User talk:Thespiritrider
|
Let's settle this the wikipedia way by both finding sources for statements we want to add. I disagree with 1, 2, 5, and 6. "Develop all positive qualities" does not refer to morality alone. It refers to concentration and insight as well, i.e. meditative prowess, and wisdom. You might not be familiar with this fundamental dictum of the Buddha: "Every evil never doing and in wholesomeness increasing and one's heart well-purifying: this is the Buddhas' Sasana." Mitsube (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- I understand your viewpoint. You implied that there was something wrong with "a perfectionistic notion of mind." Well that is the Buddha's view. You also have it, but in your view "perfection" is defined differently, i.e. as emptiness of concepts.
- The nonduality of good and evil has some truth to it. But as regards human existence, this is an extremely useless notion. It is the opposite of skillfulness. The Buddha said that skillful living was observing which qualities were wholesome and fostering those qualities. Your thinking denies even basic Mahayana concepts such as bodhicitta and compassion. Eliminating suffering is subjectively good and the way to do this is completely intertwined with approaching the ultimate truth. It might interest you to read this discourse of the Buddha. Mitsube (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Mitsube,
you make good points here, and I will read the discourse of the Buddha which you cite. But I believe you are misinterpreting me. I never said that "emptiness of concepts" is a form of perfection. The very concept of perfection IS A CONCEPT. A fundamental tenet of Buddhism is to achieve clarity of insight into the activities of mind which include ALL concepts. Abandon concepts in order to achieve Buddha Mind. Perfection is still caught in dualism. The ultimate realization of Buddhism is non-dual. No good/evil, pleasure/pain, Nirvana transcends distinctions of this kind. It is not perfection, it is beyond perfection.
Skillful means is a practice in life. Buddha Mind brings skillful means to life by its non-dual approach to life. The human conceives a world of conflict and problems, and struggles to overcome them with insight and methods. Buddha Mind approaches life with compassion toward the suffering of all beings, but without the goal of perfecting the self or perfecting life. Skillful means involves achieving a balance of living that supports the possibility of personal liberation and the liberation of others. The Buddha understood full well that the attempt to improve life so that it is without evil and only attains to good, is a fruitless struggle with relativistic concepts and values. He taught that liberation from all dualities is the only "solution." Live a simple balanced life, embrace no extremes, be kind to self and others, live with compassion and tolerance, but be mindful that life is inherently limited and can never be perfected. Perfection itself is a limiting concept. Achieve the awakening that transcends all concepts, all goals, all self-improvement, and be free.
You say:
"But as regards human existence, this is an extremely useless notion."
It is not meant to be a useful notion in terms of human existence. Buddhism is a practice for humans, and it addresses human existence, and does not deny life, it is life positive, but ultimately it is about liberation from human existence, not about how to be a better human being or live a better human existence.
Any such notion is a misinterpretation of the Buddha's teaching, realization, and intent.
You say: You implied that there was something wrong with "a perfectionistic notion of mind." Well that is the Buddha's view.
I say: No, that is not the Buddha's view.
Have you read the Lankavatara Sutra? Perhaps you do not agree with its premise. In which case, we embrace different doctrines.
Respectfully, Thespiritrider
Thespiritrider (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Mitsube,
I have now read:
MN 61 Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta Instructions to Rahula at Mango Stone Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
This is a discussion of skillful means applied in practice. It is a discussion of the necessary moral clarity that must be maintained in order to practice effective contemplation. It admonishes the practitioner to always reflect on the forms of action and moral forms of behavior. It has nothing specifically to do with the qualities of "a Buddha". This is a common mistake made by practitioners, i.e. to mistake the means for the end. The means of practice are not the equivalent of the fulfillment of practice. Awakening to Nirvana or Buddha Mind is the goal of practice. The means of practice do not make one "more like a Buddha." To assume such is a practical error, and also tends to lead to spiritual pride and pride of attainment. In your recommended essay the Buddha is recommending a moral life, and the clarity of conscience it provides which allows for easier contemplation, untroubled by conscience and the awareness of misdeeds. He also points out that once moral error is embraced, it tends to lead to more moral error, which tends to corrupt the clarity of mind necessary to right practice. On the other hand, did the Buddha ever meet Rahula at the Mango Stone? Or is this a moral precept added to the tradition by someone else.
Are we to believe that "hosts of angels" appeared at gatherings of the Buddha and his followers? When does reality end and allegory begin?
Respectfully, Thespiritrider
- The agamas contain the earliest teachings. There is a lot of material in there that was composed later, but the body of material is much closer to the Buddha's acutal words. We have to keep in mind that if the Buddha's doctrine was immediately perverted by the first generations of his followers, he wasn't a very good teacher and we can move on with our lives. Mahayana sutras like the Lanka Sutra were written later by monks with specific goals. We have to keep that in mind.
- My critique of the Zen approach of "not having goals" is that we need goals. Now let me explain. You said: "Skillful means is a practice in life. Buddha Mind brings skillful means to life by its non-dual approach to life. The human conceives a world of conflict and problems, and struggles to overcome them with insight and methods. Buddha Mind approaches life with compassion toward the suffering of all beings, but without the goal of perfecting the self or perfecting life." My question is, what is the motivation for approaching life with compassion in your view?
- "Skillful means involves achieving a balance of living that supports the possibility of personal liberation and the liberation of others." So it is action towards the latter two goals. Is that not a contradiction of your thesis that goals are to be abandoned?
- My view is that compassion is fundamental to human nature, and that the more aware we become, the more compassionate we become, and vice versa, and this progress is to be encouraged because it brings the greatest happiness. Abandoning this goal is completely foolish in my view. The truth of emptiness is not that nothing matters, but that we construct meaning. It is not that there is no meaning, but that all meaning is relative. The difference is subtle and it is largely a matter of emphasis, but I think it is crucial. Mitsube (talk) 23:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Mitsube,
I believe we are talking at cross purposes and have lost the original context of our discussion.
The page we are trying to agree about refers to "what is a Buddha?"
I believe we are talking at cross purposes because you seem to be talking about how HUMAN BEINGS should live their lives, what is meaningful for human beings to do with life, what are good goals, how does one perfect a human life?
This is not what the Buddha was addressing primarily. The Buddha was addressing the fundamental problem of suffering and what it means to be liberated from suffering. He never suggested that the end of suffering is in having proper goals and finding meaning in life and improving oneself. He taught that all such action is futile in a dualist realm. He teaches that awakening to Nirvana or the Void is the purpose of his path and the liberation from suffering that he offers.
I will address your questions:
I accept that the earliest doctrines of Buddhism or most likely reflective of the Buddha's actual teachings and that later teachers were expressing their own realization, insights, and agenda. So let us pass on the Lankavatara Sutra (one of the greatest writings extent in the Buddhist tradition in my view).
"My question is, what is the motivation for approaching life with compassion in your view?" As a human being the motive for approaching life with compassion is an expression of our natural human compassion. We care about others and their well-being, or we don't. A Buddha expresses compassion for others without motivation, it is simply the natural expression of Buddhahood. A Buddha embodies love. You said human beings are naturally compassionate. Perhaps that is because human beings often express their Buddha nature spontaneously. That would be my assumption.
I never said goals should be abandoned. There is a Buddhist saying; "Before enlightenment chop wood, fetch water. After enlightenment fetch water, chop wood." I paraphrase. The meaning is simply, enlightenment changes nothing (yet it changes everything). Life is always there to be lived, that includes goals. But Buddhahood is not an expression of goals, it is no expression at all (except that a Buddha expresses a life, apparently).
You seem very attached to human concerns and how Buddhist teachings address human affairs. The Buddha taught a way of life intended to free practitioners from concern for human affairs, and to free the practitioner for contemplation of Reality as it is, without the complications and concerns created by mind.
"My view is that compassion is fundamental to human nature, and that the more aware we become, the more compassionate we become, and vice versa, and this progress is to be encouraged because it brings the greatest happiness. Abandoning this goal is completely foolish in my view. The truth of emptiness is not that nothing matters, but that we construct meaning. It is not that there is no meaning, but that all meaning is relative. The difference is subtle and it is largely a matter of emphasis, but I think it is crucial."
You say we "construct meaning." It is true that the mind constructs meaning, but the is in the illusory nature of mind. The practice of Buddhism is to see beyond the mind to "what is so." To see it directly so that meaning is REVEALED, not constructed. You also discuss a progress of compassion. Well, becoming more compassionate is a nice thing, but it really has nothing to do with Buddhism. The Buddha wants you to realize your Buddha nature. Then you don't have to "progress in your compassion." You become the embodiment of compassion.
The truth of emptiness is to be free of false conceptions. Which essentially means all conceptions. Buddha mind is beyond conception and recognizes reality directly, without the interferences of concepts. I agree the greater awareness you have, the more compassionate you are likely to be, that is just intelligent. But that misses the point of awakening to Buddha mind. Awakening supersedes all of that.
You want to progress toward awakening and enjoy the human benefits of that. But that has nothing to do with Buddhism. In fact it is contrary to the fundamental principle that the Buddha taught. All life is suffering. All remedies to life suffering are doomed to failure. That was the lesson of his life until he awoke under the Bodhi tree. He pursued EVERY possible solution to the problem of life and in the end discovered they all fail to end suffering.
You are trying to reproduce all the failed approaches to life that the Buddha criticized. He criticized ALL the other extent traditions of India in his time because they sought to remedy life's problems rather than transcend them through awakening to Buddha mind. You want to improve, get better and better at compassion, have goals, remove evil and attain good. That is not what the Buddha taught. It is not. It simply, at the most basic level, is not what he taught.
With Respect Thespiritrider (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- The Buddha said "Persevere with diligence!" He did not advocate the views you have. I think you and I will have to agree to disagree on what the Buddha taught. If you are interested in reading the early material you may be surprised. Are you aware that Zen's amorality resulted in Buddhist complicity in World War II? In Zen priests killing Chinese? Are you interested in learning about this? Are you also aware of the state of Japanese Buddhism? Mitsube (talk) 06:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Mitsube, I don't know how your quote from the Buddha "Perservere with diligence!" addresses my remarks. I would need you to be more specific in your critique.
Also, I'm not sure why you equate my remarks with amorality and atrocities of World War II?
If there was "Buddhist complicity" in World War II, and Zen priests killing Chinese, then these were Buddhists in name only, whether Zen or otherwise. No true Buddhist would ever associate with such atrocities.
That is akin to saying Christians instigated the Inquisition and put people to the stake. The established church did do those things in the name of Jesus Christ, but the teachings attributed to Jesus never advocated such atrocities.
I believe my comments are causing you frustration and you are resorting to extreme insinuations regarding the implications of my remarks.
If you do not have time to address my comments more specifically, I understand, but to suggest they advocate war atrocities is to ignore my comments regarding the nature and source of compassion, and to short circuit healthy dialogue with provocative insinuations. Critical dialogue has always been a healthy and constructive component of the Buddhist tradition.
"Are you also aware of the state of Japanese Buddhism? "
No I am not.
"Are you aware that Zen's amorality resulted in Buddhist complicity in World War II? In Zen priests killing Chinese? Are you interested in learning about this? "
No I am not really interested in learning more about the war atrocities, whether by Buddhists or others.
In high school I did a report for my Pacific History class on the history of American racism toward Asians, and the history of the American Japanese internment camps. This opened my eyes to the level of atrocity Americans (I was born and raised in California) as well as other people are capable of. Atrocities are not prevented by ideologies, they are prevented by feeling people, people of heart, people of compassion, people who embrace true Buddhist principles. The ultimate Buddhist principle (which you seem unwilling to acknowledge) is that to awaken to the Void of being, is to awaken to perfect compassion. The compassion at the heart of our Buddha nature. I don't even know if you are a Buddhist, but if you are you seem to be a "humanist Buddhist" not an advocate of the Liberation from suffering which all the Buddha's teachings point toward.
Can you clarify your position on all this? I am interested.
Respectfully
Thespiritrider (talk) 13:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- The Buddha in the early discourses never gave any hint that an unethical act could be skillful. This may seem revolutionary, but it is true. Mahayana texts like the Vimalakirti Sutra sound quite wise, but are they?
- Regarding Zen and Japanese militarism, read this. The giants of 20th century Japanese Zen were warmongers. If teachings stress the illusory nature of good and evil, and tells people that they have to act with "no-mind" simply out of the intuitive wisdom of Buddha-nature and that a real bodhisattva transcends dualistic ethical notions, what you end up with is deluded people (and everyone is) convincing themselves that they can do whatever they feel like doing. This happened in Japan and it has happened to Zen in the West. Shunryu Suzuki's dharma heir Zentatsu Richard Baker is another example of "nonduality" quickly becoming megalomania. His dharma heir Reb Anderson found a corpse in a park and chose to meditate next to it every day for five days instead of informing the police.
- The proof of a system are the results. Mitsube (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- This is an interesting essay where the author makes a lot of my same points. He has a PhD in something. It is an interesting read. I don't know if his criticism of Nagarjuna is valid. Nagarjuna may have been more subtle than he is saying, but I don't know for certain. I think his criticism applies more to Chandrakirti. Mitsube (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Let us assume for the moment that all beings are inherently enlightened and do not know it. Now these beings have their Buddha-nature covered up by defilements. Their natural perfection and Buddhahood is not being expressed. So what should be the path to their liberation? The basis of this path must be ethics which provides the foundation for confidence and purity in meditation. It is vital that ethics be stressed because ethical conduct is vital. If one does not act in an ethical manner then one does not have the mental peace and tranquility needed for introspection because one is conditioning one's mind with qualities and tendencies that are antithetical to its deepest nature, Buddha-nature. The Buddha talked about developing one's self for this reason. Mitsube (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- It was nice to discuss these things with you. - Mitsube (talk) 07:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
The file File:PeteMossWiki.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
