuals seem to share to varying degrees, even in terms of sequence, so the idea of using them as markers on the road to enlightenment is tempting. However, to me, creating some kind of spiritual manual or itinerary only promotes the erroneous idea that there is some kind of separate volitional entity that eventually gets enlightened and that there is some kind of universal spiritual mechanics at work here, that you only have to pull the right lever and push the right button and then you've made it. I think this is what's at the core of this widespread competitiveness in spiritual circles. As A-H keep saying, comparison is your death trap! Their ostensible bottom lines seem different: "no ultimate self" / "ultimate self". Also, the history of Buddhism as a sort of wave though the Indian subcontinent, involving that particular conclusion. The Buddha's story involved him visiting the spiritual teacher's of his day, and my understanding is that the Veda's are thought to potentially predate him. From what little I've read about it, his teaching could be characterized as somewhat reactionary. He pointed to absence, and you can contrast that, say, to what Niz used to say about "The Supreme". Yes, the first thing to touch upon is a little of the story of the Shakyamuni. Born a prince by all account, albeit of a relatively small tribe, of which there were many, so not engendering the comparative status of a prince today. But meaning he was relatively privileged, and consequently, from an early age well educated, becoming well versed in the various traditions of the time and place, which as you say ostensibly means the Veda's. Due to his standing he had been relatively sheltered, but later through witnessing the abject suffering of others, he became disillusioned with that life. And so renouncing it in favour of becoming a wandering ascetic, he sought out and studied under the most renowned yogis and sages of the time in various disciplines, yet never satisfying his quest for true and complete understanding. The story goes that specifically, none of it ever satisfactorily addressed, the continual ageing, sickness/disease, death, and loss of loved ones that he had witnessed was so rampant in the world. And so after all this it was at his lowest and most disillusioned ebb, he came upon the fabled bodhi tree, where he resolved to remain unmoving until such time as he either penetrated the highest wisdom and truly understood those things, or met with death. The story goes on that over successive nights he penetrated new and higher levels of insight which culminated on the cusp of the state of paranibbana [total unbinding], and having purged all kamma, within which he could contentedly pass into and dwell, leaving behind all earthy woes and shackles. Instead he actively chose to descend from that state in order to pass on his insight for the benefit (and eventual liberation from suffering) of all sentient beings. Which incidentally is the seed of the notion of the bodhisattva. Note. As far I have seen, there is nothing comparable to paranibbana in advaita, and so the point here is that the Buddha vas well versed in advaita, saw it as lacking, went further on his own merit, and subsequently established an alternative tradition. (It's perhaps just worth mentioning that I think the Upanishads are a later addition, and I'm not sure what extra they might bring to the party).
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Aug 18, 2020 15:28:50 GMT -5
Yes, going on to briefly outline some of the key differences between the 'doctrines' of buddhism and advaita (all of which are big heady subjects to really drill down into);
The above would be one of the main differences and so the first to address.
We've talked about how in both buddhism and advaita there are different schools of thought on various issues, and I've mentioned I see varying stances on issues taken by different pro-avaita posters here on the forum, but the notion of 'Self' is undoubtedly a commonality between all proponents of advaita.
Conversely, it's a position the Buddha actively cautioned against, on that basis that (in forum parlance) it lends itself too readily to Identity poker (trading up one identity for another), and to becoming a subtle mind anchor, stifling further progress along the pathless path toward true liberation. It's a potential cul-de-sac and we would no doubt disagree whether, or to what extent that might be happening.
In fact, the Buddha considered it one of a pair of extremes which are in direct opposition the middle way he advocated, and specifically classed both as 'wrong views'. The Pali word for it is 'atthikavada' and he saw the positing of an unchanging 'Self' as a form of affirmationism. On the other side of that particular coin is 'natthikavada' which is classed as a form of nihilism, and which denies moral responsibility. Seemingly another popular notion in some quarters hereabouts.
Which ties in with the next key difference; kamma and rebirth. These at least may have precedent in advaita, but I'm not sure, or to what extent. Sat used to touch on kamma, and zd too has posted material from people relating to multiple lives on occasion, but generally these subjects get little airtime. I should clarify 'multiple lives', albeit as a 'continuum of stream consciousness', rather than the notions of soul reincarnation expounded by the Abrahamic religions.
Anyway, together, this first collection of subjects already constitute a fairly significant difference between what the Buddha taught, and the views generally espoused on the forum.
Moving on ..., the Dhamma is split into a number of [interdependent] sections,
and to set the stage, I want firstly to mention that the view the Buddhists take is that in this lifetime the majority of people peeps should only be concerned with purifying kamma toward the goal of favourable rebirth. The other (more advanced) aspect is concerned with what I call true liberation [from samsara], i.e. the end of the cycle of rebirth, and although the former is considered an indispensable precursor to the latter, the latter needn't be a point of focus for most, and would mostly only be a case of trying to run before learning to walk. The latter is concerned with such like as the absorptions etc, where the ultimate goal is paranibbana. At least traditionally the latter path is not considered compatible with the ley lifestyle.
But with that in mind, and going back to the former, the first of the three baskets in the tipitaka is the Vinaya Piṭaka ["Basket of Discipline”). It deals broadly with morals and ethics and interestingly, although it's promoted to be nurtured in conjunction with insight (partly into the necessity and benefit of nurturing such discipline), it's also promoted that if necessary to begin it on faith, or on a kindof pascals wager basis. Which is an interesting topic in itself and one sifty and zd touched upon the other day.
The point here is that I believe this side of things is often dismissed on the grounds of 'behaviourism' here on the forum, and I'm not aware of a comparative body of work within advaita, hence a difference. My personal opinion is that it's a mistake to dismiss this stuff, as I know first-hand what it is to stray anywhere remotely near a degree of unbinding/or the deeper absorptions without having first purified kamma to a certain extent. Note. this purification of kamma might not be as alien as it sounds, as a lot of it has to do with becoming conscious etc, and even setting the stage for what we are terming 'the core realisation'. So the nurturing of auspicious states.
Perhaps another thing to mention here, which kinda ultimately ties in with the stuff I've mentioned so far is that the Buddha was a proponent of 'immaterial realms', (which again, I'm not sure what if any comparative … err … material, there is in advaita).
Additionally, when talking about the key differences, it would be remiss of me not to mention causality. Essentially the Dhamma as a doctrine, is based on the notion of causality. Notably detailed in dependent origination. It doesn't matter one iota that it is seen that reality is fluid and non-separate rather than the Newtonian 'snooker ball' model. From the Buddhist perspective that realisation doesn't somehow negate causality, and again, to take that stance is a position the Buddha actively cautioned against. Buddhist causality merely addresses the inescapable fact that all that arises, arises conditionally, and absent those conditions, ceases to arise. Regardless of any subsequent labelling or mental overlay, or absence thereof ... as the case may be.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 18, 2020 15:39:13 GMT -5
Their ostensible bottom lines seem different: "no ultimate self" / "ultimate self". Also, the history of Buddhism as a sort of wave though the Indian subcontinent, involving that particular conclusion. The Buddha's story involved him visiting the spiritual teacher's of his day, and my understanding is that the Veda's are thought to potentially predate him. From what little I've read about it, his teaching could be characterized as somewhat reactionary. He pointed to absence, and you can contrast that, say, to what Niz used to say about "The Supreme". Yes, the first thing to touch upon is a little of the story of the Shakyamuni. Born a prince by all account, albeit of a relatively small tribe, of which there were many, so not engendering the comparative status of a prince today. But meaning he was relatively privileged, and consequently, from an early age well educated, becoming well versed in the various traditions of the time and place, which as you say ostensibly means the Veda's. Due to his standing he had been relatively sheltered, but later through witnessing the abject suffering of others, he became disillusioned with that life. And so renouncing it in favour of becoming a wandering ascetic, he sought out and studied under the most renowned yogis and sages of the time in various disciplines, yet never satisfying his quest for true and complete understanding. The story goes that specifically, none of it ever satisfactorily addressed, the continual ageing, sickness/disease, death, and loss of loved ones that he had witnessed was so rampant in the world. And so after all this it was at his lowest and most disillusioned ebb, he came upon the fabled bodhi tree, where he resolved to remain unmoving until such time as he either penetrated the highest wisdom and truly understood those things, or met with death. The story goes on that over successive nights he penetrated new and higher levels of insight which culminated on the cusp of the state of paranibbana [total unbinding], and having purged all kamma, within which he could contentedly pass into and dwell, leaving behind all earthy woes and shackles. Instead he actively chose to descend from that state in order to pass on his insight for the benefit (and eventual liberation from suffering) of all sentient beings. Which incidentally is the seed of the notion of the bodhisattva. Note. As far I have seen, there is nothing comparable to paranibbana in advaita, and so the point here is that the Buddha vas well versed in advaita, saw it as lacking, went further on his own merit, and subsequently established an alternative tradition. (It's perhaps just worth mentioning that I think the Upanishads are a later addition, and I'm not sure what extra they might bring to the party). I'd like a reference for this, as I don't recall he descended from anything. What I recall, after his enlightenment he had a decision to make. He didn't think anyone would understand the state he had reached, so he had to decide whether to remain quiet, or try to pass on what he had discovered to others. He decided to try to tell others. His first sermon was to former fellow ~sannyasin~. And as I recall nibbana = nirvana (which means the candle has blown out, IOW, no-self).
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Aug 18, 2020 16:01:24 GMT -5
Having highlighted some of the key differences, it's worth skipping back a bit to the difference between the cornerstones of the two doctrines. Basically it all comes down to one thing, which hasn't even been mentioned yet …. the nature of suffering, and more specifically what constitutes liberation from it. Being on a spiritual forum everyone will be familiar with the (visceral) personal experience of suffering, but when it comes to detailing it, somewhat problematically, there seems to be differing opinions as to what actually constitutes suffering. Let alone what any of the sages actually mean by it in any given instance. What I can say is the suffering that the Buddha taught appears to be something more immediate, something more intrinsic, than what I see as the merely 'psychological overlay' type suffering bounded about here on the forum, and generally in ND circles. I also happen the know that is the opinion of Buddhists in general, and that these two interpretations in particular are not compatible. In Buddhism the first noble truth especially (and accompanying three) are the cornerstone of the Dhamma in its entirety. The first noble truth is the truth of dukkha, (often portrayed by the line 'life is suffering') and importantly it constitutes a direct recognition, that is to say a realisation, and although I understand this could be construed as positioning, I'm prepared to say it's a realisation the significance of which, I don't believe anyone here has grasped. It's rare. It's said that often it's the first glimmer of this realisation, perhaps coupled with part(s) of the Dhamma one comes into contact and resonates with, which forms the basis of the faith I touched briefly on before. In the story of the Shakyamuni it harks back to the first time the sheltered prince broke protocol and ventured from his palace, and thereby witnessed the 'wretched wraiths' that littered the side of the road, and it runs through from there, to him being on the cusp of paranibbana (true liberation) sat under the bodhi tree, by which time he had fully penetrated it and apprehended the highest wisdom. My contention is that although the texts are translated into slightly differing versions, their essence is generally accepted among the traditions, and when it comes to dukkha, that essence is seemingly something other than is generally portrayed by the phrase suffering in ND circles. Its also my understanding that some of the most profound texts and teachings are held back from public proliferation out of consideration for the 'well-being/ peace of mind' of the uninitiated. The truth can be overwhelming. Yet the more adept may accurately glean the truth through context of the body of available texts as a whole, coupled with further inference through penetrating insight. So by no means infallible, hehe Regarding dukkha; What it comes down to is that dukkha is portrayed as being somehow intrinsic to samsara, which in its entirety is this material realm within which this human rebirth occurs. Which by extension means it's something innate to what we generally envisage as [mundane] experience itself. Over and above any attachment to it, or absence thereof. That in itself is quite a departure from the party line here on the forum. The first noble truth goes on to quite explicitly detail certain examples of dukkha, which include such like as (re)birth, death, and pain. You may remember one of the more recent threads dedicated to the subject of suffering where some of the guys took the position that babies aren't capable of suffering, that pain in itself isn't suffering, etc. Ending up with the position that the ability for self-recognition (in a mirror) is actually a prerequisite for the capacity to suffer. Effectively meaning (according to studies) that some animals in the same species had the capacity to suffer, whilst others did not. I don't know if those sort of conclusions are common within ND circles, or are the natural result of certain facets of advaita, but it's not something I can relate to, and I can confidently say it's at odds with what the Buddha taught. Additionally, considering the nature of samsara I previously described, the position that 'everything is perfect' absent mental overlays to the contrary or not, is also at odds with the Dhamma. As I say, what dukkka points to, is generally classed as something more immediate and more intrinsic to corporeal existence in its entirety (samsara). Something literally inherent within appearance itself. Which is why from the Buddhist perspective true liberation comes only through transcending that (Paranibbana). So now I'm gonna do something I don't often do, and I'm going to spell it out. I'm boldly pointing to a form of ascension to an immaterial realm, a higher state of being. Unfortunately it can't be encapsulated, not even close. But rather than oblivion, perhaps envisage it as some next level 'eye of the storm' stuff, hehe. Hmmm, and when posing the question how attractive oblivion sounds, I consider its worth asking ourselves whether an aversion to oblivion is conversely indicative of an ongoing attachment to that which is transient in nature ... it's an interesting one. I will say that, regarding the advaitan notion of liberation resulting in the end of suffering coming merely through a core realisation (of Self), where life continues unabated, just without any experience of stress due to the dissolution/absence of any mental overlay of an SVP which has thoroughly been seen through .... It is not entirely dissimilar to the Buddhist notion of nibbana (the non 'para' version). Which is talked about in buddhism in terms as, 'the end of [the production of] kamma with life-force remaining'. But I'm fairly sure I'd disagree with most here on what would constitute such a situation, and where it is happening. So I still fear it's mostly apples and oranges.
There's a lot more I could say. But I think thats more than enough to be getting on with. Thanks for listening.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Aug 18, 2020 16:15:53 GMT -5
Yes, the first thing to touch upon is a little of the story of the Shakyamuni. Born a prince by all account, albeit of a relatively small tribe, of which there were many, so not engendering the comparative status of a prince today. But meaning he was relatively privileged, and consequently, from an early age well educated, becoming well versed in the various traditions of the time and place, which as you say ostensibly means the Veda's. Due to his standing he had been relatively sheltered, but later through witnessing the abject suffering of others, he became disillusioned with that life. And so renouncing it in favour of becoming a wandering ascetic, he sought out and studied under the most renowned yogis and sages of the time in various disciplines, yet never satisfying his quest for true and complete understanding. The story goes that specifically, none of it ever satisfactorily addressed, the continual ageing, sickness/disease, death, and loss of loved ones that he had witnessed was so rampant in the world. And so after all this it was at his lowest and most disillusioned ebb, he came upon the fabled bodhi tree, where he resolved to remain unmoving until such time as he either penetrated the highest wisdom and truly understood those things, or met with death. The story goes on that over successive nights he penetrated new and higher levels of insight which culminated on the cusp of the state of paranibbana [total unbinding], and having purged all kamma, within which he could contentedly pass into and dwell, leaving behind all earthy woes and shackles. Instead he actively chose to descend from that state in order to pass on his insight for the benefit (and eventual liberation from suffering) of all sentient beings. Which incidentally is the seed of the notion of the bodhisattva. Note. As far I have seen, there is nothing comparable to paranibbana in advaita, and so the point here is that the Buddha vas well versed in advaita, saw it as lacking, went further on his own merit, and subsequently established an alternative tradition. (It's perhaps just worth mentioning that I think the Upanishads are a later addition, and I'm not sure what extra they might bring to the party). I'd like a reference for this, as I don't recall he descended from anything. What I recall, after his enlightenment he had a decision to make. He didn't think anyone would understand the state he had reached, so he had to decide whether to remain quiet, or try to pass on what he had discovered to others. He decided to try to tell others. His first sermon was to former fellow ~sannyasin~. I haven't got one to hand, so feel free to have it your way. I've seen your version around. Yes, nibbana is the Pali word, and nirvana the sanskrit for the same thing, and that is the common metaphor.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 18, 2020 16:16:21 GMT -5
Hmmmm this is an interesting one. I personally don't subscribe to the notion that all the various teachings are necessarily pointing to the same thing anyway, the Buddhists for example are adamant that ultimately buddhism and advaita are incompatible. I agree about caution when it comes to hard and fast hierarchy because there is overlapping, and as I've said before, ultimately, any lines drawn are necessarily malleable. In Buddhism, you tend to find conflicting positions about the rigidity of the pathless path, even in the suttas. I tend to take the view that ultimately the path, or at least the markers along the path, are fairly set, but that there is no end to the devaitions or meanderings one can take, and so those markers can be expressed or manifest innumerable ways. Often unrecognisably so, or at least unacknowledged. Well, that's new to me. At the core, I never considered Buddhism and Advaita at odds with each other. Maybe you can go into more detail. But I have to admit that I'm no expert on Buddhism (not even Zen). And Buddhism seems to be a rather big tent. There are certain experiences on the path that a lot of individuals seem to share to varying degrees, even in terms of sequence, so the idea of using them as markers on the road to enlightenment is tempting. However, to me, creating some kind of spiritual manual or itinerary only promotes the erroneous idea that there is some kind of separate volitional entity that eventually gets enlightened and that there is some kind of universal spiritual mechanics at work here, that you only have to pull the right lever and push the right button and then you've made it. I think this is what's at the core of this widespread competitiveness in spiritual circles. As A-H keep saying, comparison is your death trap! I read ouroboros current post, which I didn't find too helpful. The difference between Advaita and Buddhism? In Hinduism there is a permanent Self which is called Atman. In Buddhism there is no permanent self, this, anatman or anatta. So it seems there could be no greater difference between Buddhism and Hinduism (Advaita). So in Hinduism there is an ultimate permanent Ground of Being, which is Brahman. In Buddhism there is the principle of dependent origination which says there are no permanent independent things (IOW, no Brahman, no Atman), that everything that is, consists of a combination of impermanent somethings. Thus, in Buddhism, there is nothing permanent, including no permanent self, meaning, no permanent soul, no permanent spirit. So Buddhism and Hinduism are pretty much irreconcilable. That's why Buddhism FAIAP ceased to exist in India, Hinduism won out. But when the communists took over Tibet many Tibetan Buddhists came to live in India, but that's a separate matter. So today neo-Advaita might be closer to Buddhism than it is to traditional Advaita Vedanta (Hinduism). www.world-religions-professor.com/atman-brahman.htmlBut then also Buddhism teaches that everything has Buddha-Nature, except maybe dogs. This is the famous Mu koan. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative)#:~:text=The%20koan%20is%20not%20about,particular%20thing%20called%20Buddha%2Dnature.
|
|