buddha_notes

The point has been made that letting go of desire in order to reach enlightenment includes letting go the desire to attain enlightenment.

I have also found the metaphor* that 'one should desire enlightenment like a drowning man desires air.' *(possibly attributed to Buddha himself? I'll add a source if I find one)

These things seem contradictory and in fact in looking for elaboration on this contradiction I have mostly found people trying to answer the question of which is correct. I have concluded for myself, however, that they in fact not be mutually exclusive and that the appearance of contradiction is caused by a limitation of language.

To explain my understanding of it, I see this want, need, or desire for enlightenment as hunger. Of course the body needs nourishment. But hunger itself, desiring food, is an additional entity. It is possible to be aware of your needs without letting the lack of them additionally harm you. The drowning man can fight to reach the air without letting his mind additionally stress him with feelings of fear and panic which can actually hinder his progress.

I think with this we are possibly witnessing separation from and ultimate destruction of the ego, as...well, desired.

In an interview with CNN about the fight for democracy in Burma, a Buddhist monk named Gawdhida recalled something he shouted to democratic leader Aung San Suu Kyi during a rare public sighting as she's been under house arrest for 14 of the past 20 years: "Don't be afraid, or you will die twice."
(transcript / full report)

This is absolutely true wisdom to me. We will die, we will all physically die of course, this is one of the most important realizations of Buddhism. But there are also these feelings -- of hopelessness, grief for instance -- which can make us feel like we have died while we're still alive. It is natural to an extent, but unnecessary and unproductive. And most importantly, it is able to be overcome -- through optimism, an overall positive outlook, and conscious appreciation for what is not wrong with the moment.

“Let us rise up and be thankful, for if we didn't learn a lot today, at least we learned a little, and if we didn't learn a little, at least we didn't get sick, and if we got sick, at least we didn't die; so, let us all be thankful." -Buddha

Today I've just painted.



Tomorrow I'm covering desiring enlightenment vs. not desiring it, I think I have those thoughts in order.

This was my first post on how I became interested in Buddhism, from about 2.5 months ago. I wanted to move those entries over here to keep everything together, so this is the first. I'm re-reading each one to see if there is anything I want to add since then.

In trying to trace my ancestry and ethnic origins I have landed at Buddhism by a slight tangent and finding it very interesting, I have been reading a bit about it here and there in my free minutes. From my ignorance to it, it has surprised me with it's logic in many regards. My natural tendency to view all things within the basic concepts of physics and apply pure logic where possible have been crowding my mind so I am making some notes for now. There might be errors in my logic and less important things, these are spontaneous and I don't have much time right now so I will just begin, and let it end where it does, and at least have something to come back to.

thoughts in no particular order:

The cycle of rebirth if I attempt to interpret it in scientific terms may well be the exhaustion of the neural momentum with the decomposition of our physical, biological being to the individual basic elements again, with the pure potential to once again become part of a new organism. The lack of the concept of a "soul" in Buddhism encourages my interpretation of this as a purely physical process.

The concept of Karma (the influence of actions and intentions in this existence within itself or on the next) looks a lot like a picture of Newton's third Law of Motion -- for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction -- and the conservation of energy, that is that energy is neither created nor destroyed but exists as a constant which simply changes from one state to another -- which to us mere mortals may appear to be the creation and depletion of energy altogether; but this is an illusion to our shallow and superficial perception -- something which can easily be overcome, for instance through right observation. One thing that evades my logic is the carrying over of this energy within the specific cycle of a single individual's existence -- perhaps it's not meant to be interpreted that way at all though and lacking individuality in general we are meant to see our actions as influence on the world and life in general which in this way affects our next existence.

The Four Noble Truths are a basic teaching of Buddhism and main principle of the philosophy. They read as:

1. The Noble Truth of Suffering
2. The Noble Truth of the Accumulation of Suffering
3. The Noble Truth of the Elimination of Suffering
4. The Noble Truth of the Path that leads away from Suffering

...which I understand as:

1. the cause of unhappiness, ie The Problem
2. the Cause of this problem
3. the Solution to this problem
4. the actual Act of implementing the solution (a solution being useless if not put into action)

This is the logical foundation of how I personally solve a problem and have for a long time. This very simple approach that can be applied to virtually and situation in which a problem is perceived is why so many people consider me to give good advice. The matters of identifying the problem and of coming up with a viable solution are of course key variables but the formula for resolution is the same.

Human Superiority + other Life
In the teachings I have found to this point, it would appear to me that the life of a human is not in any way special as compared to that of any other animal. I have long asked myself why it should be, and explained my own subscription to the notion as speciesism, which I consider natural and healthy. I have always found the unnecessary harm or destruction of life of any kind to be abhorrent yet accepted the slaughter of animals by humans for food even if I myself have a vegetarian preference. After all, other animals practice this and what is natural is acceptable.

What seems to set us apart from the other animals is our sentience and intelligence. Sentience is something perceived and assumed to be unique to us -- interestingly enough, some of the Buddhist reference I have found have referred to it as a "delusion". And intelligence at all is not inherent among humans. So when it comes down to the value of the life of someone who is unintelligent it seems to be our speciesism alone that still puts them before an animal. (This is the logical conclusion I have come to thus far and any further insight would be appreciated.)

The lack of attempt to "control" others and their decisions makes the Buddhist philosophies feel very free to me. Christianity seems to want to boast the same free will, in fact considering it a key part of their own teachings, yet has so many exceptions in the form of rigid commands (the most important being literally set in stone!) it almost seems contradictory. (Edit: I just do not consider someone "free" to do something if they would receive punishment for it as a consequence. I think it was a concept adapted into Christianity as a way of explaining why God doesn't simply make everything happen the way it should.) Most Christian establishments seem to teach that a person will be held accountable for their actions at some point after death and (depending on the denomination) finally at the ultimate "Judgement Day." Yet the churches today still insist on ruling and punishing here and now, in their own right, particularly by a participation in government with the intent of upholding their own opinions of morality.

It's clear even from a non-religious perspective why this is necessary to a degree -- in fact, perhaps even more so from the non-religious side and not believing that a person will eventually be brought to justice by some supernatural means, and so exercising our responsibility to protect the rest of our community from anyone who is an obvious threat, for instance.

If we consider something wrong and therefore make it illegal we are really not doing anything different than what religious activists want to do in making what they believe to be wrong also illegal. We just disagree about what is wrong and harmful. As non-religious persons our concepts of the wrong and harmful are limited to literal and physical perception and this suffices. (Edit: I no longer consider myself a non-religious person, but an adherent to Buddhist philosophy which can be defined as religion and I have no problem with that, personally.)

The religious insist on taking this a step further, into their spirituality, which can arguably be considered wrong because it places restrictions on those of us who do not subscribe to such concepts (not only the non-religious but also those practicing other sets of beliefs which do not necessarily entail the specific rules in question). This part is obvious. What is less obvious is what I have already hinted toward though, that it is not only not in the interests of those not adhering to this religion but also, for instance again in the case of most denominations of Christianity, but also a seemingly blatant sign of doubt that a person will in fact be inevitably held accountable for their actions, making it necessary to take matters into their own hands in this existence. (HMM, a lot of nots but not for naught, lol sorry) (Can anyone offer another explanation on this one or otherwise further enlightment?)

note: I am aware that there are several different types of Buddhism and I have not specified any of my references. To be honest, I have not kept them. I am still learning and perhaps will take better notes as I continue but I have limited time right now as well.

originally written 2010-07-12 13:48:00

Just a few promised notes on pronunciation of some of the words I'm putting in these pages with letters/diacritics that many people might not be familiar with. I have just begun learning these in the past two months myself as part of Sanskrit but my explanations should be accurate enough that you can at least read the words in your head.

The letters/markings you see are from the International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration (IAST). There is no "Sanskrit alphabet" -- Sanskrit was passed down via oral tradition (like the Buddhist scriptures themselves for centuries). It evolved into a bunch of dialects called Prakrits before writing started to take form in the area of India. As writing systems were introduced, Sanskrit transliterations have been adapted to various different ones and to keep this short, we'll just say Devanagari (aka Nagari) stuck. You'd probably at least recognise this script, being used for standard Hindi for instance.

I'll just state for the record that I don't know if the Pāli pronunciations are the same, I've just been assuming they're at least similar. Sometimes the languages themselves seem so similar I can see how two different words are the same thing, like the Sanskrit "nirvāna" and the Pāli version "nibbāna" ...a tapped r and soft v can almost just as well be two b's!

Anyway, to the point of this post. ( contentCollapse )

This should at least let you read these bits and pieces posted here more confidently. I'm learning this stuff on my own -- if anyone reading this actually has credentials and sees something here warranting correction, please speak up :)

A few weeks ago I stumbled upon the term "Critical Buddhism." By definition it seems to be pretty much what I am doing here -- critically picking apart the Buddhist teachings. The Wikipedia article on it is very brief, I'll just paste the content here in its entirety:

Critical Buddhism is a trend in Japanese Buddhist scholarship, associated primarily with the works of Hakamaya Noriaki and Matsumoto Shirō. According to Lin Chen-kuo, Hakamaya's view is that "Critical Buddhism sees methodical, rational critique as belonging to the very foundations of Buddhism itself, while 'Topical Buddhism' emphasizes the priority of rhetoric over logical thinking, of ontology over epistemology."[1] Hakamaya himself defines it as the position "that 'Buddhism is criticism' or that 'only that which is critical is Buddhism.'"[2] He contrasts it with what he calls Topical Buddhism, in comparison to the concepts of critical philosophy and topical philosophy. (source)

I agree with this quote attributed to Hakamaya, that "Buddhism is criticism." The way of looking at the world as taught by Buddha himself is very analytical, having no problem rejecting something that has been disproved.

This leads to the problem I am personally having with much of "Buddhism" as it is practiced today, I just don't find it to be true to the core teachings of Buddhism itself. That was, in fact, the whole reason I decided to start putting down my thoughts like this, it became necessary to better organise in order to understand. I had been hoping to find that these things I have been perceiving as discrepancies would actually be misunderstandings on my part and in the end it would all make sense, although I am consistently finding that it is in fact really discrepancies.

This in itself is not tragic, and it does not invalidate the widely practiced traditions of Buddhism I am referring to such as Tibetan and other Mahāyāna in my eyes, because the most important concepts for humanity as I see them -- of compassion and respect for life -- are further upheld despite the addition of superstition and belief in divine entities. Even the Theravāda school which I favour, a tradition widely considered atheist (although more accurately non-theistic) actually has its gods and deities itself.

One of my favourite Buddhist monks and teachers, Ajahn Brahm (incidentally of the Theravāda tradition), gave a talk on the Sects of Buddhism in which he referred to the different traditions as all being 'the same cake just with different frosting.' As Buddhism spread throughout the world, it absorbed existing beliefs and traditions of the areas it was brought into, the can look completely different from the outside, but the Dharma remained the same because that is the point of Buddhist philosophy.

It's clear that belief in deities within the major schools of Buddhism have been adopted from these existing cultures and their pre-Buddhist religions. Many entities are taken directly from Hinduism (India) and Bön (Tibet), for instance.

I found it important to note the teaching attributed to Buddha that a personal god not be essential to enlightenment and the cessation of suffering (yet I've felt confident that Buddha himself did not believe in the existence of a God). Though I did feel initially that this did not definitively preclude the belief in and worship of a god or gods it simply considers them unnecessary, other sources I come across actually offer a view in striking contrast, for instance:

To liberate himself mankind has to shed his delusions, and one of these is the existence of God.
...
But the argument which the Buddha most frequently uses is what is now called the "argument from evil" which in the Buddhist sense could be stated as the argument from dukkha (suffering or unsatisfactoriness). This states that the empirical fact of the existence of dukkha cannot be reconciled with the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient being who is also all good. (source)

The more ambiguous interpretation led directly to one specific point of Buddhism that I particularly like -- it doesn't boss you around. Buddha laid out his ideas for a happy life and solving problems and said here it is, use it if you want. If it doesn't work for you, reject it.

There is the exception of monastic Buddhism, with it's set rules for monks and nuns, which I think very obviously serves the purpose of consistency -- if you want something to be a certain way then you must do so-and-so.

I find source after source not "requiring" practices, but instead "encouraging" them, leaving it ultimately up to the individual, with no threat of eternal damnation or excommunication, only warning of the direct consequences of their own actions which would be suffered regardless of what religion or philosophy they practice.

The reason I find this so appealing is not for the immature perception that one could simply consider it permitting of undesirable behaviour but because it lets us think for ourselves and come to our own conclusions without the hindrance and confinement of predetermined law being applied.

And with this in mind I find that theistic institutions, although possibly condoned to an extent within Buddha's teachings, have a tendency to quickly break down within them as well, being that they are illogical and are not upheld by a sound sense of reason.

The fact of the matter seems to me to be that any deities considered "Buddhist" are ultimately not, and that it should be a personal matter of each individual whether or not they believe in such entities, not prescribed by a belief system that considers itself Buddhist, regardless of whether we believe that Buddha himself specifically condoned the practice of worshiping or believing in these deities or not -- because they are in contrast with other, definitive teachings, and so do not require their own special consideration.

Still, I don't even consider it a "choice" of each person, because I don't believe that we consciously choose to believe in a god or gods, we simply do or we don't or we feel agnostic. This is another reason it should not be forced upon or denied anyone -- it's beyond our control. What we can control is whether or not we are educated enough to know what we believe.

Are there any specific things anyone reading this wants me to look up on?

I figure it would be helpful to write up a biography of Siddhārtha Gautama / brief history of how Buddhism began, explain a little about the Sanskrit/Pāli pronunciation, and start a general glossary just to have one right here. If there's anything else you think of let me know.

"Tathāgata" (तथागत Devanagari in both Pāli and Sanskrit) is a word that Buddha used to refer to himself. That is, in Buddhist scriptures he uses this word in place of first person pronouns such as I, me, and myself.

This is consistent with anattā (Pāli) / anātmanthe (Sanskrit) --the theory of no-self, absence of the ego.

At first I was startled to learn this bit of information, having wikigoogled it when I didn't know how to translate it from a Sanskrit text.

So, flashback to immediately after his Enlightenment... he meets these five former disciples from his ascetic period and tries to tell them he is now ~enlightened~, different from them, and they aren't buying it -- was he referring to himself like this as well? To be honest, if some emaciated monk ran up to me all excited telling me he was totally awesome and also talking about himself in the third person, I wouldn't exactly throw down my robes and follow him either, I'd rather think he finally cracked.

And then in a calmer, more composed version (trying out every angle since I can't know what this interaction was like in great detail) it almost seemed pretentious, stinking of a superiority complex and echoing from a pedestal. I'm too good for your common pronouns now! Take that, Vedic Sanskrit / vernacular Prakrit dialects!

Well something worked eventually, those five disciples did finally follow him as the Buddha.

Anyway, this was a minor thing but I kept it in the back of my head and today I found a bit of research that came as something of a relief. It looks like a student paper and provides a source for the portion of interest to this matter:

In the discourses of indirect meaning, words are used which apparently refer to persisting entities such as a self or an I which, according to the Buddha, are merely "expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world which the Tathagata (i.e, the Buddha) makes use of without being led astray by them."
(Trans. K. N. Jayatilleke in Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge (London: Alien & Unwin, 1963), p. 319.)

Now that's the Buddha I know...as far as I do so far.

--

The word Tathāgata is also used as a synonym for Arhat (Pāli: arahant), kind of a Buddhist saint -- someone who has reached a particularly high level of Enlightenment. Exact interpretations are disputed among linguists and Buddhist schools to this day.

Wikipedia says: Literally, it means both one who has thus gone (Tathā-gata) and one who has thus come (Tathā-āgata). Hence, the Tathagata is beyond all coming and going. It is asserted by some that the name really means one who has found the truth. (citing this as its source: Nyanatiloka, Buddhist Dictionary, 4th ed. Buddhist Publication Society, 1980)

At precisely my age and also with a fresh family, the Buddha who was not yet the Buddha but Prince Siddhārtha Gautama walked away from his home and the life he knew to begin his quest for answers.

His behaviour is generally forgiven, even excused -- times were different then. He was a prince, the marriage arranged, and offspring automatic. His family was well-cared for in his absence.

Scriptural accounts of his return portray his wife as unamused for my understanding -- 'that's your father,' she says to their son Rāhula, 'Go ask him for your inheritance.' (Of course, now the Buddha, Siddhārtha no longer has any worldly possessions to offer but his teachings, the Dharma, and has Rāhula ordained.) But considering accounts that his return home was initially by request of his father who missed him dearly, and both his stepmother and his wife becoming nuns as previously mentioned, it would seem that his action of abandonment was quickly forgiven then as well.

Siddhārtha had the experience of material wealth, was a trained and skillful warrior true to his lineage, and by all accounts even blessed with particularly good looks. This is point one: He was able to decide for himself from first-hand experience that this was not doing it for him. That's not something everyone can go and try out.

Then he was able to drop it all and try another path without worrying about his family's financial well-being, it was his choice alone to experience poverty for himself. This is point two: He entered this life completely of his own will and with somewhat clear intentions. Not as most of us who would find ourselves experiencing this would end up there -- by circumstances beyond our control, tormented by multiple stresses, and in a constant struggle to avoid or escape it.

Of course he didn't just walk away from the palace that night and shave his head and *poof!* he was enlightened and understood the true nature of the world and what's wrong with it and how to fix it so we all live happily ever after. He was trying things out, he had this long bout with asceticism which nearly killed him as he was near starvation by the time he decided that this was not the way to the answers he sought. But he tried it out to come to that realisation...which becomes point three.

It was only after all of these, these key experiences, that Siddhārtha was able to sit himself down beneath the Bodhi tree decisively and meditate his way soon after to becoming the Buddha.

As the Buddha himself would tell us, cause and effect are not to be overlooked, the fact that all things are connected is of such importance that it's difficult for me to understand why we aren't required to similarly experience each step along this way to find these conclusions for ourselves. As he himself also taught, we're not to follow his or anyone else's word blindly but weigh it against our own experiences and common sense and see if it all fits.

So what I am not really understanding now is how we are supposed to know that we don't also have to try both extremes to be sure that "The Middle Way" is best for us, and to find our place on it. Why take his word for it, especially when he himself tells us not to ?

He tells us to rely on only ourselves, yet there is still always the Dharma (and in various schools the Buddha and the Sangha and individual gurus and so forth, but for the sake of fair argument I try to stay to the purest teachings). Is it cotradicting itself or is this outside source just meant to be a guide for 'seeking within'? Kind of like a travel guide for another country, it's written by someone who has been there and can explain the experience and offer tips, but it's by no means a substitute for going there yourself, and it's also possible to visit there without any such a guide, it's just likely to mean more work finding your way to and within it.

I know you're still ultimately alone in all experiences and maybe that is what is meant but then why is it prescribed instead of just described ? Of course we can do something without being aware of it and maybe we are just meant to be doing this...well, mindfully :)

--

Regarding one of the problems of the previous post, it seems that Nirvāna be outside the realm of "phenomenon" -- and interestingly enough, the term used for phenomenon in this context is the Pāli Dhamma or Sanskrit Dharma. Because of the ambiguous definitions for translations of those words I'm not sure if that is a solution to the problem of Dharma Permanence (being that its relevance ending when Nirvāna is achieved also denotes impermanence) or if that actually has nothing to do with this issue.

The Buddhist scriptures which are considered to be the oldest and most reliable source of the Buddha's teachings (= "Dharma" or "Dhamma") are the Pāli Canon, Pāli being the language they are recorded in. Because they are divided into three sections, they are also sometimes referred to as Tipiṭaka (Sanskrit Romanisation: Tripiṭaka) which literally means "three baskets."

Historically, Buddha's closest disciple, the monk Ānanda, committed Buddha's sermons to memory word-for-word and passed them down in this fashion, the first council for implementing this having been held only 3 months after the Buddha's passing. This is the origin of chanting in Buddhist practice and the whole reason for the importance of it -- this is how the Dharma was preserved initially, having had no written form until the 4th council which took place hundreds of years after the Buddha, in 29 BC. Those written forms where put together meticulously by thousands of devoted monks at council, with careful attention to variations (which proved minimal) in each sect's recitation, in order to record the original Dharma as exact as possible, and these are the Tipiṭaka. [source: palicanon.com]

The first section is called the Vinaya Piṭaka and is a collection of the monastic rules for Buddhist monks and nuns. It's not simply a lengthy list, but includes background stories of how each of the rules came to be, as Buddha did not just pull this stuff out of his holy meditating ass but had logical thought processes and learned from experiences, as he taught others to do as well. It is interesting to note that many of the rules for Buddhist nuns (bhikkhunis) which are taken to be sexist and oppressive in modern times actually came about out of necessity to protect the women, and individual incidents of them being at particular risk are mentioned. It is only sexist in the sense that it recognises a difference between the sexes. Unfortunately, it was much more likely for a peaceful, unarmed female to be taken advantage of than a peaceful, unarmed male, for instance.

Buddha is noted as having expressed particular concern for the well-being of his nuns because of threats to them and some sources suggest he considered not even ordaining females because he could not guarantee their safety alone in a monastery or wandering to teach the Dharma -- although despite some claims that he in fact did not ordain females it seems pretty clear from the record of his own wife and of his stepmother both having eventually become nuns and subsequently arahants ("enlightened beings"; comparable to saints in other religions) as well as the very existence of the ~350 rules specifically for nuns (as compared to ~250 for monks) that females were ordained from the very beginning of his ministry and there need be no question today of whether or not to do so.

Also, in accordance with the Buddha's repeated insistence to test his teachings for one's self and not follow in blind faith I think it reasonable to reconsider the differences between monastic rules for monks and those for nuns and reassess them for modern times. Following unnecessary ritual only distracts from the purpose, which is to live by the Dharma, as an image of the Dharma, and to actively teach it.

I firmly believe -- also in accordance with the key teachings -- that the Buddhist way of life in general as passed down by the Buddha himself not be at all intended as an immutable dogma, but as a practical exemplar of it for the time it was engendered. The essential Buddhist doctrine itself of Impermanence (Pāli: anicca; Sanskrit: anitya) would have it be so.

Preservation of the original teachings seems still of utmost importance as they need to be the basis for any application of them -- it's in these applications where the changes are seen, and not the Dharma itself.

---

I am still working out the problems of:

- Doctrine of impermanence applying in the case of Dharma being permanent -- unless it can be seen as resolved by the above statement of it changing through it's application. However, the goal should not be understood as an attempt to force it into a state of impermanence, but to discover and understand it's true nature of impermanence. The intention is to realise, not rationalise. Important to note that consistency =/= permanence. Interesting to note that Buddha himself predicted that his own teachings would eventually die out, he was not being pessimistic but reasonable. He was also not an all-knowing divinity but a fallible (albeit brilliant) human being, and I hope for the sake of humanity that by the time his Dharma is no longer taught it's because an equally or better Dharma for humanity has replaced it or humankind has evolved to such an extent that any such Dharma be superfluous.

- Determine whether perceived attachment to the Dharma (and perhaps Sangha) be exceptions to the key teaching of non-attachment or in accordance with it. My reason for leaving out the Buddha here is that it's been clear to me already that attachment to the Buddha himself was not prescribed. Points supporting my view are his not wishing to have any images made of him during his lifetime, as well as comments during his passing away that when he is gone the Dharma should suffice to lead them, and he appointed no successor to take over his role. In the sense of taking refuge in him as any other buddha, Sangha applies here.