Ask A Buddhist

[Agni]

Rossum

Catholics do not believe in an “unchanging soul”. In Hinduism there is the concept of an “Atman” - an unchanging, universel soul/self which is the essence of everything. Catholicism rejects this. We believe in a changeable, created soul…

Just a small point. The “Atman” is not created. The “Atman” is not the “soul” (that is, not something that one can call one’s “own” or something that is under one’s total control). The “soul” is one or more of several sheaths that “cover” the Atman, and these sheaths are created, and changeable. The Atman is Brahman, the Source/Heart of all, the Ungraspable Emptiness/Fullness, both Personal and Impersonal.

 

[notself]

Just a small point. The “Atman” is not created. The “Atman” is not the “soul” (that is, not something that one can call one’s “own” or something that is under one’s total control). The “soul” is one or more of several sheaths that “cover” the Atman, and these sheaths are created, and changeable. The Atman is Brahman, the Source/Heart of all, the Ungraspable Emptiness/Fullness, both Personal and Impersonal.

Agni, welcome to the thread.

 

[TheDoors]

Do buddhists take jokes as well as Catholics do?

For example, what did Buddha say to the Pizza Hut guy?

 

[notself]

Do buddhists take jokes as well as Catholics do?

For example, what did Buddha say to the Pizza Hut guy?

Make me one with everything. [Zen joke]

What don’t Buddhist monks vacuum in corners?

 

[notself]

Vouthon,

Here are my response to the first of your “long” posts.

Vouthon:This is all very fascinating!

Ok so let me try and piece all this together:

*According to the Buddha, the mind is a complex continuum of fleeting mental states, which fluctuates from moment to moment, as well as from life to life.

Not quite. Mental states are the result of feeling, perception and consciousness and form (body).

*Buddhism thus posits a process whereby a stream of conscious mental phenomena, comprised of memories, cravings, actions and consequences, passes through a cycle of births and rebirths as different people and creatures, until (hopefully) this individual stream of consciousness receives a “good birth” in a human body, whereby it can free itself from this samsara - the continual emptying of all transient reality whether physical or mental.

Not quite, the stream is of processes comprised of craving, actions but not consequences. Consequences have happened in the previous life or will happen in this or a next life depending on conditions

*Each momentary piece of consciousness which constitutes this changeable process, on passing away, transmits its entire mental energy, all the ingrained and recorded impressions, to its successor - the next host or body.

Not quite. Each moment of consciousness triggers the next moment of consciousness all of the time, not just during rebirth.

*Every fresh conscious being thus consists of the potentialities or deficiencies of its predecessors together with something more.

What do you mean by “something more”?

*There is therefore, a continuous flow of consciousness like a stream without any interruption, like a river forever emptying into the sea and flowing back out again.

Not quite. Consciousness is more like the flash of a strobe light with one flash giving rise to another as the first fades away.

*So there is no identical being but there is an identity in process. I am thus led to believe that every person on earth right now has, according to this belief, their own individual stream of conscious karmic energy and mental phenomena which is distinct from everyone else? This is surely the case - since nobody can surely have exactly the same karmic record. Everyone has, in past lives, made distinctly different decisions.

Correct.

*Does this identity in process then constitute some kind of “personality” distinct from everyone else which carries on after death?

Not quite. I would say potentiality is distinct from everyone else rather than identity.

*Where then does personality come into this? I am guessing that in an objective sense it cannot exist, however when a person dies will their karmic energy still be “them” in some real sense (not as a self or soul but as consciousness)? Ie Vouthon will die and be no more but the awareness that Vouthon possessed in this life will re-awaken in another body, through the passing of the mental phenomena which Vouthon inherited from previous and the karmic record which Vouthon created in his life. All of this will “re-ignite” like a candle flame, as the mind of another being somewhere else in the world.

Not quite. The karmic action will continue and a conscious moment will arise in the new being. The karmic action may or may not come to fruition in this new life. The flame is not identical flame because it is dependent on the characteristics of the fuel (the new form, feeling, perception, mental formation and consciousness of the new life.

*Vouthon thus dies but something of Vouthon, his choices, experiences, thoughts, impulses, desires and other mental phenomena, is transmuted into a new, fresh consciousness which nevertheless still has a definite link to all of this and carries it on. This empty, mental phenomena rolls on and on in an unceasing, endless round of births and rebirths - forever transmuting with every birth yet maintaining true continuity as an individual, distinct stream of conscious, mental energy.

Not quite. The stream is always changing so it is not a true continuity of an individual stream. The consciousness continues in flashes with a new flash appearing as the old flash fades. The consciousness is also very subtle. It is more the consciousness that keeps us breathing and our physical process continuing when we are in a coma or vegetative state. It is not the thinking consciousness.

*Could this bhavanga-sota - not be the true “identity” or ultimate reality of every person? And could not the entering into and awareness of this stream, constitute the deepest aspect of our personhood? Could it not truly be a Buddhist counterpart to the “Ground” spoken of by the mystics - the “nameless abyss”, nameless because it contains no self but an endless round of mental phenomena from various births which has inhabited various people throughout the millennia?

Sort of, but the phenomena are always changing. Some come to fruition and cease as the result arises and some continue on. New actions (kamma) enter the stream as well. Change, Change, Change.

*Could this not be what the Mahayana call “Buddha Nature”, describing in positive terms which sounds like a concrete “thing” what is really a process? Could not this endless stream of consciousness truly have the innate ability to transcend itself and attain nirvana which constitutes its “Buddha-hood” or potentiality?

I have never understood what Mahayanist mean by Buddha nature. It seems to be an unnecessary complication.

*I assume this must be the case since the particular stream of mental energy which (in Buddhist theory) influenced my birth as Vouthon, complete with my characteristics, mental and physical thought processes and inclinations, must be different from Bakmoon’s mental energy, which has followed a different trajectory, series of decisions, experiences etc. down the millenias.

Not everything is karma. Form is a big part of things as well. Form is determined by genetics. Characteristics would also come from genetics as well as learning and experience. Different form (genetic inheritance) and different life experiences would contribute to different characteristics.

*Thus could it be said that Buddhism does in fact believe in “personality” even if continually changing and emptying since it posits continuity of identity in terms of process? Identity is still identity, whether a process or an unchanging soul.

A process is really not an identity. Identity comes from form (eye, ear, nose, tongue, skin), feeling (sight, sound, taste, smell, touch) perception (hot/cold, smooth/rough, loud/soft, bitter/sweet, etc.) mental formations (pleasant, unpleasant, neutral) and consciousness.

*Have I grasped this correctly?

Heck, I’m not sure I grasp it correctly. We are dealing with one of the most difficult concepts in Buddhist thought. I can understand the concept of rebirth moment to moment in this life. My “self” has changed over the years as well as from day to day. But rebirth from life to life is still something I am struggling with. I often wonder if the whole concept is not just some sort of super charged genetic stream with periods of (name removed by moderator)ut and modification. The language and understanding of 2500 years ago is much different than today. I wonder how the Buddha would express his concepts if his audience had an understanding of modern science such as genetics. Perhaps it wouldn’t make any difference.

Bakmoon,
Will you jump in here?

 

[Agni]

Agni, welcome to the thread.

Hello and Greetings, to my Catholic and Buddhist brethren and sisteren.

 

[Vouthon]

Hello and Greetings, to my Catholic and Buddhist brethren and sisteren.

Welcome to the thread brother/sister Agni

Thank you for correcting me for my error vis-a-vis Atman and soul - I have a lot to learn!

 

[TheAtheist]

And here i thought this thread was doomed to utter failure… instead its turned out to be one of the most edifying discussions on this forum in a very very long time.

May faith in humanity has increased a notch.

Some comments:

A commentator a few pages back made mention of the usage of Lectio Divina as “our own(referring to you Catholics and other Christians who may make use of it)” version of “meditation” as opposed to making use of something like zero-point concentration…

Which got me thinking a little - how much of this is simply “cultural tribalism” surrounding an issue of classification?

Before someone jumps down my throat, allow me to try and get this point across.

When the Buddhists approach my colleagues and talk about their various - lets call them techniques to use a neutral word - a question invariably comes up for those not engaged in the field about what exactly is being investigated… a Spirituality? a Psychology? etc.

From the hard-nosed Scientific perspective - the uniform answer tends to be “we’re looking at a mental discipline.” Reference is of course made to the fact that the discipline has been propagated by a certain religious class, and that certain metaphysical propositions have been attached to said discipline.

But at the core of it, at the very heart of it, when we’re standing before NIH or any other regulatory body the abstracts and presentations usually assert “We’re seeing if XYZ improves memory/increases concentration/reduces stress levels/etc.”

The “spiritual” plays no role in our understanding of what we’re investigating.

If i ask a practicing Buddhist if sitting in Vipassana if what he or she is doing can be considered spiritual or psychological…i’m generally bound to get a very queer look.

Because the “or” bifrucation makes little sense in terms of the most basic mental practices engaged in by Buddhists. Excluding something as elaborate tantric visualization (of which there hasn’t been much work done in the field… How can there be given the claims made?). Bringing the mind under control is the very beginnings of the road to Enlightenment for a Buddhist. In virtue of that fact something like Vipassana or Shamatha fits both categories (and i suppose this is where the Madhyamaka points to the err “falseness” of the separated categories to begin with.)

To the concerned Christian however, it seems the focus is less on the psychological and mental and more on the idea of the spiritual. I think the often repeated claim is that Vipassana or Zazen or insert your favorite technique - although its never really elaborated on as to how this process of “falling away” occurs - more of a shadow of a probability.

Which of course now leads to my question - how much of “our own” techniques are really your own to begin with? Depending on which particular line of spirituality one is tracing back in the great big bucket of Christianity one can follow the pathways back to older antecedents in Judaism (which in turn can be tenously traced in different directions).

The same can be said for Buddhism, for many a Buddhist sect does not lay claim to the Buddha “inventing” meditation but revealing a truth (or Four Truths, or a host of Secret Truths, take your pick gentlemen). about the Universe. Contemplative practice is not an end in and of itself (well, unless if your one of those Soto Zen folk i suppose), but merely a tool ( a rather popular tool for those outside of the Buddhist sect if the Long Discourses are to be believed) by which one may achieve the Enlightenment professed by the Buddha.

Pardon if this may sound simplistic from my un-invested viewpoint - but it seems to me that the objections raised in this sense is the equivalent of saying “Well… We have a Christian(Buddhist) Hammer. So we don’t need your Buddhist(Christian) Hammer.”

When in fact the Hammer remains a Hammer (regardless of the belief system) - and the utilization of the Hammer (what you think the Hammer does) is where the true expression of your belief comes true.

Ie: Not What It Is. But What You Do With It.

 

[rossum]

What don’t Buddhist monks vacuum in corners?

Because they have no attachments.

Why are there no good Buddhist blues guitarists?

rossum

 

[patrick457]

Another question, this time for both our Mahayana and Theravada Buddhist posters. How would you interpret the so-called Heart Sutra? I already posted an except before but here it is again, in full:

Aryavalokiteśvara bodhisattva, when he was practicing the profound perfection-of-wisdom (prajñāpāramitā), perceives that the five aggregates (skandha) are all void, thus overcoming every suffering and calamity.

“Śāriputra, form (rūpa) is no different from voidness (śūnyatā); voidness is no different from form. Form is voidness; voidness is form. Form, feeling (vedanā), volitions (samskārā), perceptions (saṁjñā), [and] consciousness are thus also.
“Śāriputra, all phenomena (dharma) are empty of characteristics: non-producing, non-destroying; non-defiled, non-pure; non-adding, non-subtracting.
“Therefore in voidness there is no form, [and] no feeling, volitions, perceptions, [and] consciousness; no eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, [or] mind; no form, sound, odor, taste, touch, [or] phenomena; no eye-realm (dhātu), up to and including no mind-realm; no ignorance (avidyā), and also no termination of ignorance; up to and including no age-death (jarāmaraṇa) and also no termination of age-death; no suffering (duḥkha), origin (samudaya), cessation (nirodha), [or] path (magga); no knowledge (jnana), [and] also no merit.
“As there is no attainment, the mind of bodhisattvas, due to the perfection-of-wisdom, has no / dispels] obstruction (cittāvaraṇa); as there is no obstruction, there is no fear, and being far from delusions and dreams, in the end they attain nirvāṇa. All the buddhas of the three worlds (tryadhva-vyavasthitāḥ sarva-buddhāḥ), due to the perfection-of-wisdom, attain the supreme perfect enlightenment (anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi).
“Therefore, know that the perfection-of-wisdom is a great mantra (mahā-mantro), a mantra of great wisdom (mahā-vidyā mantro), a surpreme mantra ('nuttara-mantro), an unequalled mantra (samasama-mantraḥ), an allayer of all suffering, and is true – not false. The perfection-of-wisdom mantra is spoken thus:

“gate gate pāragate pārasaṃgate bodhi svāhā!”

 

[notself]

Because they have no attachments.

Why are there no good Buddhist blues guitarists?

rossum

Answer: Because they have no soul.

Why did the Buddhist coroner get fired?

 

[rossum]

Another question, this time for both our Mahayana and Theravada Buddhist posters. How would you interpret the so-called Heart Sutra?

The Heart sutra is a very condensed summary of the Perfection of Wisdom (prajñāpāramitā) sutras. “Heart” means summary or essence. It assumes some familiarity with the Perfection of Wisdom sutras themselves, and almost all of the words it uses are Buddhist technical terms. It is a collection of short excerpts from the longer sutras, which have now been traced. See Conze, JRAS 1948 for the details. The Perfection of Wisdom sutras are all Mahayana sutras.

Avalokita, the Holy Lord and Bodhisattva

Avalokita is one of the major Bodhisattvas. He is a personification of compassion. His appearance in a sutra dedicated to wisdom is unusual. The Bodhisattva Manjushri is the personification of wisdom and appears far more frequently in the Perfection of Wisdom sutras. Wisdom without compassion can become cold and distant, while compassion without wisdom can become misdirected or lead to attachment. Avalokita is present to emphasise the importance of compassion alongside wisdom. In the longer sutras compassion is dealt with explicitly. In this short summary Avalokita is present to remind us of the importance of compassion.

he beheld but five heaps

The “five heaps” (skandha) are the five elements into whch Buddhism analyses a human being: form, feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness.

in their own-being they were empty

None of the five elements are substantial in themselves. They have no inherent existence, but are contingent. They change. They arise and they cease. The word “empty”, śūnya, summarises the essence of the message of the Perfection of Wisdom sutras.

The sutra then treats the first of the five elements, form, in detail.

form is emptiness, and the very emptiness is form; emptiness does not differ from form, nor does form differ from emptiness; whatever is form, that is emptiness, whatever is emptiness, that is form.

The emptiness of the first of the five elements is repeated three times; “What I tell you three times is true.” There is no inherent substance to be found in form. The same is then applied to the other four of the five:

The same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness.

The five skandhas are just the first of the elements (dharmas) into which Buddhists analyse the world. All these elements are empty.

Here, O Śāriputra, all dharmas are marked with emptiness, they are neither produced nor stopped; neither defiled nor immaculate; neither deficient nor complete.

The six properties listed are assigned to the elements. The Heart sutra is denying that these properties are essential. Like everything else they are empty. All dharmas are empty, and all their properties are equally empty.

For example, neither produced nor stopped. Because dharmas are impermanent, they all have a beginning and an end. They are produced at their beginning and stopped at their end. Since dharmas are empty their production is empty and their stopping is empty.

The sutra then deals with more elements (dharmas):

where there is emptiness there is no form, no feeling, no perception no impulses, no consciousness; no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind; no form, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touchable, no object of mind; no sight organ element, etc. until we come to, no mind-consciousness element; there is no ignorance, no extinction of ignorance etc. until we come to, there is no decay and death , and no extinction of decay and death; there is no suffering, no origination, no cessation, no path; there is no cognition; no attainment and no non-attainment.

This refers to a number of standard lists of dharmas, which the reader would be expected to know. All of them are empty, and all of them lack an intrinsic essence.

In particular note, there is no suffering, no origination, no cessation, no path. These are the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism: suffering, its origin, its cessation and the path to cessation. Like everything else, they lack inherent existence.

Also, no attainment and no non-attainment. In this context “attainment” is nirvana. Yes, nirvana is empty too. How can it be otherwise? All dharmas are empty. All. Including nirvana. However there is no need to worry, there is no non-attainment either. Well, that’s all right then.

Samsara does not have the slightest distinction from nirvana.
Nirvana does not have the slightest distinction from samsara.

Whatever is the end of nirvana, that is the end of samsara.
There is not even a very subtle slight distinction between the two.

• Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika 25:19-20

gate gate pāragate pārasaṃgate bodhi svāhā!

Be careful with this mantra. Some mantras are recommended for all types of people. This mantra is not. There are some people for whom it is not suitable. You will need to determine what sort of person you are, and whether you are the right type to use this mantra.

Two apposite verses:

“What’s the good of Mercator’s North Poles and Equators,
Tropic Zones, and Meridian Lines?”
So the Bellman would cry: and the crew would reply,
“They are merely conventional signs”

“Other maps are such shapes, with their islands and capes!
But we’ve got our brave Captain to thank”
(So the crew would protest) “that he’s brought us the best -
A perfect and absolute blank!”

– The Hunting of the Snark by Lewis Carroll

rossum

 

[rossum]

Why did the Buddhist coroner get fired?

He kept marking the cause of death as “birth”.

How many Madhyamikas does it take to change a lightbulb?

rossum

 

[notself]

TheAtheist;9639779]…Some comments:

When the Buddhists approach my colleagues and talk about their various - lets call them techniques to use a neutral word - a question invariably comes up for those not engaged in the field about what exactly is being investigated… a Spirituality? a Psychology? etc.

From the hard-nosed Scientific perspective - the uniform answer tends to be “we’re looking at a mental discipline.” Reference is of course made to the fact that the discipline has been propagated by a certain religious class, and that certain metaphysical propositions have been attached to said discipline.

But at the core of it, at the very heart of it, when we’re standing before NIH or any other regulatory body the abstracts and presentations usually assert “We’re seeing if XYZ improves memory/increases concentration/reduces stress levels/etc.”

The “spiritual” plays no role in our understanding of what we’re investigating.

If i ask a practicing Buddhist if sitting in Vipassana if what he or she is doing can be considered spiritual or psychological…i’m generally bound to get a very queer look.

Because the “or” bifrucation makes little sense in terms of the most basic mental practices engaged in by Buddhists…

To the concerned Christian however, it seems the focus is less on the psychological and mental and more on the idea of the spiritual…
Which of course now leads to my question - how much of “our own” techniques are really your own to begin with? Depending on which particular line of spirituality one is tracing back in the great big bucket of Christianity one can follow the pathways back to older antecedents in Judaism (which in turn can be tenously traced in different directions).

The same can be said for Buddhism, for many a Buddhist sect does not lay claim to the Buddha “inventing” meditation but revealing a truth (or Four Truths, or a host of Secret Truths, take your pick gentlemen). about the Universe. Contemplative practice is not an end in and of itself (well, unless if your one of those Soto Zen folk i suppose), but merely a tool ( a rather popular tool for those outside of the Buddhist sect if the Long Discourses are to be believed) by which one may achieve the Enlightenment professed by the Buddha.

Pardon if this may sound simplistic from my un-invested viewpoint - but it seems to me that the objections raised in this sense is the equivalent of saying “Well… We have a Christian(Buddhist) Hammer. So we don’t need your Buddhist(Christian) Hammer.”

When in fact the Hammer remains a Hammer (regardless of the belief system) - and the utilization of the Hammer (what you think the Hammer does) is where the true expression of your belief comes true.

Ie: Not What It Is. But What You Do With It.

I have edited your post (hope you don’t mind) and I think you will see that you are making two statements. The first is about the difference in purpose between Buddhist and Christian meditation and the second is there is no difference in technique, a hammer is a hammer.

The purpose of Christian meditation is to allow the meditator to feel closer to their God. Although one can develop skill in concentration, this is a mere by product and not a purpose of Lectio Divina. The idea of developing such a skill is not even mentioned in instructions for Christian practice. Concentration is emphasized in Buddhism and is one of the eight factors leading to enlightenment and is one of the three groupings of the Noble Eightfold Path. The first is morality, the second is concentration, and the third is wisdom. In Christianity there is no equivalent emphasis on concentration as a vital step to salvation.

Meditation in both the Christian and Buddhist sense begins with the same tool, focus on and object or thought. In my opinion Christian meditation can lead to jhana just as Buddhist meditation can but for Christian meditation, this is the endpoint. However, Buddhist meditation changes from a hammer to a chisel as it moves from Samatha to Vipassana. Vipassina, which is a stage of Buddhist meditation and not a separate form of mediation like many believe, is the observation of mental and physical phenomena as they arise and pass away. Even this observational form of meditation is not the end point but leads to the endpoint, seeing things as they really are, wisdom. There is no equivalent form or purpose of Christian meditation that I am aware of. At the time of the Buddha, Vipassina was not practiced by the ascetics of the time. It was unique at that time to Buddhist teaching.

Just as Buddhist meditation supports the development of wisdom; it also supports the development of morality. Meditation on the Brahmavirharas, the Sublime Attitudes, leads to the development of kindness, compassion, empathetic joy, and equanimity. These are the bed rock of Buddhist morality. I don’t believe there is an equivalent form of mental training in Christianity. This form of meditation could be compared to a healing ointment rather than a hammer. ( It’s Brahmavirhara meditation that lights up the “happiness” centers of the brain subjected to scans. )

So Christianity and Buddhism have hammers in common, but Buddhism also uses chisels and healing ointment among other tools.

 

[Bakmoon]

(shortened by Tomarin)

So what this comes down to, if I understand correctly, is whether an illusion is something or nothing? In other words, we are dealing with reality, but what appears to be real is in fact an illusion according to Buddhism?

Very close. I would describe it like this: We deal with both reality and our perceptions of reality, both true and false perceptions, and we mistake our perceptions as being part of reality.

 

[stewstew03]

Very close. I would describe it like this: We deal with both reality and our perceptions of reality, both true and false perceptions, and we mistake our perceptions as being part of reality.

Query: Is “enlightenment” a “true” or “false” perception?

 

[Bakmoon]

Query: Is “enlightenment” a “true” or “false” perception?

Neither. It is an event.

 

[rossum]

Query: Is “enlightenment” a “true” or “false” perception?

Enlightenment is a true perception.
Enlightenment is a false perception.
Enlightenment is both a true perception and a false perception.
Enlightenment is neither a true perception nor a false perception.

What makes you think that words constructed by humans are adequate to describe enlightenment?

Enlightenment is something you do, not something you talk about.

rossum

 

[stewstew03]

Neither. It is an event.

Thanks Bakmoon - can you offer an analogy?

 

[notself]

This is from the “Vacchagotta Sutta” accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.072.than.html

‘At this point, Venerable Gotama, I am befuddled; at this point, confused. The modicum of clarity coming to me from your earlier conversation is now obscured.’
‘Of course you’re befuddled, Vaccha. Of course you’re confused. Deep, Vaccha, is this phenomenon, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. For those with other views, other satisfactions, other aims, other teachers, it is difficult to know. That being the case, I will now put some questions to you. Answer as you see fit. What do you think, Vaccha: If a fire were burning in front of you, would you know that, “This fire is burning in front of me”?’
‘…yes…’
‘And suppose someone were to ask you, Vaccha, “This fire burning in front of you, dependent on what is it burning?” Thus asked, how would you reply?’
‘…I would reply, “This fire burning in front of me is burning dependent on grass and timber as its sustenance.”’
‘If the fire burning in front of you were to go out, would you know that, “This fire burning in front of me has gone out”?’
‘…yes…’
‘And suppose someone were to ask you, “This fire that has gone out in front of you, in which direction from here has it gone? East? West? North? Or south?” Thus asked, how would you reply?’
‘That doesn’t apply, Venerable Gotama. Any fire burning dependent on a sustenance of grass and timber, being unnourished — from having consumed that sustenance and not being offered any other — is classified simply as “out.”’

The sustenance for the fire is described as craving, aversion, hatred and ignorance. When this sustenance is eliminated, the fire is out.