Vouthon ji,
Had you expressed a correct understanding ……… “adhere to a strict, exclusive belief” does not tell me anything other than that you continue to be deluded.
Firstly, do you think that "you continue to be deluded" is in accordance with "right speech", a keystone moral teaching of the Noble Eightfold Path? I have four Buddhist associates, two Therevada (one a convert from Catholicism to Buddhism) one Mahayana and the other Vajrayana, with whom I have had many a deep, engaging conversation and I can tell you that they have debated with the most entrenched and fundamentalist of Christians who have offended their faith greatly and yet they have never resorted to such language, always replying compassionately, as I would expect a follower of the Buddha to do. I think that you could have phrased your words in a slightly less offensive fashion ie "you continue to misunderstand", or "you continue not to comprehend". To accuse someone of "delusion" is very a severe and harsh accusation to make.
And your response emanates from right view with loving kindness and some compassion as driving force? ;-)
In the Buddhist teachings “delusion” is another word for ignorance, one of the three unwholesome roots. You don't have a problem with this do you? But of course, I use delusion not to signify ignorance, which would mean that I would accuse you of being deluded all the time, but wrong view. Yes, I could have used “misunderstand” instead, but “delusion” happens to be louder. ;-) It was meant not to insult, but to shake. Could it be that it was the attachment accompanying conceit that confronted those words of mine?
Secondly, you know as well I do, dear friend, that I am a theist and so therefore I call the universe "creation". I did not imply that the Buddha belived the universe to be created, I of course have read the Brahmajala Sutta and its depiction of the 'deluded' …….
You had written:
“that all things are impermanent, that this impermanence causes suffering, that this impermanence means that all things in creation are "Not Self"”
You place the concept of creator in the same sentence where you try to point out the fact of impermanence, suffering and non-self which makes it a contradiction, and you accuse me of overreacting?
I am aware of this. I therefore know that in Buddhism there is no such thing as "creation" or indeed a "Creator". I think that you have inferred far too much from my own personalized use of the word "creation".
So it is not a contradiction to believe in the concept of creator / creation and at the same time, that phenomena are conditioned with the characteristic of impermanence, non-self and suffering?
Other than that, can you tell me what you think I "got wrong" in my previous post vis-a-vis the Buddha's teachings? I am genuinely interested, in that it would improve my knowledge. I had understood that the key facets of Buddhist doctrine were the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path, the Three Jewels and the Four [or three] marks of existence.
Perhaps another time in another thread we can get into a more detailed discussion. For now I think, my response to what follows should shed some light.
Thirdly, an example of conditioned things? The Buddha taught that all things are conditioned. That each individual part of the condition is "notself". Form is not self. Feeling is not self. Sensation is not self. All of these things are conditioned by other things. Anything that is conditioned is therefore subject to conditions. If it is subject to conditions, then its existence is not independent, but dependent on those conditions and so it is "NotSelf". To be conditioned is thus to be dependent on or influenced by something else. That is my understanding of conditioned. If I am wrong, then please do correct me - but actually tell me where I am wrong this time around
Or perhaps you could read some of what I've posted here in the past. I assumed that you have read some of those responses, and I was wrong? Anyway, if what follows does not suffice, let me know.
Your question makes no sense to me since it posits that I would believe some things in the material world not to be conditioned.
No, it posits that you do not know or understand what those things are.
Nothing is permanent. Everything changes. The only thing that is unconditioned according to Gautama Buddha is Nirvana, so pray tell me why you want me too look around at the universe and pick out one thing from everything that is conditioned?
The question was to make known the kind of perception used as basis upon which you then apply those ideas.
But if you want an example, then why not use a human being. Humans are dependent on oxygen and nutrients to survive. We are not independent because we require the prior condition of the presence of oxygen and nutrients in order to exist. Therefore a human being is impermanent, not eternal and will undergo change.
See, I was right to ask you those questions.
A human being in the above context is not a reality, but a concept / idea. So is oxygen and nutrients. Conditionality as taught by the Buddha exists between mental and physical phenomena, which is what the Noble Truth of Dukkha or Suffering is about. It is the Five Aggregates that you happen to cite in your last message. A human being is therefore in reality, these five aggregates arisen in one moment, only to be replaced by another set of five aggregates. *This* is the impermanency, suffering and non-self as marks of existence referred to by the Buddha.
Now, my understanding is that one does not need to be a Buddhist to understand the nature of "conditioned". Therefore wisdom is not restricted to any one belief system, nor does it need a belief system at all, rather anyone can come upon such wisdom through their own efforts in meditation and analysis of the universe, not to mention their own persons and the inner workings of the mind.
This is what exactly the Buddha said:
Loka Sutta: The World
Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One: "'The world, the world' it is said. In what respect does the word 'world' apply?
"Insofar as it disintegrates, monk, it is called the 'world.' Now what disintegrates? The eye disintegrates. Forms disintegrate. Consciousness at the eye disintegrates. Contact at the eye disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates.
"The ear disintegrates. Sounds disintegrate...
"The nose disintegrates. Aromas disintegrate...
"The tongue disintegrates. Tastes disintegrate...
"The body disintegrates. Tactile sensations disintegrate...
"The intellect disintegrates. Ideas disintegrate. Consciousness at the intellect consciousness disintegrates. Contact at the intellect disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates.
"Insofar as it disintegrates, it is called the 'world.'"<end quote>
A human being as you use it, the universe, these are concepts that give out the impression of lasting in time. They do not disintegrate. Any idea of impermanence attributed to these are just more concepts, amounting to being only a story about the particular characteristic. And no amount of such thinking will ever lead to the actual experience of these three marks. Although they can easily become the object of attachment associated with a wrong knowledge. Right knowledge on the other hand is associated with detachment.
Without the Buddha's teachings the default is that perceptions of people, animals, things, universe etc. are taken for reality. And it is on the basis of this that all other teachings are formed. The scientists seeks to find the origin of the universe, you in referring to the Creator and those other ideas about conditionality you cited, all these revolve around the perceptions of permanence, happiness, beauty and of self. They are what the Buddha’s teachings go directly against.
It has been my impression from a past discussion with you that you believe such wisdom to be attained only by an explicit follower of Buddhism given that you believe no other religion to have taught such wisdom. I see that as a strict application of one's own opinion to the detriment of others and a failure to perceive common truths as expressed through different languages, cultures and philosophies.
And I see you as unreasonably trying to make very different teachings fit together / sound the same. For what reason? I don't know.
I thus agree with Angelus Silesius when he said:
Quote:"...The Nightingale mocks not the Cuckoo's note, 'tis true,
And yet you scorn my song if I sing not as you.
The more we let each voice sound forth with its own tone,
The more diverse will be the chant in unison.
Ah, were men's voices like the wood-birds' melody—
Each happy note distinct, but all in harmony!
Opinions are as sand,—a fool would build thereon.
You, building on opinions, are not the wisest one..."
- Angelus Silesius (1624 – 1677), Polish-German Catholic mystic & poet
Right, and he is giving a non-opinion…..
If I am wrong on that front (ie that you do believe that non-Buddhists can attain to such wisdom and do not have a restricted view of "salvation), then please accept my humblest apologies.
You are giving me a chance to reform? ;-)
No, you were right in your first impression. Except a Buddha in his last life, everyone else needs to hear the Dhamma in order that enlightenment becomes a possibility.
I see harmony in apparent opposites because I believe that infinity is the coincidence of opposites and is ineffable and inexpressible. No religion and no human being has or ever can fully comprehended the infinite/unconditioned and so no religion or person can be called superior to another, even though our degrees of understanding differ, we ultimately are all left unknowing. All religions and all people have different approaches to that absolute truth and and all contain elements of divine revelation. However they comprehend that truth to varying degrees but are all united in that none of them has fully comprehended that truth, such that all must be understood in relation to each other. No religion or person has a monopoly on truth.
That's your story, one woven so that you can continue with the present perceptions and understandings.
To use your own words, I believe that for anyone to claim to possess a monopoly on truth, the full knowledge of the "infinite", the inexpressable, the unconditioned, would in fact be "delusion", if one was to label anything with that name.
Of course from your point of view, I am deluded. Why should I expect otherwise?
As I said on a previous thread, May we all mindfully appreciate the rich diversity of every person whom we meet. I end with words from a prevous pope:
Quote: "...All men, then, should turn their attention away from those things that divide and separate us, and should consider how they may be joined in mutual and just regard for one another's opinions...For discussion can lead to fuller and deeper understanding of religious truths; when one idea strikes against another, there may be a spark..." -
Blessed Pope John XXIII, AD PETRI CATHEDRAM (On Truth, Unity and Peace), 1959
Wishful thinking of an elephant stuck in the mud trying to pull out the other elephants similarly stuck. Is this the same pope who once said that Buddhism was a pessimistic religion?
) Brahma who thought he was the Creator and convinced others to believe the same, that is the other "gods" who fell from the Abhassara and are reborn into this jhanic heaven. Brahma thought he had created them. When the Earth is formed later, one of these gods dies and is reborn as a human, who becomes an ascetic. Through diligent mental cultivation, he is able to recall just one immediate past life, from which he wrongly concludes that Brahma created humans, and that he is ‘eternal’ and ‘unchanging’. The Buddha thus illustrated how belief and worship of a creator god arose, according to his own understanding. 
