This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - ShareAlike 2.5 License. Copyright © 2008 Nathan Foster, some rights reserved.
The following documents an email conversation between myself and two philosophers at the University of Idaho: James A. Foster and Jay Feldman. James A. Foster is a professor of Biology, holding a AB in Philosophy and a PhD in Computer Science. James teaches a course in bioethics, and is a Tibetan Buddhist of the Gelug tradition. Jay Feldman is an instructor of Philosophy, who teaches a course in Buddhism. He holds an BA and MA in philosophy, and is a Zen Buddhist with Theravadan leanings.
Here are some terms: for those of you not familiar with Internet-speak, IMHO means "in my humble opinion" and LOL means "(the writer) laughs out loud." "Dharma" refers to teachings of Gautama Buddha or any Buddha. "Dukkha" is the truth of self-oriented, conditioned existence and suffering thereof. "Enlightenment" or "nibbana" or "nirvana" in Buddhist terminology means the state beyond all conditioned states or suffering, fully transcended wisdom, the goal of all sentient beings. "Karma" is the law of cause and effect, set in motion by desire. "Renunciation" in Buddhist terminology means renouncing worldly or conditioned existence, "bodhicitta" is the goal to bring all beings to enlightenment, and "sunyata" is the truth of the emptiness of ultimate, independent existence. "Tantra" basically is the path of self-generation as an enlightened "deity." "Nagas" are invisible animals. "Protectors" are spirits who protect our spiritual practice.
I have edited the conversations to correct errors, to clarify, and to fit the format for this site.
Nathan,
Thanks so much for sharing your ideas with me.
I seem to see a number of themes running throughout your writing, one intellectual and the other affective.
On the intellectual side, I see you placing a great deal of stock in the use of reason in order to make sense of your existence. I too value this faculty and think that you are on the right path here in using critical analysis of the information we have at our disposal in order to decide just how we should live our lives.
And, this of course is the Buddhist path. We are to use reason pragmatically in order that we might determine that which is skillful and that which is not. In Buddhism, reason plays an important role in how to live life.
But, I am not sure that you can transfer this use of reason to Christianity. The very asset that Buddhism relies on for an underpinning to the holy life seems a useless tool when we enter the realm of theism.
A great deal of time and energy has been spent by theologians throughout the ages in trying to use rational thought to organize their beliefs about metaphysical entities; yet, it seems in my experience, which is limited, this is a fruitless effort because, as you point out, Christianity (theism of any sort really) requires certain assumptions, i.e. faith in improvable entities, not the least of which are G/god and soul.
Now, I am not saying that making assumptions and living by them is essentially a bad thing. In fact it is a necessary thing. We all must make assumptions or live a life of cognitive dissonance; but it seems that if we are to live authentic human lives, we have to live continuously questioning our assumptions; and I am not sure that mainstream Christian belief allows room for this.
The great difficulty arises when the ideas we are questioning are without empirical basis. I wonder what a direct experience of G/god or a soul would be. There is just too much interpretive space between experience and description of experience. How can we say that our experience is an experience of G/god, soul, angel, demon, hallucination, or particularly, no more than mental projections ...?
I am just not sure that we can rationally adjudicate claims about metaphysical entities. It is one thing to talk about molecules and to repeatedly experiment with them and have consistent results. The term "molecule" makes sense within the empiricist structure of a scientific interpretation of existence; and to make rational arguments about molecules makes sense when there is an empirical structure of trial and error that verifies the reasonable use of the term.
This does not seem to be the case for God or soul. How could we possibly validate our experiences scientifically, empirically, as direct experience? Who is to say that the figure before us, whether in dream or in waking life is angel, devil, or projection? Seems the existentialists got it right here: the interpretation is up to each of us.
I assume you are aware of the Buddha's Ten Undeclared Questions: This might be a good link; look at #5 http://www.dharmaseed.org/teacher/169/
Seems to me that the holy life is not dependent upon whether there is a G/god or a soul. Seems to me that dukkha, compassion, interconnectedness, the Four Noble Truths, Causation, and Conditions are empirically provable here and now.
So too the B(uddha) speaks of a Poisoned Arrow which I assume you are aware of: This might be a good link: .../teaching-of-poisoned-arrow.html
So many words, sorry to be so wordy: Enough on rational thought and improvable entities.
Seems to me that the other side of your coin is the affective theme that runs throughout your writing, that of fear, particularly, it seems, the fear of "getting it right???" And, of course, this returns us to the first part of my response, in just how it is that we would adjudicate what "right" is.
I am not sure just how deep-seated this fear is (or whether I am projecting fear here myself), whether it is a very serious one you have or if it is simply one you are writing about because you noticed it. Either way, fear is a powerful motivator and could certainly have some effect on how you are living in this decision-making time.
It seems that one way to look at it might be to consider the imperative nature of choosing a particular path at this time. I wonder if maybe it might be good to watch this emotion as it arises and see to what degree it is influencing your thought/feelings at this moment. Relax and let things be.
I think that your teacher got it right, in that there is not so great a divide between Buddhism and Christianity, particularly if you look at the Christian mystics (or all esoteric religion) rather than mainstream Christianity (or all exoteric religion). If you haven't read Thomas Merton, The Desert Fathers, St Theresa, St John of the Cross, you might want to dabble there. And this is not to mention God is a Verb by David Cooper, or any of the works of the Islamic mystics like Rumi.
The point here is that in each of these religious traditions were, people trying to make sense of the human condition; but doing so, using different terminology. One person calls it oneness, one calls it Jesus, one calls it God, and one calls it his lover. All point to a similar thing, that drive in many of us to make sense of existence, and trying to find a way to talk about it.
The problem seems to lie in the assumption that we can "get it right" as in give a name to the ultimate nature of reality that clearly is the "right" name; and then have discussions about it that clearly and perfectly speak of it. But unfortunately, when we give it a name we have boxed in the ineffable, made firm that which is fluid, projected our particular view on that which ultimately is empty, in not only a Buddhist, but a Kabalistic, and otherwise mystical sense.
This is why, after all the talk, we return to practice, to prayer, to meditation, to prostrations. The proof is in the pudding so to speak.
But now I am rambling.
Be careful of assuming that you can nail down that which is not subject to nailing.
Be well, and I do hope that there was something here that was fruitful.
Keep in mind that I am just another seeker, who knows little but tries.
Jay
Okay, now I would like to make a response to your response.
Firstly, I don't think I understand your division between "esoteric" and "exoteric" religion. It seems to me that for religion to be wholesome and worthwhile, it must concern itself with both external and internal reality. In fact, I think wholesome religion tries in some way to bridge the divide between the two — as well as skillfully use the division to explain reality in a beneficial way. Could you please explain to me what you mean by "all esoteric religion" is in accord with Buddhism, while "all exoteric religion" is not?
I take the view that religion is the definition of the "comprehensive question," as I saw it put in an article in The Journal of Law and Religion. To be truly comprehensive, you must focus on conventional reality and ultimate reality — on internal reality and external reality. If a religion honestly and truly focuses on all aspects of reality, I think it is a worthwhile religion.
Now I'm not sure about "mainstream Christianity." If it is truly a "mainstream" belief that you must believe in a god who is separate from all reality (in that he is unobservable) yet truly, manifestly existent, then I disagree. I think to say that God is manifestly existent in any specific sense is tantamount to idol worship, and thus incorrect. However, I believe that when you look at reality as a whole, at all facets of reality, then you will see glory, and love, and consciousness, and that can be called God. Thus I believe God exists, and that was what I was trying to get at in my paper. (And I think you were saying the same thing when you identified people who [I may hazard a guess] believed in God as a representation of all reality.)
Further I think it's a logical inaccuracy to say that Buddhism is atheistic. It is perhaps atheistic in that it does not express belief in a single, ultimate personality (like Zeus) as the controller of all the universe. However I believe that Judaism and Christianity are not expressing this same idea at all. I could be wrong of course, because I have not studied Judaism and Christianity at length. But the more I see, the more my idea is reinforced: that God is not factually knowable, that factual knowledge of Him is impossible (and a destructive impulse), that he will provide for us if we have faith.
Another point I'd like to make: I do not believe that the existence of the soul is an abstruse metaphysical concept, I think it is an empirical reality. (In other words, I feel it bridges the divide between the metaphysical and the empirical.) The problem with the materialistic view is that when you say that which we term "the soul" arises solely as a result of these specific circumstances, or these specific conditions, then the probability that my independent existence has arisen becomes zero. And so this must be false, because I know as an empirical fact that my independent existence has arisen, and further I know that it must reincarnate, because if the soul has an end that is precisely saying that it arises only as a result of specific circumstances in reference to time. (Note: this is an incorrect argument. Later, I explain why. —Nathan Foster 5-1-08)
Thus I think that Buddha was trying to say, practically, we should focus on ourselves, and our poisoned arrow in the eye, before we try to look at all the possibilities that are opened up before us when we allow the metaphysical to exist. But I don't think he was saying all metaphysical reality is false. Some metaphysical claims must be true, or we wouldn't be here at all.
Sincerely,
—Nathan
I feel it's necessary to respond to a certain point James made in the Brew Pub (a local Moscow Idaho bar and grill —Nathan Foster 5-1-08), and I'm sorry Jay for filling up your inbox with so many responses to respond to, but I think it's inportant. (Note: James wrote three responses and I wrote one other response before I emailed this. —Nathan Foster 5-1-08) So for the record, James replied to one particular point I made:
The problem with the materialistic view is that when you say that which we term "the soul" arises solely as a result of these specific circumstances, or these specific conditions, then the probability that my independent existence has arisen becomes zero. And so this must be false, because I know as an empirical fact that my independent existence has arisen, and further I know that it must reincarnate, because if the soul has an end that is precisely saying that it arises only as a result of specific circumstances in reference to time.
Now what I meant by "the probability that my independent existence has arisen becomes zero" is that one can always consider a context larger than the one currently in use. Thus, with reference to that particular concept, the probability that it exists is zero, because there are infinitely larger contexts. This view is ultimately nihilist in nature, and the second part of the argument — that therefore metaphysics must exist — is substantialist in nature. This view is therefore false. Why? Because, as James pointed out, one defines "infinity" strictly in terms of sequentially adding onto something with reference to a direction – a line is defined by two arrows on a line segment, indicating a sequence that can be added onto the segment ad infinitum. Thus it is incorrect to say "the probability ... is zero" because it is not zero at the outset (analogous to defining the line segment) and it never becomes zero as one reaches infinity (analogous to defining the line using arrows). It is correct to say that the probability is "vanishingly small," but not "zero." In fact, all probabilities are "vanishingly small," but that does not mean that they don't exist.
Thus I clearly see that my view in this regard is false. However, I do still believe that "(the Buddha) was (not) saying all metaphysical reality is false." I think he was saying that most metaphysical reality is irrelevant to salvation. I also think in the time he taught, the line between "scientifically observable" and "metaphysical" was not so distinct — thus he probably did not anticipate that his teaching on reincarnation would be seen as "metaphysical." But I still think it's true, and I still think it's important. And the main problem that fetters the notion of a non-reincarnating self is the notion of strictly defined contexts. By saying "the self is annihilated at death" one is essentially saying "I know exactly where the self stops." But if we drop a ball onto the ground, do we ever know when the ball stops falling? Of course not. Because of enlightened science, we know empirically that the spirit of "ball falling to the ground" has no end. (Note: here I use the word "enlightened" partially as in the Buddhist term. Obviously these things that science has come up with are conventional truths, but the motivation was enlightened, I think, in that they were discovered using the principles of objective observation, where one tries to reduce the effect of the ego on that which is observed. —Nathan Foster 5-1-08) This energy simply changes form, from chemical engergy (in our stomach) to kinetic energy (lifting the ball) to potential kinetic energy (holding the ball) to kinetic energy (dropping the ball) to electromagnetic energy (heat released by the ball and the earth when the ball touches the ground). Thus I'm pretty sure there's nothing so special about human life that makes this principle false only in relationship to it. So I believe in reincarnation.
Here, myself and James diverged from the main flow of the conversation, not wishing to clog Jay's email. The main conversation picks up again at "Fatherly Advice."
Hi, Nathan. I'm not copying Jay on this. Don't want to clog his email.
It is a logical fallacy to conclude "there is no line" from "it is impossible to say where the line is". One may not be able to identify the point at which a self ends, but it does not follow that the self has no end.
There is a sense in which I also beleive in reincarnation, and think it's critical. I think the mind stream is the impact we make on the world, and so the impact of my life goes on forever. It is "incarnated" in the future world because I have constrained what that world will be like. So I have to be careful about my actions. I think that's Karma.
But I have no reason to think that I have a "soul" that preceded my life and will outlast it. Not only is there no evidence for a soul, but all empirical tests of a soul (such as weighing a body before and after death) have failed. Assuming a soul exists raises all kinds of complicated questions (How big is it? How much does it weigh? How does it get into a new body? When?), and answers nothing that's important that can't be answered better without it. Worse, those who believe in the supernatural tend to make bad choices, and are easily mislead and manipulated (they're easy "marks").
That's my philosophy anyway. I'm conservative about what I claim to believe, and have a pretty high standard of evidence. Demanding evidence is hard work, and sometimes just saying "I don't know" is very difficult. I'd rather be wrong than be fooled.
But of course, I don't insist that I'm right about whether reincarnation is "real". I don't think so, but how would I know? But at the same time, I don't think anyone else does either.
You can send this to Jay if he asks.
That was exactly the motivation I had when I looked into Christianity, before I experienced God's wrath. I'd rather be wrong than fooled. I might go to hell, but this is the tradition in which I think that I'm most competant. And I think I made the right choice to stick with what I know, and if God wants me to believe something else, He's not going to withold it from me. And I think this is a good rule to follow, if you don't think God is some sort of supernatual superman who will fly down from the sky and pick you up and take you over the river. Doing that would be something Satan could do, because he wanted to force people to believe in God.
I'm just saying perhaps there's more baggage in believing the self ends at death, because it relies on constructions and postulates. What if annihilation does exist? It's a scary concept. But the more I think about reality the way I've observed it, the more I think it can't be so, because what makes some certain time in the future so special as to be the only time for all of this to end? And what makes some time in the past so special as to be the only time for all this to begin? Why hasn't it happened already?
I wonder why (our spiritual teacher) hasn't said this to you already. Perhaps there's a reason I'm not fathoming that I really should consider. I was walking down Paradise Path (a walking and biking path through Moscow Idaho that follows a creek called Paradise Creek —Nathan Foster 5-1-08) when I saw a worm crossing the path. I said, "you're not going to go anywhere that way," and I picked it up and threw it in the grass. Then I looked back along the path, noticed it was night and no one was coming to squish the worm, and realized that it would've made it to safety without my intervention. Thus my intervention was paternalistic and could've caused more harm than good. I still have to expiate that sin.
Good thoughts, Nathan.
I like the worm story. But, your motivation was good and that already expiated for any "sin" involved in my opinion.
I can't see being scared about annihilation. Rather, it makes very instant before annihilation more precious. And it would be like being afraid of the day ending (assuming tomorrow is a different day, not just a continuation of today). Doesn't make sense and isn't healthy.
And why shouldn't specific points in history be "special", perhaps in many different ways? empirically, that appears to be the case. There really are momentous times in history.
One last meta-issue: that something is logically consistent does not make it so. Even things that are logically necessary may in fact be false. For example, it is logically necessary that unicorns have four feet (analytically necessary, in fact). But that doesn't mean that unicorns exist. I see no empirical evidence for reincarnation, and even less for God — and without evidence, I can't say something exists.
Ok, I'll bite! (I'm copying Jay on this directly, but speaking of him in the third person because I wrote the email before adding him to the CC.)
It is so refreshing to read a poetic exploration unburdened by all the baggage of western philosophy!
Jay is very good and thoughtful. I found his comments insightful and impressive. I think he put his finger on the fulcrum for your experiences: fear. And I really like his reminding us of the poisoned arrow.
I couldn't follow the thread in the attachment — wasn't sure who was saying what, beyond what was in your paper. (Note: This is why James wrote two responses, the second response appears here after my response to this one. —Nathan Foster 5-1-08)
I think I said pretty much the same thing as Jay after discussing your paper with you. I said something like "don't take it so seriously". It's good to question earnestly, and one has to make decisions to live. But when the act of questioning creates suffering, then at some point you need to renounce it. Remember the 3 principles of the path — renunciation, bodhicitta, and sunyata. In that order.
Renunciation is giving up suffering, by giving up grasping. What does it matter whether your "I-am-ness" is eternal? (great phrase, especially since the judaic/christian god's name was "I am that I am"). That's ego grasping, and it's the root of suffering. It's the thing to be refuted, or renounced. Worrying about hell is hell, worrying about heaven is also hell. That's why the key practice of death and dying (which you really shouldn't study without [our spiritual teacher's] guidance) is to turn toward what you fear and get past the fear.
You really should practice joy and rejoicing, rather than fear and speculation, IMHO. With fear, you can't understand anything. With joy, you can understand even fear.
And I do think we need to live by critical reasoning and rationality, to the extent that we live together (with each other or with the rest of nature). I disagree with Jay about exploring mysticism. I've been there. I found it a very easy way to delusion and suffering. But the art of mysticism is wonderful, so I go for the joy of mystical union without the metaphysical trappings. (I love Blake, [our spiritual teacher] loves Rumi, etc. — but I do not take Blake's metaphysics very seriously.)
Back to that. Be rational and smart. Enjoy transcendence. But don't take it so seriously.
It isn't life and death. It's much more important than that.
Dad
P.S. — this is the sort of father and son talk I wish you and I had more of! Too many years with too little communication, i'm afraid. I'm very sorry for that.
Thanks.
I was certainly going through a lot of fear during the month or so that I considered Christianity. However, one small point of disagreement — I don't think "you can't understand anything" with fear. I should really ask (my spiritual teacher) about this I suppose, because Chogyam Trungpa could be wrong, but he said one should panic something like 1000 times a day, 100 times an hour. And I believe the experience of the fear of God, followed by the experience of the wrath of God, was what led to the epiphany that God could be a viable concept. My new understanding can be stated: there is a sense of unity, but that unity is unknowable. Also, this sense of unity helps clear up attachment and hostility, because you can't say "I value this reality over this other reality" when there's only one reality. God's wrath in my case was manifested as a burning dualism between two separate visions of reality which I could not give up, and so I was in some sense being crushed between these two ideas (my impure visions of Christianity and Buddhism) — so his wrath healed me in the sense that I was able to clear up this disaccord.
I think the core of my experience in the dream and following it was not so much making a mountain out of a mole hill, but rather being extremely frightened by a prospect which seemed to be very real. Everything seemed to be pointing to the fact that I was going to go to hell. And now that I look back at my delusions and mistakes and bad karma, I realize that if there is any such thing as a future life, this thought probably was not far off. So now I try to practice as much as I can.
But I agree, Chogyam Trungpa also said the proper attitude for Buddhism was serious, but not too serious. I don't just practice because I think I might go to hell — that's too selfish, and could lead to the extreme of mental self-mortification.
I guess I've never really understood fear. I've been scared (The Shining scared the piss out of me). And I've been in awe (my usual stance toward nature). And I've been worried.
But I've always agreed with Shantideva: if you can do something, why be afraid? If you can't do anything, why be afraid?
I strongly suspect that Tibetans have a different understanding of the emotion "fear". I think they have in mind something like the second of hte three poisons, hatred. (My spiritual teacher) and I have discussed hatred in depth. It really means "aversion".
What I hear you describe is regret, more than fear. Well, fear of consequences. Why be afraid of karma? You can't change it once you've set the causes in place. You can only regret and resolve to avoid similar karma.
Remember, Nagarjuna had terrible karma, having killed many people with black magic — and he became enlightened in the same lifetime. (Note: James is referring to Milarepa, who killed 35 people with black magic they say — Nagarjuna they say averted untimely death by saying mantras. —Nathan Foster 5-1-08)
As for the wrath of God...worrying about that is like worrying about the dead twins at the overlook hotel. It can be scary, and even therapeutic, but it really isn't justified. Both are fiction.
The first response, "Fatherly Advice," was written before James read my response to Jay's response — "Comprehensive Reality and the Soul." Thus "Fatherly Advice" dealt mainly with my paper. The following deals mainly with "Comprehensive Reality and the Soul."
In buddhism, "esoteric" means basically "tantric", and "exoteric" is everything else. Esoteric means "hidden".
I'm not convinced that the phrases "comprehensive question" and "ultimate reality" have any meaning! To the extent that they do, it is impossible to talk about them. Speculation about them is the "poisoned arrow" that the Buddha reminded us of (via Jay).
The nature of God is far too big a topic for me. Yes, some people have a Spinoza-ish idea of nature as God. Some people fall back on an impersonal God. But it seems to me pretty clear that the "mainstream" Christian God is in the world, in the sense of interfering in events and answering prayers. Yes, that seems like idol worship to me. It demeans God.
I think the Abrahamic God (Judeo-, Christian, Islamic) is only knowable by "faith" because the very idea of such a God is incoherent. It doesn't make sense. These religions want a God that is both immanent and transcendent, and that's a contradiction. In these cases, "faith" means "beats the hell out of me, but I'll go ahead and agree".
Buddhism is atheistic in that the fundamental teachings do not require any supernatural or transcendent entities. Tibetan Buddhism often does become a religion and devolves into superstition when people "believe in" local spirits, nagas, protectors, and such as actual beings with the same ontological status as humans. I think they are rather manifestations of our own minds, which does not require any stance at all toward transcendent beings.
I think the "soul" has the same imaginary status. On the other hand, a "mind stream" is a historical reality: it is the confluence of the causes and conditions leading to this "I-am" and projecting into future "I am"s.
And I agree with the Buddha that metaphysical speculation is a dangerous digression from our practice: training the mind. That includes speculation about whether metaphysical speculation is actually informative!
Hey,
Yesterday's Voice:
I am sorry to take so long to reply. For some silly reason I decided to buy a Macbook and moving from PC to Mac at this time of the semester may not have been the best choice.
I am in a rather short-but-(hopefully)sweet mode, so I hope you don't take my writing to be curt.
I really do appreciate the chance to discuss these ideas with you both.
Old business first:
All these words, so many, so incomplete, so difficult. I guess it is a Zen moment. Back to the cushion!!!
Mysticism: I don't have my previous writing in front of me (hidden somewhere in Mac) but my guess is that I took mysticism to be the attempt to connect with that which is, to connect with that which is no other than self as it truly is (there is no self/other divide). I see this as the mystic's path (Rumi, Desert Fathers, etc). I don't take the mystic's path to be metaphysical, as in the sense of seeking something outside, beyond oneself/world; but then maybe I am not using the term correctly, and/or misunderstand the mystics path.
By contrast to this idea of being interconnected with all that is, I understand mainstream Christianity to take God to be external to the self, the bifurcation of that which is into transcendent/mundane, self/other, God/man; and to make the distinction between the Buddhist path and the mainstream Christian path, I use the terms exoteric/esoteric.
In using the term "exoteric," I intend paths that look outside of the person for authoritative answers to what is. God is outside us, the truth is outside us, priests are authorities, books are authorities. Top-down religion: I take this to be the mainstream Christian approach.
In using the term esoteric, I intend paths that are dictated by searching inside to discover "truth," discover "reality..." (you choose your favorite term) I take this to be the Buddhist approach, the mystic's approach, the "sensitive" Christian's approach.
When you say that for a religion to be wholesome it must address both, I agree and disagree. Conventionally, yes, ultimately, no. It seems to me that there is no inside/outside.
Today's Voice:
Again, words, so many words.
I am not really clear on the value of the intellect. At times, I certainly find that it helps on this path, but at other times, I find it a hindrance. It seems to me that it helps when it helps us recognize karma; and it hurts when we find ourselves dissecting ideas. Maybe this is Theravadan.
But then, if I am not mistaken, the Gelug path is one of great intellection; they are great debaters if I am not mistaken.
Though I have weaseled my way into an office on the fourth floor of Morrill Hall (the building where the Philosophy Department is located at University of Idaho —Nathan Foster 5-1-08), I think I am a poor analytic philosopher, and certainly a worse "interdisciplinarian." I haven't a single "enlightened" idea about science. I was totally shocked a few years ago when I saw a recent Periodic Chart of Elements. I had no idea that so many elements had been added since high school in 1968. In fact, it didn't even dawn on me that we could add new ones. So, it would be foolish for me to enter into these intellectual discussions on the nature of the soul and rebirth in relation to science/physics.
I once asked my teacher about why it was that we spend so much time intellectualizing. He said that it was play, and if I am not mistaken, Dogen saw it this way. I think by that he meant that it is just what minds do, in the same way that stomachs secrete "acid."
So, it seems to me that if we take these discussions to be play, then play on; but I am concerned that this is not the case. I am concerned that these discussions are done as if our very souls are at stake. Sorry for the poor joke.
At bottom, what I choose to return to is dukkha and the ending of dukkha. I like James' comment, that if our intellection brings about dukkha, then let it go. I seem to always get a headache, but I don't know if it is me being a simpleton, or me really understanding something about Buddhism.
For me, practice, being present, returning to the present moment. So many words, so little time, so many beings suffering.
Again, The Poisoned Arrow.
Sit, sit, and sit again. (Good advice, when I myself am the worst horse, constantly having to feel the whip.)
Next time I will try to stay more current in the discussion.
I would be happy to get together with you at some time if you would like.
Metta,
Jay
P.S. — I think it was Milarepa, not Nargajuna who had so much karma.
What I meant by saying "for religion to be wholesome and worthwhile, it must concern itself with both external and internal reality" is precisely that because subject and object are interdependent, you cannot focus on one and cut off the other — thus worthwhile practice is to realize the nature of both.
I'm looking at your words, "When you say that for a religion to be wholesome it must address both, I agree and disagree. Conventionally, yes, ultimately, no. It seems to me that there is no inside/outside."
If you mean that the path to ending suffering is ultimately found in experiencing both subject and object simultaneously and not dualistically — grasping at one or the other, then I think I agree. I haven't reached enlightenment yet, so I'm not 100% on this, but the Dali Lama said something like that. If you mean that there is a state one can reach where subject and object fall into the same collection, and this state is called "ultimate," I think I disagree. Such a state would be just another self.
And the reason why I'm hung up is because of the words "Conventionally, yes, ultimately, no." It seems to me that ultimately, both subject and object are to be percieved so that yes, there is no inside / outside comparison. But enlightened ones still have a body, and still interact with the world. I don't think it's true that ultimately, they have no body — ultimately they have no specific body, they have no independently arising body. But they are visible to ordinary beings, thus the sense of subject / object is not necessarily abandoned completely, though grasping at it is abandoned. So there still is inside / outside, but Buddhas give generously to the point where collections of dharma are disseminated and internalized. Thus I don't think they stop collecting, that they stop internalizing — because I don't think that they stop disseminating.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is that the subject / object distinction does in fact exist, even in the realm of ultimate reality, but it is not heavyhanded — it doesn't exist in the ordinary sense as a great gulf.
I feel as though I might have gone off the deep end in philosophy in this response, so I have to meditate to make sure my views are accurate. (I have to get enlightened before I can comment on what enlightenment is like, LOL!)
Nathan,
You have such a wonderful agile and precise mind. It is a pleasure to communicate with you.
Every time I finish a message, I think of a more precise way to say what I did, but it seems to me that the ultimate precision is silence.
What I meant by saying "for religion to be wholesome and worthwhile, it must concern itself with both external and internal reality" is precisely that because subject and object are interdependent, you cannot focus on one and cut off the other — thus worthwhile practice is to realize the nature of both.
It seems to me that "worthwhile" practice is to recognize there is no distinction.
I'm looking at your words, "When you say that for a religion to be wholesome it must address both, I agree and disagree. Conventionally, yes, ultimately, no. It seems to me that there is no inside/outside."
If you mean that the path to ending suffering is ultimately found in experiencing both subject and object simultaneously and not dualistically — grasping at one or the other, then I think I agree. I haven't reached enlightenment yet, so I'm not 100% on this, but the Dali Lama said something like that.
Not dualistically seems to me to be the way I would describe it. Simultaneously seems to say there is a separation between the two.
One of the things that really intrigued me is your desire to be enlightened in this life. There is a lot of commentary on the need to have enlightenment as a goal, how important it is to proper practice. The claim is that to seek anything short of E(nlightenment) may not have the proper attitude, object?????
If you mean that there is a state one can reach where subject and object fall into the same collection, and this state is called "ultimate," I think I disagree. Such a state would be just another self.
"Same collection" is an interesting turn of phrase. By this I take you to mean, the uniqueness of each "thing" is lost into one big "glob of being." I like the term "unique" because it allows that we/things are individual, but allows room for the dependent origin of all being. So, I am unique, but not individual in the sense of being independently arisen, separate...
Such a state, it seems to me, would deny co-dependent origination, in that there are not multiple "things" to be dependent upon one another. But that is an aside.
And the reason why I'm hung up is because of the words "Conventionally, yes, ultimately, no." It seems to me that ultimately, both subject and object are to be percieved so that yes, there is no inside / outside comparison.
I too am not enlightened LOL; but it seems to me that this is indeed the case. Is it that dualism drops away (inside/outside, self/other, bad/good) in favor of clear seeing of the conditions out of which "things" arise. To see conditions is to see the nature of things as they are???? I don't know about this. I am not sure I can find sutra on this.
But enlightened ones still have a body, and still interact with the world. I don't think it's true that ultimately, they have no body — ultimately they have no specific body, they have no independently arising body. But they are visible to ordinary beings, thus the sense of subject / object is not necessarily abandoned completely, though grasping at it is abandoned.
This is a very difficult point, dealing with Nibbana and Parinibbana. Seems you might be talking about both at the same time. Indeed enlightened ones have a body and interact with the world. This would be nibbana. To say they have no "specific" body, seems you might be referring to the enlightened one after death??? Parinibbana. This is one of the undeclared questions which the B(uddha) refused to answer. He would not speak of the status of the B(uddha) after death.
I am not sure your point about independently arisen body. Seems to me there is no such thing.
And yes, grasping is abandoned in either case.
So there still is inside / outside, but Buddhas give generously to the point where collections of dharma are disseminated and internalized. Thus I don't think they stop collecting, that they stop internalizing — because I don't think that they stop disseminating.
I am not sure that I understand your point. My take on the subject of the enlightened being while still alive is that he/she is burning off past K(arma) but is not creating new K(arma). This person feels as we feel but responds compassionately dispassionately. So, indeed this being gives generously in full recognition of the interconnected nature of all "things."
So I guess what I'm trying to say is that the subject / object distinction does in fact exist, even in the realm of ultimate reality, but it is not heavyhanded — it doesn't exist in the ordinary sense as a great gulf.
I like the idea of "not heavy-handed." Like you, below, I have no idea how I would speak of one's perception of the ultimate reality from within the realm of ultimate reality since I too, am not (enlightened).
I feel as though I might have gone off the deep end in philosophy in this response, so I have to meditate to make sure my views are accurate. (I have to get enlightened before I can comment on what enlightenment is like, LOL!)
Be well, be happy,
Jay
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - ShareAlike 2.5 License. Copyright © 2008 Nathan Foster, some rights reserved.