Ask A Buddhist II

[Vouthon]

Could someone tell what the definition of “Upekkha” is?

I have been led to believe that it connotates a state of equanimity, akin to the apatheia of the Desert Fathers and the holy indifference of the Western mystics, a state in which one has freed oneself from ties and attachments and is no longer swayed by outside influences ie one remains calm even in the face of adversity, is not depressed when trying times arise or overly elated when apparently good things occur but rather maintains an inner poise and sense of stability, as summed up by Eckhart:

“…True detachment means a mind as little moved by what happens, by joy and sorrow, honor and disgrace, as a broad mountain by a gentle breeze…Now all thoughtful people should take note. No one is more cheerful than the one that lives in the greatest detachment. The teachers praise love most highly, as Saint Paul does when he says: “In whatever tribulation I may find myself, if I have not love, I am nothing.” But I praise detachment more than all love…I call that mental satisfaction when the summit of the soul is not brought so low by any joys as to be drowned in pleasure, but rises resolutely above them. Man enjoys mental satisfaction only when creaturely joys and sorrows are powerless to drag down the topmost summit of the soul…To the just man -the fully-transformed man- nothing gives more pain or distress than when, counter to justice, he loses his equanimity in all things. How so? If one thing can cheer you and another depress, you are not just: if you are happy at one time you should be happy at all times. If you are happier at one moment than another, that is not just…And so, if you were to ask a genuine man . . . ‘Why do you act,’ if he were to answer properly he would simply say, ‘I act because I act.’…nor should one work for any ‘Why,’ neither for God nor one’s honor nor for anything at all that is outside of oneself, but only for that which is one’s own life within oneself…The just man does not love ‘this and that’ in God . . . he wants nothing and seeks nothing: for he has no why for which he does anything, just as God acts without why and has no why. In the same way as God acts, so the just man acts without why; and just as life lives for its own sake and asks for no why for which to live, so the just man has no why for which to act…Some people want to have their own way in all things–that is bad, there is fault in that. Those others are a little better who truly want what God wants and don’t want anything against His will, but if they should fall sick they would wish it were God’s will that they should be better. These people, then, would rather that God willed according to their will than that they should will according to His. This may be condoned, but it is not right. The just have no will at all: whatever God wills, it is all one to them, however great the hardship…The lucky man who is attachment-free and therefore content with whatever befalls him–sickness or health, weal or woe–must be very comfortable indeed. For the will that things should be otherwise simply does not arise. Abegescheidenheit denotes such an easy restfulness: it represents the affective sense of being uninvested in external and conditioned things. It denotes one’s ‘detachment’ from personal aggrandizement and the insidious will to better oneself…It is a strange and desert place, and is rather nameless than possessed of a name, and is more unknown than it is known. If you could naught yourself for an instant, indeed I say less than an instant, you would possess all that this is in itself. But as long as you mind yourself or anything at all, you know no more of God than my mouth knows of color or my eye of taste… There, in that most inward place, the light is satisfied, and there it is more inward than it is in itself, for this ground is a simple stillness which is immovable in itself…”

***- Meister Eckhart (c. 1260 – c. 1327), Catholic mystic & Dominican priest ***

Is this a similar/Catholic equivalent to “Upekkha”?

 

[AdamP88]

How so? What do you mean by Nihilism, and how does a belief in Kamma and rebirth negate charity and mercy? These things are seen as being objectively good, and therefore things which should be done.

By nihilism I mean a rejection of the idea of progression to an afterlife, which for many faiths is the point of existence in this life.

The idea of a cyclic existence and rejection of a soul do not seem compatible, if you are to be reborn as another being…how is this possible if the soul or spirit does not exist in some way.

As regards charity and mercy - these things don’t particularly matter if you have an infinite number of lives. They only matter if you have one life to life to live. A temporary life, on this world.

You say they are “objectively good” what makes them objectively good from a Buddhist viewpoint?

 

[Lodro]

See thats where I never get a straight answer. Buddhism denys a particular deity. We as Catholic tell your straight up. Its GOd Almighty creator of heaven and earth we pray to.

I mean from what I have come to understand here, its not Buddha, we all agree they do not pray to him as a god. But what I am getting the deity is yourself. Unless of course it is my total misunderstanding.

Yeah, it’s sort of subtle and a bit mysterious the way it works, and easy even for “Buddhists” to get confused about.

We say that the Buddha is an example of enlightened mind, but it is really more than that. I guess there is a kind of magic there, because when we see a figure of the Buddha on a shrine for example the point isn’t that that it is “like the Buddha”, it actually “is the Buddha”. I’m not saying that that is what I actually see every time I look at a shrine, but that’s the view. It occurs to me that it’s not unlike transubstantiation in the sense of how it exposes our deepest misunderstandings about the world. (And I hope that I am not being offensive by making that comparison.)

Now, we also say that that when we pray or meditate or whatever you want to call it at the shrine, we are only praying to our own enlightened mind. But actually, I think that’s more of a story that makes things more comfortable for the “rational”, western-post-enlightment people who are often drawn to Buddhism and put off by other faith traditions. That was the point of books like Stephen Batchelor’s “Buddhism Beyond Beliefs”.

But I don’t think it really works that way; not in my experience anyway. A favorite dialog amongst Buddhists is whether Buddhism is a religion. It’s sort of a dumb argument, but I’d probably be one of those who came out on the side of saying it is. If you think about it, otherwise, what’s the point?

Practice only works when you surrender your own conceptions. It’s true, you could do that on your own. But it is pretty unlikely; for most of us the power of our conceptions of the world is really far too strong. You sort of have to turn it over to another being. Now, you “know” you’re doing that, which I guess is the distinction that makes some people feel comfortable, but they really shouldn’t be. Don’t tell anyone I said this , but it’s more of a mental trick that gets around the defences of your ego.

It works much better in practice to imagine that the Buddha is an external source of salvation, and then to bring that into your own heart. So there is an interesting conjuring up a sense of seperation and then undoing it again that goes on there, and that’s probably as much as I should say, as it is a very personal thing and needs to be discovered by everyone in their own way.

Also, different traditions take things in very different ways. It’s a very Vajrayana concept to actually think of yourself as a deity, I think many Buddhists probably find it kind of weird, but are usually too polite to say so. It is weird, and it would be very easy to get confused by it, to think things like “oh, I’m god, so I can do whatever I want, and I’m all powerful”, and so on. That wouldn’t be enlightened, it would just be psychotic. In fact, that’s actually the sate of Rudrahood, which is about as close as you can get to mortal sin in the Buddhist conception. That’s why you only do those sorts of practices under the guidance of a living Teacher and after long preparation, when your ego has already been tamed to at least some degree and you have the proper outlook. Remember, if you don’t actually have a self, you can’t be praying to yourself.

 

[Bakmoon]

By nihilism I mean a rejection of the idea of progression to an afterlife, which for many faiths is the point of existence in this life.

But there is an afterlife. When you die, you are reborn, either into one of the woeful destinations (Hell, hungry spirit, animal), the human realm, or as a being in one of the various heavens (both the sensual heavens and the higher heavens.). The only difference is that these are not the goal. The goal is Nibbana.

Think of it this way: Nibbana isn’t the Buddhist analogue of the Christian heaven; It is the analogue of the Beatific Vision. Isn’t the Beatific Vision the real goal of the Christian life? If (hypothetically) it were a choice between going to heaven but not having the Beatific Vision and somehow not having any sort of afterlife by being made to trancend it, but being granted the Beatific Vision, wouldn’t you pick gaining the Beatific Vision?

The idea of a cyclic existence and rejection of a soul do not seem compatible, if you are to be reborn as another being…how is this possible if the soul or spirit does not exist in some way.

I already addressed this in post 274. Rebirth isn’t some sort of soul which leaves the body after death to take on a new one, but rather it is the continuation of the process of the mind which goes on after death. notself posted a great quote on the subject as well in post 278 as well.

As regards charity and mercy - these things don’t particularly matter if you have an infinite number of lives. They only matter if you have one life to life to live. A temporary life, on this world.

You say they are “objectively good” what makes them objectively good from a Buddhist viewpoint?

Of course they matter, as they affect the welfare of yourself and others. This is regarded as axiomatic in Buddhism.

 

[notself]

As regards charity and mercy - these things don’t particularly matter if you have an infinite number of lives. They only matter if you have one life to life to live. A temporary life, on this world.
QUOTE]

Charity (dana), Loving Kindness (Metta), Sympathy (Mudita), Compassion (Karuna), Equanimity (Upekkha), Right Speech, Right Livelihood, Right Action make up the moral foundation (Sila) of Buddhism.

 

[AdamP88]

The core statements of the Buddhist religion are not historical ones, but doctrinal ones. If you were to try to write up some sort of Buddhist creed, you would find that its statements wouldn’t demand belief in specific historical events, but rather would be entirely statements which remain confirmable by a person living in modern times through their own meditative practice (Assuming they get far enough)

This would seem to imply that the Buddhist experience is entirely subjective and would back up my assertion that charity, mercy and morality in general are open to being interpreted in any way possible by Buddhists. Or even rejected entirely based on personal preference…

 

[Lodro]

…charity, mercy and morality in general are open to being interpreted in any way possible by Buddhists. Or even rejected entirely based on personal preference…

I think that’s true. We have to use our own natural awareness and discrimination to understand the best way to behave under certain circumstances. Many times we get it wrong and sometimes there really is no ideal way to deal with things. The important point is our intention applied through the other qualities that we try to develop. These are the Six Paramitas, which are Generosity, Ethics or Discipline, Patience, Effort or Perseverance, Meditation, and Wisdom.

For example, there is this notion of “Idiot Compassion” which means acting in a way that we think is helpful, but that only really makes matters worse. Someone hear had a very interesting quote from Pope Benedict regarding Charity that made me think of that.

Curious though, is that not the case with Catholics and Christians in general as well? I mean, not to be coy, but I guess on the day of judgement you will find out if you were actually right or now, but from a day to day perspective, don’t we all struggle with wether what we is right? Don’t we all make mistakes and sometimes learn from them and sometimes not? Don’t we all repeat the same mistakes even though we know that we’re doing that?

 

[Bakmoon]

This would seem to imply that the Buddhist experience is entirely subjective and would back up my assertion that charity, mercy and morality in general are open to being interpreted in any way possible by Buddhists. Or even rejected entirely based on personal preference…

I don’t see the logical link between holding that knowledge ultimately is derived from experience leads to the idea that morality is subjective. Morality is conceptual yes (meaning that the principles of morality are a description of reality rather than being a literal part of it), but this does not mean that it is subjective.

If you want to argue that Buddhism is nihilistic, it is insufficient to point to a teaching of Buddhism and say that it smacks to you of nihilism. Instead, a logical argument must be assembled to demonstrate that such a teaching logically entails nihilism.

Right off the bat, let’s agree on a definition of nihilism. How about this?:

Nihilism is the position that truth and morality do not exist.

Can we work off of that definition?

 

[notself]

I think that’s true. We have to use our own natural awareness and discrimination to understand the best way to behave under certain circumstances. Many times we get it wrong and sometimes there really is no ideal way to deal with things. The important point is our intention applied through the other qualities that we try to develop. These are the Six Paramitas, which are Generosity, Ethics or Discipline, Patience, Effort or Perseverance, Meditation, and Wisdom.

For example, there is this notion of “Idiot Compassion” which means acting in a way that we think is helpful, but that only really makes matters worse. Someone hear had a very interesting quote from Pope Benedict regarding Charity that made me think of that.

Curious though, is that not the case with Catholics and Christians in general as well? I mean, not to be coy, but I guess on the day of judgement you will find out if you were actually right or now, but from a day to day perspective, don’t we all struggle with wether what we is right? Don’t we all make mistakes and sometimes learn from them and sometimes not? Don’t we all repeat the same mistakes even though we know that we’re doing that?

There is a sutta that comes quickly to mind that gives guidance on how to determine if one is acting in a manner beneficial to oneself and to others. The Buddha taught it to his 7 year old son, Rahula. I have posted it before, but the suttas are always worth repeating.

“What do you think, Rahula: What is a mirror for?”

“For reflection, sir.”

"In the same way, Rahula, bodily actions, verbal actions, & mental actions are to be done with repeated reflection.

"Whenever you want to do a bodily action, you should reflect on it: ‘This bodily action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences, painful results, then any bodily action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it would not cause affliction… it would be a skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then any bodily action of that sort is fit for you to do.

"While you are doing a bodily action, you should reflect on it: ‘This bodily action I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it is leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both… you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is not… you may continue with it.

"Having done a bodily action, you should reflect on it: ‘This bodily action I have done — did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it was an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences, painful results, then you should confess it, reveal it, lay it open to the Teacher or to a knowledgeable companion in the holy life. Having confessed it… you should exercise restraint in the future. But if on reflection you know that it did not lead to affliction… it was a skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then you should stay mentally refreshed & joyful, training day & night in skillful mental qualities.

"Whenever you want to do a verbal action, you should reflect on it: ‘This verbal action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful verbal action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful verbal action with painful consequences, painful results, then any verbal action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it would not cause affliction… it would be a skillful verbal action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then any verbal action of that sort is fit for you to do.

"While you are doing a verbal action, you should reflect on it: ‘This verbal action I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful verbal action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it is leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both… you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is not… you may continue with it.

"Having done a verbal action, you should reflect on it: ‘This verbal action I have done — did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful verbal action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it was an unskillful verbal action with painful consequences, painful results, then you should confess it, reveal it, lay it open to the Teacher or to a knowledgeable companion in the holy life. Having confessed it… you should exercise restraint in the future. But if on reflection you know that it did not lead to affliction… it was a skillful verbal action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then you should stay mentally refreshed & joyful, training day & night in skillful mental qualities.

"Whenever you want to do a mental action, you should reflect on it: ‘This mental action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful mental action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful mental action with painful consequences, painful results, then any mental action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it would not cause affliction… it would be a skillful mental action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then any mental action of that sort is fit for you to do.

"While you are doing a mental action, you should reflect on it: ‘This mental action I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful mental action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it is leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both… you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is not… you may continue with it.

"Having done a mental action, you should reflect on it: ‘This mental action I have done — did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful mental action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it was an unskillful mental action with painful consequences, painful results, then you should feel distressed, ashamed, & disgusted with it. Feeling distressed, ashamed, & disgusted with it, you should exercise restraint in the future. But if on reflection you know that it did not lead to affliction… it was a skillful mental action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then you should stay mentally refreshed & joyful, training day & night in skillful mental qualities.

"Rahula, all those brahmans & contemplatives in the course of the past who purified their bodily actions, verbal actions, & mental actions, did it through repeated reflection on their bodily actions, verbal actions, & mental actions in just this way.

"All those brahmans & contemplatives in the course of the future who will purify their bodily actions, verbal actions, & mental actions, will do it through repeated reflection on their bodily actions, verbal actions, & mental actions in just this way.

"All those brahmans & contemplatives at present who purify their bodily actions, verbal actions, & mental actions, do it through repeated reflection on their bodily actions, verbal actions, & mental actions in just this way.

“Thus, Rahula, you should train yourself: ‘I will purify my bodily actions through repeated reflection. I will purify my verbal actions through repeated reflection. I will purify my mental actions through repeated reflection.’ That’s how you should train yourself.”

 

[Lodro]

There is a sutta that comes quickly to mind that gives guidance on how to determine if one is acting in a manner beneficial to oneself and to others. The Buddha taught it to his 7 year old son, Rahula. I have posted it before, but the suttas are always worth repeating.

Yes, exactly.

There are also the Vinayas which notself may be more familiar with then I am, but they deal in very fine (and in this case quite objective) detail about the proper behavior of monastics. When on retreat for example, we might vow to refine from drinking liquor, having sexual relations, etc…

It’s important to note a difference here though from my understanding about at least some Christian views. These are still not taken as absolute. In fact, for almost any action you could think of a case where the opposite action is actually the “correct” one to take.

In my own experience, things can get very complicated quickly as soon as you get beyond the level of “don’t hit people” and “don’t yell at people” – and I still do those things, well the latter anyway! When dealing with others, these basically come into the realm of skillful means (Upaya). I don’t think there is any formula there.

But as notself indicates, there are many techniques that we can use to work with this and the best is simple reflection. Every night, for example, we might examine the course of our lives throughout the day and think about what we have done and feel genuine regret or appreciation for something that we have done.

Other people are very important here, because they give us the opportunity to see the reflection of our own actions. If I become defensive or argumentative on this forum for example, it is likely that other people will as well. If I see that happening, I could choose to make a firm resolution that I won’t do it again.

Believe it or not, there might even be some of confession to that. Though if I may say so, it doesn’t carry the sense of guilt or shame that I imagine (wrongly?) is more common in Christian spiritual reflection. Because there is a view of no self, I think perhaps Buddhists are more likely to think more in terms of “that was an incorrect or unskillful action” rather than “I’ve sinned”. But we still manage to do a good job of beating ourselves up about stuff.

 

[notself]

For example, there is this notion of “Idiot Compassion” which means acting in a way that we think is helpful, but that only really makes matters worse.

There is an excellent essay by Thanissaro Bhikkhu on the Sublime Attitudes called Head and Heart Together. It is a discussion of loving kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity and how the head must work together with the heart to have them be effective. This essay is heavily edited to fit in one post. I recommend reading the entire thing as it may clear up some question about Buddhism.

accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/headandheart.html

Of these four emotions, goodwill (metta) is the most fundamental. It’s the wish for true happiness, a wish you can direct to yourself or to others. Goodwill was the underlying motivation that led the Buddha to search for awakening and to teach the path to awakening to others after he had found it.

The next two emotions in the list are essentially applications of goodwill. Compassion (karuna) is what goodwill feels when it encounters suffering: It wants the suffering to stop. Empathetic joy (mudita) is what goodwill feels when it encounters happiness: It wants the happiness to continue. Equanimity (upekkha) is a different emotion, in that it acts as an aid to and a check on the other three. When you encounter suffering that you can’t stop no matter how hard you try, you need equanimity to avoid creating additional suffering and to channel your energies to areas where you can be of help. In this way, equanimity isn’t cold hearted or indifferent. It simply makes your goodwill more focused and effective…

This is where the head comes in. If we think of the heart as the side of the mind that wants happiness, the head is the side that understands how cause and effect actually work. If your head and heart can learn to cooperate — that is, if your head can give priority to finding the causes for true happiness, and your heart can learn to embrace those causes — then the training of the mind can go far.

This is why the Buddha taught the brahma-viharas in a context of head teachings: the principle of causality as it plays out in (1) karma and (2) the process of fabrication that shapes emotions within the body and mind…

… So the first lesson of karma is that if you really want to be happy, you can’t trust that deep down you know the right thing to do, because that would simply foster complacency. Unskillful intentions would take over and you wouldn’t even know it. Instead, you have to be heedful to recognize unskillful intentions for what they are, and to act only on skillful ones. The way to ensure that you’ll stay heedful is to take your desire for happiness and spread it around.

The second lesson of karma is that just as you’re the primary architect of your own happiness and suffering, other people are the primary architects of theirs. If you really want them to be happy, you don’t just treat them nicely. You also want them to learn how to create the causes for happiness. If you can, you want to show them how to do that. This is why the gift of dharma — lessons in how to give rise to true happiness — is the greatest gift.

In the Buddha’s most famous example of how to express an attitude of unlimited good will, he doesn’t just express the following wish for universal happiness:

Happy, at rest,
may all beings be happy at heart…

Let no one deceive another
or despise anyone anywhere,
or through anger or irritation
wish for another to suffer.
— Sn 1.8

So if you’re using visualization as part of your goodwill practice, don’t visualize people simply as smiling, surrounded willy-nilly by wealth and sensual pleasures. Visualize them acting, speaking, and thinking skillfully. If they’re currently acting on unskillful intentions, visualize them changing their ways. Then act to realize those visualizations if you can.

A similar principle applies to compassion and empathetic joy. Learn to feel compassion not only for people who are already suffering, but also for those who are engaging in unskillful actions that will lead to future suffering. This means, if possible, trying to stop them from doing those things. And learn to feel empathetic joy not only for those who are already happy, but also for those whose actions will lead to future happiness. If you have the opportunity, give them encouragement.

But you also have to realize that no matter how unlimited the scope of these positive emotions, their effect is going to run into limits. In other words, regardless of how strong your goodwill or compassion may be, there are bound to be people whose past actions are unskillful and who cannot or will not change their ways in the present. This is why you need equanimity as your reality check. When you encounter areas where you can’t be of help, you learn not to get upset. Think about the universality of the principle of karma: it applies to everyone regardless of whether you like them or not. That puts you in a position where you can see more clearly what can be changed, where you can be of help. In other words, equanimity isn’t a blanket acceptance of things as they are. It’s a tool for helping you to develop discernment as to which kinds of suffering you have to accept and which ones you don’t…

When you think in these ways you see that it really is in your interest to develop the brahma-viharas in all situations. So the question is, how do you do that? This is where another aspect of the Buddha’s teachings on causality plays a role: his teaching on fabrication, or the way you shape your experience.

Fabrication is of three kinds: bodily, verbal, and mental. Bodily fabrication is the way you breathe. Verbal fabrications are thoughts and mental comments on things — your internal speech. In Pali, these thoughts and comments are called vitakka — directed thought, and vicara, evaluation. Mental fabrications are perceptions and feelings: the mental labels you apply to things, and the feelings of pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain you feel about them.

Any desire or emotion is made up of these three types of fabrication. It starts with thoughts and perceptions, and then it gets into your body through the way you breathe. This is why emotions seem so real, so insistent, so genuinely “you.” But as the Buddha points out, you identify with these things because you fabricate them in ignorance: you don’t know what you’re doing, and you suffer as a result. But if you can fabricate your emotions with knowledge, they can form a path to the end of suffering. And the breath is a good place to start.

If, for example, you’re feeling anger toward someone, ask yourself, “How am I breathing right now? How can I change the way I breathe so that my body can feel more comfortable?” Anger often engenders a sense of discomfort in the body, and you feel you’ve got to get rid of it. The common ways of getting rid of it are two, and they’re both unskillful: either you bottle it up, or you try to get it out of your system by letting it out in your words and deeds.

So the Buddha provides a third, more skillful alternative: Breathe through your discomfort and dissolve it away. Let the breath create physical feelings of ease and fullness, and allow those feelings to saturate your whole body. This physical ease helps put the mind at ease as well. When you’re operating from a sense of ease, it’s easier to fabricate skillful perceptions as you evaluate your response to the issue with which you’re faced…

What you’ve done here is to use skillful verbal fabrication — thinking about and evaluating the breath — to turn the breath into a skillful bodily fabrication. This in turn creates a healthy mental fabrication — the feeling of ease — that makes it easier to mentally fabricate perceptions that can deconstruct your unskillful reaction and construct a skillful emotion in its place.

This is how we use our knowledge of karma and fabrication to shape our emotions in the direction we want — which is why head teachings are needed even in matters of the heart. At the same time, because we’ve sensitized ourselves to the role that the breath plays in shaping emotion, we can make a genuine change in how we physically feel about these matters. We’re not playing make believe. Our change of heart becomes fully embodied, genuinely felt…

All too often we think that getting in touch with our emotions is a means of tapping into who we really are — that we’ve been divorced from our true nature, and that by getting back in touch with our emotions we’ll reconnect with our true identity. But your emotions are not your true nature; they’re just as fabricated as anything else. Because they’re fabricated, the real issue is to learn how to fabricate them skillfully, so they don’t lead to trouble and can instead lead to a trustworthy happiness.

Remember that emotions cause you to act… As you learn how to deconstruct emotions of ill will, hard-heartedness, resentment, and distress, and reconstruct the brahma-viharas in their place, you don’t simply attain an unlimited heart. You gain practice in mastering the processes of fabrication…

Which simply goes to show that if you get your head and your heart to respect each other, they can take each other far. Your heart needs the help of your head to generate and act on more skillful emotions. Your head needs your heart to remind you that what’s really important in life is putting an end to suffering. When they learn how to work together, they can make your human mind into an unlimited brahma-mind. And more: They can master the causes of happiness to the point where they transcend themselves, touching an uncaused dimension that the head can’t encompass, and a happiness so true that the heart has no further need for desire.

 

[Lodro]

There is a sutta that comes quickly to mind that gives guidance on how to determine if one is acting in a manner beneficial to oneself and to others. The Buddha taught it to his 7 year old son, Rahula. I have posted it before, but the suttas are always worth repeating.

Yes, exactly.

There are also the Vinayas which notself may be more familiar with then I am, but they deal in very fine (and in this case quite objective) detail about the proper behavior of monastics. When on retreat for example, we might vow to refine from drinking liquor, having sexual relations, etc…

It’s important to note a difference here though from my understanding about at least some Christian views. These are still not taken as absolute. In fact, for almost any action you could think of a case where the opposite action is actually the “correct” one to take.

In my own experience, things can get very complicated quickly as soon as you get beyond the level of “don’t hit people” and “don’t yell at people” – and I still do those things, well the latter anyway! When dealing with others, these basically come into the realm of skillful means (Upaya). I don’t think there is any formula there.

But as notself indicates, there are many techniques that we can use to work with this and the best is simple reflection. Every night, for example, we might examine the course of our lives throughout the day and think about what we have done and feel genuine regret or appreciation for something that we have done.

Other people are very important here, because they give us the opportunity to see the reflection of our own actions. If I become defensive or argumentative on this forum for example, it is likely that other people will as well. If I see that happening, I could choose to make a firm resolution that I won’t do it again.

Believe it or not, there might even be some of confession to that. Though if I may say so, it doesn’t carry the sense of guilt or shame that I imagine (wrongly?) is more common in Christian spiritual reflection. Because there is a view of no self, I think perhaps Buddhists are more likely to think more in terms of “that was an incorrect or unskillful action” rather than “I’ve sinned”. But we still manage to do a good job of beating ourselves up about stuff.

 

[notself]

The vinaya (the discipline) is the code of conduct for monastics.

Discipline is for the sake of restraint, restraint for the sake of freedom from remorse,
freedom from remorse for the sake of joy, joy for the sake of rapture, rapture for the sake of tranquillity, tranquillity for the sake of pleasure, pleasure for the sake of concentration, concentration for the sake of knowledge and vision of things as they are, knowledge and vision of things as they are for the sake of disenchantment, disenchantment for the sake of release, release for the sake of knowledge and vision of release, knowledge and vision of release for the sake of total unbinding without clinging. — Parivaara.XII.2 (BMC p.1)

There are 227 rules covering the conduct of monks and slightly more covering the conduct of nuns. When the Buddha first started to teach he gave no rules to his followers but as more people started to join him, situations came up that required a rule. I will list some of the more everyday yet interesting ones. Tibetan Buddhists have a slightly different Vinaya. I will refer to monks rather than monks and nuns but I mean both. If anyone has questions regarding a rule, I will be glad to provide a reason.

Monks are not allowed to have sex of any kind.
Monks are not allowed to touch money.
Monks cannot store food.
Monks cannot dig in the ground or chop down trees or pick fruit or vegetables
Monks cannot own anything but their necessities which are a begging bowl, an umbrella with mosquito net, one set of robes, and simple medicines, needle and thread, a razor, and belt.
They cannot ask for food or any other necessity. These must be freely given by laypeople.
Monks must meet together every to weeks to recite the rules and to correct one another.
They cannot be alone with a member of the opposite sex nor touch a member of the opposite sex.

There are a lot of rules, but I think one gets the general idea.

 

[AdamP88]

I don’t see the logical link between holding that knowledge ultimately is derived from experience leads to the idea that morality is subjective. Morality is conceptual yes (meaning that the principles of morality are a description of reality rather than being a literal part of it), but this does not mean that it is subjective.

If you want to argue that Buddhism is nihilistic, it is insufficient to point to a teaching of Buddhism and say that it smacks to you of nihilism. Instead, a logical argument must be assembled to demonstrate that such a teaching logically entails nihilism.

Right off the bat, let’s agree on a definition of nihilism. How about this?:

Nihilism is the position that truth and morality do not exist.

Can we work off of that definition?

I can go with that definition.

 

[patrick457]

Generally speaking, the Vedic period is considered to begin with the arrival of the Indo-Aryan tribes (jana) at north and northwest India and the composition of the hymns of the Rigveda, which is generally dated to 1700 to 1100 BC (the early Vedic period). At this time, Indo-Aryan culture was still pastoral and nomadic in nature. Their arrival was contemporaneous with the decline of the Indus Valley civilization (a phase known as Late Harappan) and possibly precipitated the beginning of the Iron Age in India.

The transition from the early to the later Vedic period (around 1000 BC) was marked by the emergence of sedentary agriculture as the dominant economic activity and a corresponding decline in the significance of cattle rearing: people increasingly looked upon land as wealth. The successful cattle raids that had marked earlier Aryan life was no longer the most desirable attribute of Aryan chiefs; more esteem was attached in skilfully managing the incorporation of different clans into larger political groupings (janapada). Out of these processes came the sixteen great kingdoms and republics known as the mahajanapadas around the 6th century BC.

There are some problems with pinning a date to shramanic traditions, in part because with the exception of Jainism and Buddhism, all the others (like Charvaka or Ajivika) have died out without any surviving first-hand information (most of what we know about them comes from other sources, which are often hostile). There is a theory that shramana and its ideas might have had roots from the native Harappan (Indus Valley) culture, and some people have postulated about certain connections between it and some traditions (usually Jainism, on the basis of iconography), but all that we can say for sure is that several movements are likely to have already existed even before the 6th century BC.

It was probably around this same period that the Upanishads, which contained theories identifiable with shramana came in direct contact with brahmanical ideals and influenced it: debate and discussion were now also valued rather than rote memorization of sacred texts. Many Upanishads compile contradictory positions where the favorite style of debate is to pose questions until the other cannot answer. Their heterogenous nature of shows infusions of both social and philosophical elements, pointing to evolution of new doctrines from non-brahmanical sources. While the germ of some Upanishadic ideas like Brahman and Atman can be traced back to the Vedas and ancillary Brahmanic literature like the Brahmanas, the doctrines of transmigration (punarjanma), yoga, karma (action), and emancipation (moksha) do not follow with consistency from Vedic traditions, and are fundamental to shramanic schools.

Now karma and samsara were two of the concepts which so characterize shramanic heterodoxy: all the different movements either accepted or rejected them. And even those who held the ideas differed on how they understood them. Take karma, for example: Jains thought of it as the fruit of one’s action conceived as material particles which stick to a soul and keep it away from natural omniscience, while Buddhists viewed as a chain of causality leading to attachment of the material world and hence to rebirth. The Ajivikas saw it more fatalistically as inescapable fate where a person’s life goes through a chain of consequences and rebirths until it reaches its end. Others, like the Charvakas rejected any notion of karma and rebirth entirely.

 

[Vouthon]

Fascinating. Where can I get some descriptions of these nine levels? It would be interesting to compare them with the stages of Buddhist meditation.

My dear brother Bakmoon

Thank you for your interest! I appreciate it.

This website takes you through the nine levels step-by-step:

ericsammons.com/article/Christian_Prayer

The number “9” holds a special significance in Catholic spiritual thought, on a par with the number 1 (Oneness of God) and the sacred number 3 (the Triune Deity).

There are nine choirs of angels according to the Dionysian schema.

Nine is a religiously significant number for Catholics because it is the result of three times three (and I don’t mean this in some occult numerological sense but rather in a pious, popular sense).

The number three is considered a number of perfection because of its association with the Trinity. Three x three is thus considered to be the perfect period for prayer, a period of nine days. As a cradle Catholic, I remember that the number nine shows up in other areas of devotion or tradition, such as nine First Fridays in a row for plenary indulgences.

In a novena, the chaplet is usually said each of the nine days from Good Friday to Divine Mercy Sunday.

A novena is the reciting of powerful prayers and devotions over nine consecutive days, asking to obtain special graces. The Novena can also be done for 18 days – 9 days of prayer of petition followed by 9 days of prayer of thanksgiving even if the request hasn’t been answered yet. There is also a 54-day novena – three 9-day Novena’s in prayer of petition followed by three 9-day Novena’s in prayer of thansgiving.

Sister Notself - who was brought up Catholic - may also remember this. Traditionally, a novena includes praying, fasting, and meditating.

I find it to be particularly powerful when I am in times of great distress. I recommended it to my friend (who is agnostic but open to the idea of “prayer” and “meditation”) after he’d been suffering with stress. And he enjoyed praying over those 9 days, saying to me that he felt rather rejuvenated.

The first novena was reputedly for the coming of the Holy Spirit. Accordin to tradition, the Apostles and Mary prayed for 9 days in the Upper Room from Ascension to Pentecost.

There are also “Nine Choirs of Angels”, as stated earlier according to Pseudo-Dionysius, ascending from the lowest to God and back down again in a straight line, a string of illumination.

St. Padre Pio once asked one of his spiritual children if they had completed a novena they had shared with him. He encouraged them to continue and complete the nine days of prayer, if they had not done so up to that point. St Padre Pio said that it was a holy revelation of truth that not one day of a prayerful novena is wasted and that the completed nine days - whether consecutive or not - are very effectual.

The origin of the Novena seems to be in the special significance of the number nine. Jesus died on the ninth hour of the day according to the Jewish (and unless I am mistaken, Roman) hour counting (starting at 6 am in the morning). In addition, the Romans knew the parentalia novendialia, the yearly celebration of a set of rituals for nine consecutive days to remember the family’s dead.

There is a nine day period of mourning following the death of a Pope. An official mourning period of nine days, called the Novendiales, begins when a Pope dies. The day of death is counted as the first day of this period.

This ritual is called, “The Novendiales”, from the Latin for “nine days”. For nine days, masses are offered in St. Peter’s and the basilicas and churches of Rome for the deceased. On each of the nine days a different Cardinal celebrates a public funeral rite for the Holy Father, following the Ordo Exsequiarum Romani Pontificis (2000). The body is removed from the simple cypress coffin and once again placed on view at the Confession of St. Peter.

BTW that was just some trivia as to why “Nine” levels of prayer developed rather than seven, or six, or twelve

Various saints have arranged different “stages” in the Mystical journey. Evelyn Underhill discerned Five, and the traditional itinerary was simply three: Purgative, Illuminative and Unitative.

The woman Doctor of the Church, Teresa of Avila (1515-1582), categorized prayer into these nine levels. Fr. Aumann notes (Ibid., p.316):

"We are indebted to St. Teresa of Avila for the clearest and best classification of the grades of prayer. Her concept that the intensity of one’s life of prayer coincides with the intensity of one’s charity is based on solid theology and was confirmed by St. Pius X, who stated that the grades of prayer taught by St. Teresa represent so many grades of elevation and ascent toward Christian perfection.

These grades are (1) vocal prayer, (2) meditation, (3) affective prayer, (4) prayer of simplicity, (5) infused contemplation, (6) prayer of quiet, (7) prayer of union, (8) prayer of conforming union, and (9) prayer of transforming union. The first four grades belong to the predominantly ascetical stage of spiritual life; the remaining five grades are infused prayer and belong to the mystical phase of spiritual life."

There are hundreds of different “paths” delineated by mystics. No two are exactly the same. As the scholar of Catholic mysticism Bernard McGinn explains:

“…The journey motif, the conception of life as a passage through a series of stages on the way to an intended goal, is deeply rooted in the human mind…It is scarcely surprising that many mystics, both in Catholicism and in other religious traditions, have used itineraries to describe what they experienced and what they wish to hand on to their followers. Each person’s journey to God, of course, is unique, even if it takes place within the context of the beliefs and rituals of a religious community…These itineraries are [therefore] intended to be guidebooks to help people, usually with the advice of a spiritual director…Many Catholic mystical writers have left us descriptions of stages on the path to God in their writings, always with the understanding that there are many such roads, and that one type of itinerary does not rule out others…”

• Bernard McGinn

Now there is a reason for this Catholic “pluralism”:

As the Anglican Douglas Jacobson explained in his book, “The World’s Christians” about Catholicism:

“…Enormous diversity exists within Catholicism, including many different schools and sub-schools of spirituality. Rather than forcing members to choose between one style of faith or another, Catholicism has typically opted to be a tradition of 'both/‘and’. Whatever is seen as having spiritual merit and value can be incorporated into Catholicism, even when the opposite emphases are also present within the tradition…Catholicism’s both/and stance has also allowed it to adopt and adapt various ideas and practices from other Christian traditions…This same commitment to catholicity has allowed Catholicism to welcome and appreciate spiritual insights and practices of many non-Christian religions and cultures…”

For example we have the “Threefold Way” of Dionysius, William of St Thierry and Saint Bonaventure (a Doctor of the Church) which is called “purgative, illuminative and unitative” and is the most basic system utilized in some manner by all the schools. We have the “Four Degrees of Love” by Richard of St Victor (who died in 1173) (thats the Victorine path), the “Path of Mount Carmel the Perfect Spirit” of Saint John of the Cross, or the highly systematic Seven Stages of Evelyn Underhill (she attempted to combine all the salient elements of all the different Catholic schools into one system) and many, many more.

The crux is this: Catholics have to find and choose their own “itinerary” from the wide options available.

 

[Bakmoon]

I can go with that definition.

Good.

Buddhism’s core teachings reject nihilism, as they clearly rest upon the idea that there is objective truth and objective morality. If there is no objective truth, then wisdom is impossible, as wisdom is the knowledge of the truth of the nature of reality, and the nature of Kamma is taught as something that is also objective, and Kamma is intertwined with the principles of morality.

 

[Lodro]

Buddhism’s core teachings reject nihilism, as they clearly rest upon the idea that there is objective truth and objective morality.

Arguably, the real distinction between Christianity and Buddhism is not that Christianity rejects Nihilism and Buddhism embraces it, but that Buddhism also rejects Eternalism and Christianity embraces it.

The Buddhist path is often referred to as the “Middle Way” and what is actually meant by that is that the Dharma rejects both the error of Nihilism and the error of Eternalism.

If there is no objective truth, then wisdom is impossible, as wisdom is the knowledge of the truth of the nature of reality, and the nature of Kamma is taught as something that is also objective, and Kamma is intertwined with the principles of morality.

In fact, these two, impermanence and karma, are actually the only objective truth. (Bakmoon, I think you would agree with me on that…) Also, note that morality here means something different from how many people would take the word. It is probably closer to “ethics” or “right action”. Morality suggests “good” and “bad” actions, and a lot of what we’re talking about is actually beyond those distinctions. Hmm…maybe we shouldn’t get into that now, as it opens up a whole 'nother ball of wax.

By the way, who is this Neal guy everyone keeps talking about?

 

[Lodro]

Vouthon, thank you for bring this issue back up. I’m much more interested in sharing with one another the struggles and joys of our day-to-day spiritual practice than dissecting abstract philosophical issues – as irresistible a temptation as that might be.

Now there is a reason for this Catholic “pluralism”:
The crux is this: Catholics have to find and choose their own “itinerary” from the wide options available.

That is one of the things that I admire most about the Catholic faith. While people associate Catholicism as a very rigid set of rules and proscriptions, within that there seems to be an extraordinary openness, and active curiosity about the relationship with the sacred itself. I mean, it certainly doesn’t seem to be “do whatever you feel like”, but the important thing seems to be that practice fits in with the genuine heart of the teachings and not some kind of fixed idea about what one needs to do to get to heaven. And Catholicism has managed to protect itself from the problem of rationality, so that there is actually a living connection to the non-conceptual truths that its great teachers (most especially of course Jesus Christ) have provided.

By the way, you might have noticed that Buddhists like numbers as well, and three is the most important, as it represents the three jewels. It also comes up a lot in Mahayana and Vajrayana classifications, for example the Trikaya, which some have (probably too eagerly) compared to the Holy Trinity and the related Body, Speech and Mind and associated sacred syllables. But we also have the three poisons, which are passion, aggression and ignorance.

Meditation and active contemplation both involve effort on the part of the person (ie “seek and ye shall find”) whereas passive contemplation cannot be attained through human effort but only through the grace of God.

It seems to me that Buddhist meditative techniques and practices could be useful as an attempt to calm, quiet and focus the mind during active contemplation?

The Meditation vs. Contemplation confusion is such an amazing example of the problem of language expressing experience! Yes, the terms are exactly backward. I have been trying to figure out how meditation “works” in the Catholic sense, and I have had a hard time because what I’ve seen described seemed so limiting.

I like the three levels of Meditation, Active Contemplation and Passive Contemplation. These actually correspond in a couple of ways.

First, we have “Hearing, Contemplating and Meditating”. In this formulation, one “hears” the dharma; that is listens to a teacher, reads a text, etc… then one “contemplates” it; that is thinks about the teaching it’s implications and so on; finally, we have meditation, which is completely non-conceptual abiding with the truth of what has been experienced.

Contemplation practice is actually a very important part of Mahayana practice. (I’m not sure, but I think that’s true for many non-Mahayanist traditions as well.) We might read a particular short passage from a Dharma teaching, and bring it in to our experience. There, we sort of mix it into our mind-stream, so that at first we might try to figure out “what does this actually ‘mean’” and then at some point we realize the limitations of that and the contemplation dissolves into a more spacious experience. This sounds exactly like the progression from meditation to active contemplation to passive contemplation to me. Though I think the word “passive” is interesting, because to me that is actually the most engaged, living practice of all. Just words…

For example, one of the contemplations closest to my heart – because it is so simple and direct – is also a part of the Bodhisattva Vow, and again a part of daily practice:

May all beings enjoy happiness and the root of happiness
May they be free from suffering and the root of suffering
May they not be separated from the great happiness devoid of suffering.
May they dwell in the great equanimity, free from passion, aggression and prejudice

The point is not to recite this, but to actually mean it. To really want it to happen with as much heart as you are able to give.

All of these practices – as rich as they are – wind up leading ultimate practice, which goes by many names, such as Zazen, or Mahamudra, or Dzogchen, or whatever, but all boil down to simply existing in a state of naked awareness. You don’t really need any philosophy or doctrine for that! But from what I’ve heard, you need a lot of effort and faith and luck.

There is also a strong tradition of analytical meditation. This is where you engage with a particular kind of question, but the question is experiential, not cognitive. It’s connected with the Madhyamaka approach, and provides a sort of bridge between study or dry understanding, and practice, or actual experience. So for example, you might look at the space in front of you and try to determine whether the objects you see have a real, separate existence or not. But you don’t do that by trying to talk yourself into seeing various objects as not really there, you do it by simply examining – or looking very closely without bias at – your own perceptual experience.

 

[rinnie]

The reason why you are having difficulty understanding it is because you are thinking of rebirth in the same way that the Greeks, the Jains, and the Hindus thought about it (i.e. as reincarnation, or transmigration). They thought of rebirth as being that when the body decays and the soul is freed from the body, it goes somewhere else and takes on a new body. This is not what Buddhism teaches.

Buddhism instead teaches that the mind is a continuous process of mental events, and that this process continues after death. Rebirth is not the soul taking on a new body, but is the continuation of a process.

But is the continuation process then the mind taking on a new body?