Vouthon ji,
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?
My dear brother Confused ji,
Well I do not recall labelling you with any insulting terms but calling you "brother" and simply then continuing with my line of arguement lol So yes I'm comfortable with my response. AS for yours, well hmm...it
is often the first port of retaliation to deflect from oneself and on to the perceived flaws/faults of the other is it not? gingerteakaurWe are all guilty of such knee-jerk reactions from time to time, however, so I do not mean to incriminate you. I asure you, nontheless dear friend, that I was not "hurt" or "insulted" (on a personal level) by your use of the word "deluded", rather I found it slightly strange why a Buddhist would use such language towards another human being, given that in a person of a less held together mental state, it could lead to distress, sadness and increased suffering and even the arising of afflictive thoughts or emotions. I think that it is a word not condusive to common courtesy. It is highly charged and rather offensive in nature. I accept if it is one you are wont to use but its not exactly politically correct is it? Perhaps it is simply because it sounds rather harsh in English, I cannot comment on the Buddha's use of it, if you suggest that he did.
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 have already explained that my use of the word "creation" is a result of my privately held beliefs and perception of reality. Nowhere did I imply that the Buddha believed in a "creator". Your problem with my use of the word is your in-built prejudice towards any form of theism, such that you cannot understand how one can be a believer in a Supreme Deity yet also believe that "empty phenomena rolls on and on". It is not a contradiction, it is simply that you are so staunchly atheistic that you have not considered that these two beliefs might not be as irreconcilable as you suspect.
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?
No.
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.
Well I am studying today but I will be back tommorrow evening (and perhaps tonight), so I would not mind a more detailed discussion at all. However I respect your wishes and will conduct this discussion according to how you want it to pan out.
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.
I have read every one of your responses in full. Often, I perceive them to be filled with distillations of true wisdom clearly born of life experience which I (as yet) do not have. However I also perceive a certain sympathy with a narrow view of reality and an attachment towards a very specific belief system, held so dearly that when challenged at any point, you cannot concede that the other might have a good point, or reflection, or counter-arguement.
No, it posits that you do not know or understand what those things are.
A subjective statement, without any explanation of where I went wrong. How is that constructive criticism? How does this aid me in my movement from a state of delusion and ignorance to one of enlightenment? It doesn't as far as I can see kaurhug
The question was to make known the kind of perception used as basis upon which you then apply those ideas.
And I suppose that you received your answer and, as usual, it was "negative"?
See, I was right to ask you those questions.
Jolly good!
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.
How can one who accepts "notself", the idea that the self is an illusion brought about by the combination of the five aggregates, believe a human being to be a "reality"? I never stated that at all, I had in fact already broken it down into feeling being Notself, sensation being NotSelf, conciousness being Notself, form being Notself - that you refer to above. My intent was to explain that our existence as human beings depends on earth, air, water, and other forms of life; existence as a composite of the five aggregates depends on and is conditioned by those things.
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.
I believe that the universe is impermanent, in a continual state of emptying. I believe that what I call the "soul" is not a lasting, unchannging Atman but a changeable stream of conciousness without any lasting identity. What I therefore term "soul" does not conflict with anatta (no soul) since we come from different religions and use differing terminology. In the "City of God", Saint Augustine condemned those who would claim that there is an "unchanging soul":
"...Those thinkers must rank below the Platonists, as we have said...They are not worried by the excessive mutability of the human soul, a changeability which it would be blasphemous to ascribe to the divine nature. They retort, 'It is the body that changes the nature of the soul; in itself the soul is unchanging'. They might as well say, 'It is an external material object which wounds the flesh: in itself the flesh is invulnerable'. Nothing at all can change the immutable; what can be changed by an external object is susceptible of change, and cannot properly be called immutable...If they maintain that the soul is eternal, how can it experience a change to unhappiness, to a condition from which it has been exempt for all eternity?...They would not have babbled like this if they had believed in the truth...if they had held, according to sound Christian teaching, that the soul, which could change for the worse through free choice..."
- Saint Augustine of Hippo (354–430 C.E.), The City of God, Church Father and Doctor of the Church
Animals, things, the universe - they are not permanent, nor unchanging, so how could I take them for "reality"? The Catholic mystics actually teach,
"...Take note with careful discrimination of these two words: oneself and leave. If you know how to weigh these two words properly, testing their meaning thoroughly to their core and viewing them with true discernment, then you will quickly grasp the truth...Because of it [the self] a person turns outward [...] when he should be re-turning inward, and he fashions for himself his own self according to what is accidental. He thoughtlessly makes himself a 'self' of his own. In his ignorance he appropriates to this 'self'...But whoever would really leave this self should have three insights. First, he should turn his thoughtful gaze upon the nothingness of his own self and see that this self, and the self of all things, is a nothing...What happens to an inebriated man happens to him, though it cannot really be described, that he so forgets his self that he is not at all his self, no longer concious of his selfhood and consequently has got rid of his self completely and lost himself entirely...so it happens that those who are in full possession of blessedness lose all human desires in an inexpressible manner...Otherwise, if something of the individual were to remain of which he or she were not completely emptied...And thus it is...that a man comes forth from his selfhood...This is all the result of total detachment from self..."
- Blessed Henry Suso (1295-1366), Catholic mystic
And yes, I know, the Catholic mystic called this "ignorance" but "delusion" does not mean the same thing in the English language but has connotations of insanity lolAnd of course because Henry Suso believes in God - he cannot, according to you, understand, I know. The "individual" self or "personality", as Suso explains, is "made" by man alone ie it doesn't actually exist but man fashions it for himself out of accidental things (such as form, sensation, perception etc.) and this false, made-up conception of "self" is at the root of human suffering. The "self" of all things is "nothingness", ie actually "notself". See also Saint Catherine's experience of losing awareness of an independent, separate, permanent, self:
The more one is purified, so much the more it annihilates self till at last it becomes quite pure...Thus purified I rest without any alloy of self...But this 'I' that I often call so - I do it because I cannot speak otherwise, but in truth I no longer know what the I is, or the Mine, or desire, or good, or bliss. I can no longer turn my eyes on anything, wherever it be, in heaven or on earth...I do not know where the I is, nor do I seek it, nor do I wish to know or be cognizant of it. I am so plunged and submerged in the source...Everything to do with self passes away... I am no longer my own. I have nothing left of myself or of mine..."
- Saint Catherine of Genoa (1447-1510), Catholic mystic
I believe that the universe is comprised of empty phenomena which rolls on and on, conditioned by prior conditions. I also believe in a Creator. You have never asked me directly how I reconcile these two beliefs but have simply presumed that I am ignorant of the true nature of both anatta and impermanence, simply as a result of my theism. Alternatively, I can agree with you - despite my theism - that God does not exist:
"...God never did exist
Nor ever will, yet aye
He was ere worlds began, and
When they're gone he'll stay.
God is a pure Nothing,
He stands not in time or place
And cannot be touched
God is an utter Nothingness,
Beyond the touch of Time and Place:
The more you grasp after Him,
The more he flees your embrace
The God who is pure emptiness
Is created as form:
Becoming substance, light and darkness,
The stillness and the storm..."
- Angelus Silesius (1624 – 1677), German Catholic mystic
..We must divest ourselves of belief in God...The common belief about God, that He is a great Taskmaster, whose function is to reward or punish, is cast out by perfect love; and in this sense the spiritual man does divest himself of God as conceived of by most people. The intellectual where is the essential unnameable nothingness. So we must call it, because we can discover no mode of being, under which to conceive it...it seems to us to be no-thing...You must give up human understanding if you want to reach the goal, because the truth is known by not knowing...This is the highest goal and the 'where' beyond boundaries. In this the spirituality of all spirits ends. Here to lose oneself forever is eternal happiness, here in this region beyond thought...After this an experienced person achieves liberation from the outer senses...This rapture takes him from images, forms and multiplicity; he loses all awareness of himself and all things...Here, there is no longer any struggle or striving because beginning and end, as we have described it by representations, have become one...This same spiritual 'where', one call call the nameless nothingness. This unity is called a 'nothing' because one can find no human manner of saying what it is...As one is taken in, they are freed and separated from individuality...The spirit loses its own knowledge because it loses itself, lacking any awareness of self and forgetting all things...This naked unity is a dark stillness and a restful calm that no one can understand but one who has experienced...In this wild mountain region of the 'where' beyond God...It is hidden...Eternity is beyond time but includes within itself all time but without a before or after. And whoever is taken into the Eternal Nothing possesses all in all and has no 'before or after'. Indeed a person taken within today would not have been there for a shorter period from the point of view of eternity than someone who had been taken within a thousand years ago...be steadfast and never rest content until you have obtained the Now of Eternity as your present possession in this life..."
- Blessed Henry Suso (c. 1296-1366), German Catholic mystic & Dominican priest
And I see you as unreasonably trying to make very different teachings fit together / sound the same. For what reason? I don't know.
No, I recognise that different religions have distinct teachings conditioned by environment, culture and inummerable other factors. However I also recognize that all them are born from a grappling with the infinite, fundamental truth of reality, and that none of them are deprived of even a portion of insight into the human predicament because human nature is one and therefore the path to the cessation of suffering is also one, even if it be expressed through distinct language constructs, terminology, belief systems, doctrines etc.
Right, and he is giving a non-opinion…..
I'll let Suso speak again...
"...Since a person remains basically human, he continues to have opinions and imaginings. But because he has withdrawn himself into that which is, he has a knowledge of all truth; for this is truth itself and the person is unaware of himself. But let this be enough for you. One does not arrive at the goal by asking questions. It is rather through detachment that one comes to this hidden truth..."
- Blessed Henry Suso (1295-1366), Catholic mystic
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.
But even those who have heard the Dhamma (that "99%") are also flawed? How and why? What is it about your own understanding of Buddhism that is so very much purer and loftier than these innumerable others?
That's your story, one woven so that you can continue with the present perceptions and understandings.
Isn't that true for all of us, on some level?
Of course from your point of view, I am deluded. Why should I expect otherwise?
No, your not. You have never claimed to have a monopoly on truth, only to have the right view whereas we all have "wrong belief" and "wrong view". Qualitively different and besides I would never call another person "deluded". Such is not my style.
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?
Nope mundahug
Thanks for your time, engaging, thought-provoking and enlightening as ever (even though we are very different characters!) mundahug
