Ask A Buddhist

[Vouthon]

BTW I am not making an assertion of an existent “something” when I ask these questions Even when given the name “Buddha Nature” or “the Ground” I regard it as being a state/experience that is ultimately inexpressible, formless, ultimately nameless and not a “thing” - in fact a “nothing” (no-thing) just as (to our mind) God is a “no-thing”, free from time and place, free of cravings, of suffering, existing in the Eternal Now with no thought of the past or the future, timeless and void of all means and of all images.

I hope that it doesn’t appear as if I’m trying to suggest some kind of unchanging, eternal Atman. I’m rather speaking of a state beyond time and place but which is - or the capacity for is - somehow innate to all of us.

 

[Bakmoon]

Before I respond to Vouthon I must inform everybody reading this that I have just realized that I need to clarify a major point from an earlier post. In responding to Vouthon in post 548 on page 37 of this thread, I said:

“It is better then (IMHO) to think in terms of the verb form which simply means “to Quench the fire of craving.” In this sense, Nibbana is just an abstract noun that is the result of being able to grammatically manipulate a verb and turn it into a noun. It isn’t a “thing” in any meaningful ontological sense, and neither is it “nothing” because it is conceptual.”

I would like to make it known that what I originally meant (and grossly misstated unfortunately) is that Nibbana isn’t a “thing” in the normal sense of the term. It is Sui Generis (in its own category). It exists objectively because it can be directly experienced. It is classified in Classical Abhidhamma as being an objective dhamma but it exists as an experience, rather than something that you can carry around with you or enter into or visit.

Moving beyond that little kerfuffle, I will now respond to your question.

Thank you brother Bakmoon for your informative reply

I look forward to discussing nimitta (lights) with you in future, in the context of mysticism.

I must ask this:

My understanding from the mystics and the Book of Ecclesiastes is that all conditioned things change and are impermanent. Thus the sense of self/sensuality produced by the brain - which is the offspring of the mind’s thought process - has no actual coherent, single identity. What we consider to be “myself” is actually a series of different and conflicting “selves” which are conditioned by outside influences, memories and emotions. In a real sense, then, it is an illusion to regard this complex series of emotions and thoughts as being “me” and therefore to see in this a single, unified “self”.

Nonetheless, I also believe as a Catholic that the human being has a deeper aspect to him that is not conditioned, that is free of all thought, emotion and which is perfectly tranquil at all times and in all places. Because it is not conditioned, it is eternal and cannot die like our sensory appetites which change all the time and rove around and have no true reality.

The ego/sensuality will die. It is sensory and brain-located, conditioned since it is influenced and shaped by outside, exterior things, people and events whereas the Ground is unconditioned and at all times immobile and unaffected in its traquility by any outside conditions. Since all that can be conditioned is impermanent, finite and must change it cannot be equated with God who is unchangeable and Unconditioned, beyond time and place, who has no emotions or conflicting thoughts since these denote the ability to change. And yet our deepest reality is created in God’s Image.

This I call either the “Image of God” or the “Ground”. I think that it is incredibely similar in many respects to Buddha Nature. A Mahayana Buddhist may also be struck by the similarities.

My question: Is there an element or deep aspect of each human person in Theravada which is either Unconditioned or which rather is naturally ordered towards the Unconditioned, that is directed towards and lifts itself up to the Unconditioned at all times; as distinct from the self (the sensuality) which is our ordinary physical and psychological life? Could Mahayana and Catholicism simply just have given this experience a name - Buddha Nature/Ground?

The Unconditioned is the goal of meditation, the nirvana element that does not change, that is not subject to birth, aging, suffering or death. It is entirely free from Dukkha (suffering). This Unconditioned is a genuine reality and can be experienced when the outpouring thoughts and desires of the mind are free from defilements and the mind is purified and selfish desire is extinguished. I have read it described as ‘seeing and knowing the liberation of the heart’.

The Theravada uses only an adjective to describe the property of enlightenment – that is Unconditioned, where Mahayana and Catholicism also give it a proper noun.

Is this necessarily contradictory?

Question 2: how is it that the Unconditioned can be experienced? If we reject any form of experience as simply something that is impermanent, and therefore dukkha, is the context in which I ask this.

Are there not references in the Suttas to the fact that enlightenment arises as a direct experience, even if only temporary? Is this then an extra area of consciousness that is not impermanent, suffering or non-self? Could this indicate that some form of experience of the mind that arise in meditation should not be rejected as simply impermanent, suffering and non-self? Could they be experiences of an Unconditioned “nature” or ground"?

By none of this do I mean to refer to a permanent, abiding Atman/soul.

I hope that you get what I’m trying to say!

Hi there. Great question! I know what you are getting at. The only problem I would have with this conception of this “Ground” is that it is talked about as though it is something which pre-exists inside of you and that it is something that you just end up uncovering, whereas the Theravada teaches that unconditioned nibbana is something that is an experience rather than something that is buried inside of you.

The other point is that the Theravada clearly teaches that nibbana doesn’t actually interact with the rest of reality. It isn’t some sort of source of reality from which all things flow, and neither is it a creator or whatnot. It simply is.

I hope that helps!

 

[AdamP88]

Before I respond to Vouthon I must inform everybody reading this that I have just realized that I need to clarify a major point from an earlier post. In responding to Vouthon in post 548 on page 37 of this thread, I said:

“It is better then (IMHO) to think in terms of the verb form which simply means “to Quench the fire of craving.” In this sense, Nibbana is just an abstract noun that is the result of being able to grammatically manipulate a verb and turn it into a noun. It isn’t a “thing” in any meaningful ontological sense, and neither is it “nothing” because it is conceptual.”

I would like to make it known that what I originally meant (and grossly misstated unfortunately) is that Nibbana isn’t a “thing” in the normal sense of the term. It is Sui Generis (in its own category). It exists objectively because it can be directly experienced. It is classified in Classical Abhidhamma as being an objective dhamma but it exists as an experience, rather than something that you can carry around with you or enter into or visit.

Moving beyond that little kerfuffle, I will now respond to your question.

Hi there. Great question! I know what you are getting at. The only problem I would have with this conception of this “Ground” is that it is talked about as though it is something which pre-exists inside of you and that it is something that you just end up uncovering, whereas the Theravada teaches that unconditioned nibbana is something that is an experience rather than something that is buried inside of you.

The other point is that the Theravada clearly teaches that nibbana doesn’t actually interact with the rest of reality. It isn’t some sort of source of reality from which all things flow, and neither is it a creator or whatnot. It simply is.

I hope that helps!

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that nibbana is a state of existence/experience entirely dependent on the reality or perception of the individual?
It requires no creator, only the creature to attain this state…am I correct?

 

[Bakmoon]

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that nibbana is a state of existence/experience entirely dependent on the reality or perception of the individual?
It requires no creator, only the creature to attain this state…am I correct?

No. Nibbana is an experience that one arrives at, but it is not itself dependent on anything.

 

[Vouthon]

No. Nibbana is an experience that one arrives at, but it is not itself dependent on anything.

Yes because it would not be unconditioned otherwise but conditioned

 

[AdamP88]

No. Nibbana is an experience that one arrives at, but it is not itself dependent on anything.

In that case, what is the point of it?

Also, surely everything must be dependent on a causal factor…in Buddhist teaching, what is the causal factor for Nibbana?

Who created it?

I’m just trying to understand this idea.

 

[notself]

In that case, what is the point of it?

Also, surely everything must be dependent on a causal factor…in Buddhist teaching, what is the causal factor for Nibbana?

Who created it?

I’m just trying to understand this idea.

Someone many post ago, sorry I forget who, compared nibbana to imaginary numbers of mathematics. It’s not a bad comparison. From Wiki.

Imaginary numbers can therefore be thought of as complex numbers whose real part is zero. The name “imaginary number” was coined in the 17th century as a derogatory term, as such numbers were regarded by some as fictitious or useless, but today they have a variety of essential, concrete applications in science and engineering.

 

[AdamP88]

Someone many post ago, sorry I forget who, compared nibbana to imaginary numbers of mathematics. It’s not a bad comparison. From Wiki.

I wish to know what Buddhist teaching on creation is.

Is it the belief that the universe is in a constant state of changing and has always existed?

 

[Bakmoon]

In that case, what is the point of it?

Also, surely everything must be dependent on a causal factor…in Buddhist teaching, what is the causal factor for Nibbana?

Who created it?

I’m just trying to understand this idea.

There is no causal factor for Nibbana per se. However, there are causal factors for the attaining of Nibbana. These factors are called the seven factors of enlightenment, which are mindfulness, investigation of phenomena, energy, rapture, tranquility, concentration, and equanimity.

These cause the attainment of Nibbana, but do not cause Nibbana itself, only the arrival at it. As an analogy, consider a man driving to a city. The cause of his arrival is the car, the keys, pushing on the gas pedal, etc… but these things do not cause the city itself.

Nibbana is by definition unconditioned and uncreated.

 

[AdamP88]

There is no causal factor for Nibbana per se. However, there are causal factors for the attaining of Nibbana. These factors are called the seven factors of enlightenment, which are mindfulness, investigation of phenomena, energy, rapture, tranquility, concentration, and equanimity.

These cause the attainment of Nibbana, but do not cause Nibbana itself, only the arrival at it. As an analogy, consider a man driving to a city. The cause of his arrival is the car, the keys, pushing on the gas pedal, etc… but these things do not cause the city itself.

Nibbana is by definition unconditioned and uncreated.

What about the creation of the universe? What is Buddhist teaching on that?

 

[notself]

What about the creation of the universe? What is Buddhist teaching on that?

There is no creation story or creator god in the canon. Such things are unimportant.

 

[AdamP88]

There is no creation story or creator god in the canon. Such things are unimportant.

Why is that? And why are the unimportant?

I’m actually very curious about this particular thing because I have a great interest in the scientific world, big bang theory, the universe etc.

 

[notself]

Why is that? And why are the unimportant?

I’m actually very curious about this particular thing because I have a great interest in the scientific world, big bang theory, the universe etc.

Of course these questions are important in science, but the have no importance to Buddhist practice.

 

[AdamP88]

Of course these questions are important in science, but the have no importance to Buddhist practice.

True, but to Catholics the questions of why we exist and how we came to be are very important?

I want to know why Buddhists regard them as unimportant?

 

[Shiranui117]

True, but to Catholics the questions of why we exist and how we came to be are very important?

I want to know why Buddhists regard them as unimportant?

Following is an explanation of the Parable of the Arrow:

The Buddha always told his disciples not to waste their time and energy in metaphysical speculation. Whenever he was asked a metaphysical question, he remained silent. Instead, he directed his disciples toward practical efforts. Questioned one day about the problem of the infinity of the world, the Buddha said, “Whether the world is finite or infinite, limited or unlimited, the problem of your liberation remains the same.” Another time he said, “Suppose a man is struck by a poisoned arrow and the doctor wishes to take out the arrow immediately. Suppose the man does not want the arrow removed until he knows who shot it, his age, his parents, and why he shot it. What would happen? If he were to wait until all these questions have been answered, the man might die first.” Life is so short. It must not be spent in endless metaphysical speculation that does not bring us any closer to the truth.

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_arrow

 

[PrincepsAuguste]

True, but to Catholics the questions of why we exist and how we came to be are very important?

I want to know why Buddhists regard them as unimportant?

In Western tradition this is important due to the influence of a strongly Christian culture. However, before the emergence of Christianity many cultures like the Ancient Greeks believed the world had been in existence forever. Among scientists this belief remained prime until Rev. Lemaitre and then Hubble first theorized the Big Bang Theory, in fact vastly strengthening the credibility of the Abrahamic tradition of creation, not weakening it as some atheists like to believe.

Basically, Buddhism emerged in a culture that believed a “creation” idea was important because they believed the universe had always been in existence. Not so with the Jews, who were the ancestors of Western thought along witht the Greeks.

 

[notself]

In Western tradition this is important due to the influence of a strongly Christian culture. However, before the emergence of Christianity many cultures like the Ancient Greeks believed the world had been in existence forever. Among scientists this belief remained prime until Rev. Lemaitre and then Hubble first theorized the Big Bang Theory, in fact vastly strengthening the credibility of the Abrahamic tradition of creation, not weakening it as some atheists like to believe.
.

I would suggest that it is never wise to use science to support religion because science always changes based on new information and understanding.

 

[AdamP88]

The Parable of the Arrow seems less like wisdom and more like Rhetoric.

Metaphysical and theological thinking often do provide truth and are not mutually exclusive to being practically active in the world.

Correct me if I’m wrong but my understanding is that Buddhists believe in a Universe with no Creator and in which all things are constantly being reborn as higher things and eventually reach a state of being where they just “exist”…

 

[AdamP88]

I would suggest that it is never wise to use science to support religion because science always changes based on new information and understanding.

I would disagree…science definitely supports the existence of a creator of some form.

 

[PrincepsAuguste]

I would suggest that it is never wise to use science to support religion because science always changes based on new information and understanding.

I was not attempting to discredit Buddhist beliefs, I was simply attempting to explain why the ideas of creation and beginning are so important in Western thought but are not of particular importance in Eastern thought.