Freedom From Buddha Nature

[camerata]

Freedom From Buddha Nature

by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

"What is the mind? The mind isn't 'is' anything."

— Ajaan Chah

"The mind is neither good nor evil, but it's what knows good and knows evil. It's what does good and does evil. And it's what lets go of good and lets go of evil."

— Ajaan Lee

* * *

A brahman once asked the Buddha, "Will all the world reach release [Awakening], or half the world, or a third?" But the Buddha didn't answer. Ven. Ananda, concerned that the brahman might misconstrue the Buddha's silence, took the man aside and gave him an analogy: Imagine a fortress with a single gate. A wise gatekeeper would walk around the fortress and not see an opening in the wall big enough for even a cat to slip through. Because he's wise, he would realize that his knowledge didn't tell him how many people would come into the fortress, but it did tell him that whoever came into the fortress would have to come in through the gate. In the same way, the Buddha didn't focus on how many people would reach Awakening but he did know that anyone who reached Awakening would have to follow the path he had found: abandoning the five hindrances, establishing the four frames of reference, and developing the seven factors for Awakening.

What's striking about the Buddha's knowledge is the implied "if": If people want to gain Awakening they will have to follow this path, but the choice as to whether they want Awakening is theirs. The Buddha's knowledge of the future didn't mean that the future was preordained, for people are free to choose. They can take up a particular course of action and stick with it, or not, as they see fit.

The Buddha thus based all his teaching on freedom of choice. As he said, if everything were predetermined by the past, there would be no point in teaching a path to Awakening. The number of people who would reach Awakening would already have been set a long time ago, and they would have no need for a path or a teacher. Those preordained to awaken would get there inevitably as a result of a long-past action or an essential nature already built into the mind. Those preordained not to awaken wouldn't stand a chance.

But these things are not preordained. No one is doomed never to awaken, but — until you've had your first sight of the deathless at stream-entry — neither is Awakening assured. It's contingent on intentional actions chosen in each present moment. And even after stream-entry, you're constantly faced with choices that will speed up final Awakening or slow it down. Nibbana, of course, is independent and unconditioned; but the act of awakening to nibbana depends on a path of practice that has to be willed. It happens only if you choose to give rise to its causes. This, as the Buddha noted, involves determining to do four things: not to neglect discernment, to preserve truth, to develop relinquishment, and to train for peace.

Full essay.

BTW, Access to Insight now has its own page on Facebook.

[Xangsamhua]

Thanissaro Bhikku applies Occam's Razor (the principle that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity") to the question "What is the mind?" by rejecting the notion of "Buddha-nature", a popular Mahayana teaching. However, in doing so, he invokes the principle of free will as the fundamental teaching of the Buddha and then connects the idea of innateness, and Buddha-nature in particular, with determinism and the belief that one cannot escape one's accumulated kamma. He seems to get to this point by associating innateness, or the idea of an essential goodness in the human person with a failure to acknowledge the Buddha's more utilitarian, pleasure-attraction/pain-avoidance understanding of what attracts people to awakenness.

The Buddha, according to Thanissaro Bikkhu, was under no illusion that there was an underpinning and wholly pure Buddha-nature in anyone; rather we are motivated by desire for freedom and aversion to suffering. Furthermore, the mind is awakened and the bonds of delusion loosened by awareness that the mind isn't actually anything. "It" just does things ("fabricates") according to the laws of causation (but not entirely, because we have free will, the cornerstone of the Buddha's teaching, remember). I'm not quite sure how, but the Bhikkhu then arrives at the conclusion that belief in an innate Buddha-nature prevents you from following the path of Dhamma because you "assume that the mind is basically bad" (presumably you see it as a receptacle filled with bad kamma). Not only that, but, in assuming a "Buddha-nature", "you also entangle yourself in metaphysical thorn patches". That is so, but these are hard to avoid, even when Occam's Razor has been applied. Founding your karmic metaphysics on the principle of free will may entangle you in some thorn patches, too, though you have intuition on your side. Determinism is counter-intuitive. Also, an assertion that, with regard to the mind, there is no subject – only verbs and past participles – is a metaphysical proposition that hardly avoids thorn patches (unless you say it very quickly perhaps). And any declaration about kamma and rebirth will land you in a metaphysical briar patch somewhere.

I have no dog in this fight. To assert that there is something called "Buddha-nature" is simply, in my mind, an unfounded assertion. However, it does no harm and it provides a moral basis for those who wish to lead more thoughtful, compassionate, peaceful and healthy lives. Seeking after psychic pleasure may also lead to better understanding and greater awareness (awakening) of how one can lead a life in which suffering is replaced by understanding and compassion. Presumably it does if the lives and teachings of the great Theravada masters are an indication.

But what does Thanissaro Bhikkhu really have against the Buddha-nature idea? And why does he say things like "If your original Bhudda-nature became deluded, what's to prevent it from becoming deluded after it's re-awakened?" Thubten Yeshe, a teacher in the Tibetan tradition, says of Buddha-nature: "It is eternal and uncontaminated by any of the activities of our grosser levels of consciousness; even the most evil thoughts and deeds cannot make an impression on our Buddha-nature." So it's unlikely to become"deluded". She also says of it: "It is a little bit like a mirror. The clear nature of the mirror does not change as it reflects images, but on the surface it appears to change as the images change." So it's not a "thing", like an object or container or a homunculus that acts on the mind's actions (Tanissaro's fabrications). I'm in no position to dispute with the learned bhikkhu, but I wonder what he means in suggesting that the Buddha-nature can become deluded.

Finally, quoting from my teacher, Thubten Yeshe, once again, she says: " … you have an inexhaustible source of goodness and satisfaction; it's called Buddha-nature." Well, maybe Thanissaro Bhikku is right and there is no Buddha-nature. Maybe it's just religious wishful thinking, but as a teaching that may give people some inspiration for being true to themselves and others, it doesn't seem a bad one to me, and I suspect that if one tries to be true to one's real or imagined Buddha-nature it may well turn out to be there after all.

[IMA_FARANG]

Likewise I have no dog in this fight...or any other fight. But I have a story.

In my story a Monk is traveling from one place to another. He is told that when he arrives he will find a place, a great fortress, where he will live and be safe. But there is a long and very dangerous journey before he gets there.

So he starts on the journey. After a long time he is comes to the fortress. But the area around the fortress is very dangerous, with packs of wild dogs that will attack and kill him if they are able. Soon the Monk approaches the fortress. Night is coming soon. In the distance the dogs are howling. Now he is approaching the fortress, it is very near. He sees that the gates of the fortress are closed...everyone appears to have already retired for the night. He approaches the gate...the dogs are getting closer. He calls out for the watch to open the gate, but no one hears him. Now he is getting desperate, the dogs are coming nearer. Beside the gate he sees a rock. Picking up the rock he bangs loudly on the gate to wake up the sleeping watch. The dogs are very near now. Just in time the blearly-eyed watch wakes up. Seeing the Monk outside he rushes to open the gate. The Monk runs inside, just ahead of the pack of wild dogs. The Monk is safe...the gate shuts behind him. He is in a very beautiful and magnifigant garden. Looking around in wonder, without any thought, he drops the rock he still has in his hand, the rock he used to bang on the gate to awaken the gatekeeper. He never gives that rock a thought, now that he has arrived, the rock is of no value. The rock was but an 'expedient means", a thing he used for a purpose, and now that the purpose is achieved that "expedient means" is of no value.

Therefore I would suggest that all the "buddha natures", "free wills" and such; all the teachings,the sutras, the commentaries...and all such things are merely but "expedient means" like that rock. They are simply objects to be employed for a purpose...and once that purpose is obtained they have no value later, and are simply dropped. As the saying goes, "Once the journey is completed, the road is fogotten".

The moral of the story? Perhaps it is simply: Do not be trapped by "expedient means".

[Xangsamhua]

Likewise I have no dog in this fight...or any other fight. But I have a story.

In my story a Monk is traveling from one place to another. He is told that when he arrives he will find a place, a great fortress, where he will live and be safe. But there is a long and very dangerous journey before he gets there.

So he starts on the journey. After a long time he is comes to the fortress. But the area around the fortress is very dangerous, with packs of wild dogs that will attack and kill him if they are able. Soon the Monk approaches the fortress. Night is coming soon. In the distance the dogs are howling. Now he is approaching the fortress, it is very near. He sees that the gates of the fortress are closed...everyone appears to have already retired for the night. He approaches the gate...the dogs are getting closer. He calls out for the watch to open the gate, but no one hears him. Now he is getting desperate, the dogs are coming nearer. Beside the gate he sees a rock. Picking up the rock he bangs loudly on the gate to wake up the sleeping watch. The dogs are very near now. Just in time the blearly-eyed watch wakes up. Seeing the Monk outside he rushes to open the gate. The Monk runs inside, just ahead of the pack of wild dogs. The Monk is safe...the gate shuts behind him. He is in a very beautiful and magnifigant garden. Looking around in wonder, without any thought, he drops the rock he still has in his hand, the rock he used to bang on the gate to awaken the gatekeeper. He never gives that rock a thought, now that he has arrived, the rock is of no value. The rock was but an 'expedient means", a thing he used for a purpose, and now that the purpose is achieved that "expedient means" is of no value.

Therefore I would suggest that all the "buddha natures", "free wills" and such; all the teachings,the sutras, the commentaries...and all such things are merely but "expedient means" like that rock. They are simply objects to be employed for a purpose...and once that purpose is obtained they have no value later, and are simply dropped. As the saying goes, "Once the journey is completed, the road is fogotten".

The moral of the story? Perhaps it is simply: Do not be trapped by "expedient means".

Spoken like a true Pragmatist.

(Pragmatism: The view that "an ideology or proposition is true if it works satisfactorily, that the meaning of a proposition is to be found in the practical consequences of accepting it, and that unpractical ideas are to be rejected. Pragmatism, in William James' eyes, was that the truth of an idea needed to be tested to prove its validity." (Wikipedia: Pragmatism)

Some William James quotes:

Truth is what works.

Wisdom is learning what to overlook.

Belief creates the actual fact.

Human beings can alter their lives by altering their attitudes of mind.

If you care enough for a result, you will most certainly attain it.

Our errors are surely not such awfully solemn things. In a world where we are so certain to incur them in spite of all our caution, a certain lightness of heart seems healthier than this excessive nervousness on their behalf.

There are plenty more at William James Quotes

Edited June 20, 2010 by Xangsamhua

[eggomaniac]

By ascendancy of awareness, it has been recently revealed the creation of mankind to join existence was for the sole purpose of being a vehicle for the entity of free will. This is not say it was successful. Yes, while mankind made it into reality, the corresponding free will has been hung up in manufacturing. The story of Adam and Eve portrays this concept, as do the prophesies. They could not eat from the tree of knowledge and Christ had no choice about dying on the cross.

Elements, animals and gods don't have real free will. This is a desire that only mankind is inexorably tied to. It is possible, but not probable, that Buddha was a man who attained true free will; he at least came closer than anyone else.

Ever since Thought was created out of existence, whether it was for the last billion years or the past billionth of a second, there was immediately a desire for stability against the crushing, what Buddha called, universe of nothingness.

The pantheon was a temporary relief, but the grind of eternity, beginning and end of Time, still pervaded. Animals were a great diversion, but soon boring, no matter how many species, colors and habits could be created.

What was needed was beings, 'children', who could be *godly, in the image and likeness, and have Thought, without the burden and responsibility of Atlas.*[All creation stories have praising the creator by song, dance or prayer. 'Hallowed be thy name'.]

It was no surprise to learn in this Forum that Erawan gave over management of the pantheon to Buddha. That is what they were hoping for.

In Buddha, has Thought finally completed the construction of Its ability to enjoy existence; did Buddha solve the enigma of space and time: or is he now Atlas?

If Buddha did complete the creation of free will, which is mankind's purpose in existence, we should be able to freely tell the Antichrist and Christ we don't need the boring movie anymore. We don't want a world dictator; we don't want a red heifer killed in Jerusalem; we don't want the eagle wings falling off the lion. [What the hey - let's throw in t shirt bonfire while we are at it.]

[Samuian]

Consider a walk in the park free will over intellectual hair splitting!

[phetaroi]

Camerata wrote:

“What's striking about the Buddha's knowledge is the implied "if": If people want to gain Awakening they will have to follow this path, but the choice as to whether they want Awakening is theirs...The Buddha thus based all his teaching on freedom of choice.”

Camerata, I really appreciate your thoughts on this and wish you could expand a little on it. For example, there are those, including right here in our forum, who imply consequences similar to those in Christian religions if one does not follow the same path as they are. I am wondering what your thoughts are as to the freedom of choice Buddhists have to select different paths and different goals in terms of a spiritual life, and still be in a state of.....hmmm....appropriate words fail me....dare I say “spiritual and moral grace”?

Xangsanghua wrote:

“To assert that there is something called "Buddha-nature" is simply, in my mind, an unfounded assertion. However, it does no harm and it provides a moral basis for those who wish to lead more thoughtful, compassionate, peaceful and healthy lives. Seeking after psychic pleasure may also lead to better understanding and greater awareness (awakening) of how one can lead a life in which suffering is replaced by understanding and compassion...maybe Thanissaro Bhikku is right and there is no Buddha-nature. Maybe it's just religious wishful thinking, but as a teaching that may give people some inspiration for being true to themselves and others, it doesn't seem a bad one to me, and I suspect that if one tries to be true to one's real or imagined Buddha-nature it may well turn out to be there after all.”

I also enjoyed and value your comments, here. I am often reminded that much of what each of us believes are unfounded assertions, and I think this is a block that separates the people of the world who fail to seek real truth because they become caught up in their own personal and cultural truths. If one happens to be born in Thailand, it is easy to see that the ultimate truth in Buddhism...after all, 95% of the Thais label themselves as Buddhist. How odd...coincidental (?)...that virtually all the people who were born in Thailand just happen to follow the right “path”. Meanwhile, seemingly by coincidence, virtually every person who was born in the United States (or pick any primarily Christian country) just happen to be following the wrong path. And so on. I am increasingly bothered by the need for a person to say, “I am a Buddhist”, or “I am a Christian”, or “I am a Jew”, instead of being able to say, “I am a seeker of the truth.” Because isn't the latter really what Buddha himself said all those years ago? I think that it is awfully easy for each of us to simply become followers, rather than seekers, and I wonder if that is good and what the Buddha intended?

Your further discussion of William James' thoughts on pragmatism deserve more thought by me. The idea that, “the truth of an idea needed to be tested to prove its validity" surely points – at least in my view – that the way most people (including in this group) practice their Buddhism is as a religion, rather than a philosophy of life. Which, of course, is fine and up to them. But I personally see merely “accepting Buddhism” or “accepting Christianity” as not seeking a truth, but as blindly following.

[rockyysdt]

Camerata wrote:

"What's striking about the Buddha's knowledge is the implied "if": If people want to gain Awakening they will have to follow this path, but the choice as to whether they want Awakening is theirs...The Buddha thus based all his teaching on freedom of choice."

Camerata, I really appreciate your thoughts on this and wish you could expand a little on it. For example, there are those, including right here in our forum, who imply consequences similar to those in Christian religions if one does not follow the same path as they are. I am wondering what your thoughts are as to the freedom of choice Buddhists have to select different paths and different goals in terms of a spiritual life, and still be in a state of.....hmmm....appropriate words fail me....dare I say "spiritual and moral grace"?

I think the freedom of choice referred to is whether one tries out Buddhas teachings or not, rather than the freedom to cobble together ones own form of what Buddhism entails and/or is.

Buddhism as the Buddha taught differs from regular religions in that the Buddha provided a list of exercises & practices for one to follow rather than with regular religions in which a deity demands belief and adoration & a strict adherence to specified law in return for eternal life.

In terms of "spiritual and moral grace" my view is that simply believing & loving the Buddha and living an upstanding life won't deliver what the Buddha revealed.

The Buddha was quite specific about what practices would need to be perform.

An analogy which comes to mind is that in order to enhance ones health and longevity one needs to regularly exercise, eat & drink appropriately, and refrain from drugs & smoking. One cannot achieve this by simply by believing. Specific exercises & practices need to be adopted.

The same with Buddhism. The Buddha enunciated what would need to be practiced if one wishes to achieve what the Buddha offered.

Isn't practicing what the Buddha taught Buddhism?

If one happens to be born in Thailand, it is easy to see that the ultimate truth in Buddhism...after all, 95% of the Thais label themselves as Buddhist. How odd...coincidental (?)...that virtually all the people who were born in Thailand just happen to follow the right "path". Meanwhile, seemingly by coincidence, virtually every person who was born in the United States (or pick any primarily Christian country) just happen to be following the wrong path. And so on. I am increasingly bothered by the need for a person to say, "I am a Buddhist", or "I am a Christian", or "I am a Jew", instead of being able to say, "I am a seeker of the truth." Because isn't the latter really what Buddha himself said all those years ago? I think that it is awfully easy for each of us to simply become followers, rather than seekers, and I wonder if that is good and what the Buddha intended?

In another thread it was revealed that most Thai Buddhists don't practice what the Buddha taught, so being born a Buddhist in Thailand is virtually meaningless to them in terms of escape from suffering.

In fact many Americans, born to Christian or Jewish families, are greater seekers and adherents of the exercises & practices the Buddha specified than are even a large percentage of Thai Monks.

Your further discussion of William James' thoughts on pragmatism deserve more thought by me. The idea that, "the truth of an idea needed to be tested to prove its validity" surely points – at least in my view – that the way most people (including in this group) practice their Buddhism is as a religion, rather than a philosophy of life. Which, of course, is fine and up to them. But I personally see merely "accepting Buddhism" or "accepting Christianity" as not seeking a truth, but as blindly following.

I don't think it's a matter of accepting it, but rather a matter of trying it out.

Unless one tries it out, how can one gain personal experience to help one decide if it is truth or not?

Perhaps others zeal is due to their practice which may have yielded nuggets of truth to them.

The Buddha did say not to believe him but to find out for yourself.

Unless one practices what he advocated (exercises & practices), how can one ever gain the insight as to whether what he taught is the truth?

In other words one may make a conscious choice to adopt (not believe) until ones experience tells them it is OK or not.

On the other hand, without practice, viewing the Buddhas teachings with conditioned eyes will remain an impediment.

My realization is that, no matter which way one looks at it, without actual Buddhist practice one may be just as well off being a Moralist.

Just interested in your thoughts.

Edited June 24, 2010 by rockyysdt

[eggomaniac]

Consider a walk in the park free will over intellectual hair splitting!

'real' free will my man, not choices. animals even make choices.

Whether to walk in the park, or not, is a choice. We all have choices, and, I guess that is considered 'free will'. In my Post, I said 'real' free will, 'true' free will. Can we become the park? Was A & E allowed to eat of the fruit from the tree of knowledge? If the 20 websites on the internet who claim Tony Blair is the Antichrist, is somehow true, does he have a choice? The Jews will soon rebuild the temple and sacrifice a red heifer, soon; do they have a choice?

Maybe 'free will' is not the correct term for what I am professing. Maybe Thought morphing for survival might explain it?

Maybe Buddha explains, He told of His discovery of the universe of nothing, which is an important element of understanding that Thought is seeking to stabilise Itself, to survive. Humans are the most important creations in existence, because we are the 'attempt' at making Thought worthwhile.

Up until now, it has not quite made it out of the factory as a working model. It would be great to think that Buddha, or any other 'religion' made a working model, because the 'darkness' of Time ending could be set to rest.

It's a hair splitting choice whether I decide to write this or not. Should I go to the beach at low tide today, or research my radar project?

Should Governments allow banks to be Usurers, or not? [All examples of hair splitting!?]

Can anybody, and I mean ANYbody answer whether Time has always existed?

You have a choice to believe, or not believe, my 'theory' on why mankind even exists.

You also have a choice to explain what you think our purpose is, or whether you think we even have a purpose.

I hope it is considered simple logic that if we do not have purpose, then any and all religion would be superfluous redundancy.

Would anybody mind giving their opinion on a question I am struggling with? Is there a way to determine if Thought is Existence, or whether Thought had a beginning? [This is on the premise, for the sake of all of human modeling, Thought is the most important, be all, end all quantity].

My vision is that Thought, by and/or in the form of humans is 'trying' to set down roots and grow into true free will, Something that Time cannot blow over or wash out. I'm not saying it is possible, I'm saying it is Thought's hope, desire, wish, dream.

I really do believe Buddha, and maybe others?, understood these Concepts and He, hopefully, perfected and/or became perfected. When one thinks about it, that would be 'nice'. Believing it would certainly drive the wolves of Time and Nothingness from the worried mind, from our 'thoughts'.

To seriously contemplate the other side of the coin is not something I would recommend people try at home. Hairs might split AND fall out.

Semantics is too trivial, my friend.

[Samuian]

Consider a walk in the park free will over intellectual hair splitting!

'real' free will my man, not choices. animals even make choices.

Whether to walk in the park, or not, is a choice. We all have choices, and, I guess that is considered 'free will'. In my Post, I said 'real' free will, 'true' free will. Can we become the park? Was A & E allowed to eat of the fruit from the tree of knowledge? If the 20 websites on the internet who claim Tony Blair is the Antichrist, is somehow true, does he have a choice? The Jews will soon rebuild the temple and sacrifice a red heifer, soon; do they have a choice?

Maybe 'free will' is not the correct term for what I am professing. Maybe Thought morphing for survival might explain it?

Maybe Buddha explains, He told of His discovery of the universe of nothing, which is an important element of understanding that Thought is seeking to stabilise Itself, to survive. Humans are the most important creations in existence, because we are the 'attempt' at making Thought worthwhile.

Up until now, it has not quite made it out of the factory as a working model. It would be great to think that Buddha, or any other 'religion' made a working model, because the 'darkness' of Time ending could be set to rest.

It's a hair splitting choice whether I decide to write this or not. Should I go to the beach at low tide today, or research my radar project?

Should Governments allow banks to be Usurers, or not? [All examples of hair splitting!?]

Can anybody, and I mean ANYbody answer whether Time has always existed?

You have a choice to believe, or not believe, my 'theory' on why mankind even exists.

You also have a choice to explain what you think our purpose is, or whether you think we even have a purpose.

I hope it is considered simple logic that if we do not have purpose, then any and all religion would be superfluous redundancy.

Would anybody mind giving their opinion on a question I am struggling with? Is there a way to determine if Thought is Existence, or whether Thought had a beginning? [This is on the premise, for the sake of all of human modeling, Thought is the most important, be all, end all quantity].

My vision is that Thought, by and/or in the form of humans is 'trying' to set down roots and grow into true free will, Something that Time cannot blow over or wash out. I'm not saying it is possible, I'm saying it is Thought's hope, desire, wish, dream.

I really do believe Buddha, and maybe others?, understood these Concepts and He, hopefully, perfected and/or became perfected. When one thinks about it, that would be 'nice'. Believing it would certainly drive the wolves of Time and Nothingness from the worried mind, from our 'thoughts'.

To seriously contemplate the other side of the coin is not something I would recommend people try at home. Hairs might split AND fall out.

Semantics is too trivial, my friend.

(Don't get upset, plesae)

Through what "choices" are selected?

The park, "free will" and choice's made, are in their very essence not different, if questioned, buddhahood is in question too - it's just how things are!

practice (walk in the park) is way more important then mind mining - or "hair splitting", even if it's about "Buddha", "Buddhism" or the much revered "Buddhahood"!

that's what was meant, never mind...!

[camerata]

Camerata, I really appreciate your thoughts on this and wish you could expand a little on it.

I agree with Rocky on this. Aj Thanissaro is talking about the freedom to choose the path to Nibbana or not rather than the freedom to choose different paths or goals with a Buddhist flavour. Buddhists don't care much if non-Buddhists don't choose their path, which is quite different from what we often see with Islam or Christianity.

As for the Mahayana idea of innate Buddha nature, I think Ajahn Chah summed up the Theravadin position best when he said: "If someone gives you a silver plate that's had shit on it, you still have to clean it before you can eat off it." In other words, you can't just "realize" your Buddha nature, you have to get rid of the defilements until your mind is pure.

[phetaroi]

Camerata, I really appreciate your thoughts on this and wish you could expand a little on it.

I agree with Rocky on this. Aj Thanissaro is talking about the freedom to choose the path to Nibbana or not rather than the freedom to choose different paths or goals with a Buddhist flavour. Buddhists don't care much if non-Buddhists don't choose their path, which is quite different from what we often see with Islam or Christianity.

...

I would disagree, to some extent, that "Buddhists don't care much if non-Buddhists don't choose their path." After all, only a few days ago a member of the forum made it clear that those of who don't accept all of Buddha's teachings are going to hel_l. If one didn't "care much if non-Buddhists don't choose their path", one wouldn't need to inflict the punishment.

I am reminded of a born again Christian proselytizer that I met once while out hiking. I played the game and allowed him to play his. Then I told him I was quite interested in Buddhism. "Oh, I really respect Buddhism and Buddhists." "Oh, do you? Don't you believe that because Buddhists do not accept Jesus Christ as their savior that they are going to hel_l?" After much hemming and hawing, and when pressed on it, he admitted he did believe that. Thanks for the respect!

[eggomaniac]

Camerata, I really appreciate your thoughts on this and wish you could expand a little on it.

I agree with Rocky on this. Aj Thanissaro is talking about the freedom to choose the path to Nibbana or not rather than the freedom to choose different paths or goals with a Buddhist flavour. Buddhists don't care much if non-Buddhists don't choose their path, which is quite different from what we often see with Islam or Christianity.

As for the Mahayana idea of innate Buddha nature, I think Ajahn Chah summed up the Theravadin position best when he said: "If someone gives you a silver plate that's had shit on it, you still have to clean it before you can eat off it." In other words, you can't just "realize" your Buddha nature, you have to get rid of the defilements until your mind is pure.

'Buddhists don't care much if non-Buddhists don't choose their path,"

Do you mean only lay Buddhists don't care; what about Monks and, to this topic, Buddha Himself?

=====================

Some people in a shoeless society noticed the subjects were having feet problems.

They set up a footwear manufacturing plant. They rented stalls in marketplaces. They supplied sturdy, comfortable products for reasonable prices.

Why eggsactly would you say they wouldn't care if anybody wore their shoes? They obviously weren't Bodhavista Buddhists who postpone Nirvana until all beings will be awakened, eh?.

===============

It's fortuitous this point is being discussed. Just yesterday a man told me his opinion that most opinions of Buddha's concepts, selflessness, nothingness, don't coincide with Buddha's accepting of adherents and His setting up of a body of lessons. One writer said 'to fully understand Buddhism, if you encounter Buddha on a path, throw Him in the ditch.' I believe this is wrong interpretations. If everything else, and the way most people preach Buddhism I mean everything else, is a 'defilement' of the mind, why would enlightening mankind not be added to the full list?

=================

On a less philosophical note, and more temporal one, in terms of World history, Buddhism has had its own holy wars, just like Christians and Muslims. Proselytizing of 'Buddhism has occurred in parts of Asia and the Japanese WW2 effort was based on enforcing their school of Buddhism. Believe it or not, many Tibetans felt emancipated by the rout of the Dalia Lama.

While 'religious' crusades in no way reflect on the real precepts of the religions, so don't illogically conclude I am disrespecting Buddhism, per se, that are bannered to the cause, don't think Buddhism has not, also, been wrongly worn as armour. If you want to sit down for this one, some websites say more people have been killed in the 'name of Buddhism' than any other religion, ---they say. [sorry i use Google]

[eggomaniac]

(Don't get upset, plesae) [okay I won't, but have to be amused you could imagine I could be]

Actually, over 80% of the time I understand your posts, but, these 2, I don't have clue. My Comments were to try to show the over riding reasons, platforms, for engaging in the pursuit of Betterment. This should be helpful in pursuing any religious path. The number 1 purpose of man is to struggle to attain real free will, being equal to Christ and Buddha free will; not should I have cheerios or corn flakes free will. A close second 'motivator', but not necassarily a good one, is to be 'better' than the next person. This is stronger than the sex drive. [don't be upset if I do a better post than yours, plesae]

Yesterday I actually had complete enlightenment on what the purpose of Existence and Creation is all about, and got to fully participate. At the park, my little girl went up and danced her little world for the people in the band shell who were doing the tribal drum circle. Then she climbed a tree and did her latest tricks, played in the playground, played with her fairy friends in the flower bed and threw rocks in the water. Talk about meditation, talk about watching the movie of what Thought is trying to create out of Existence![

Consider a walk in the park free will over intellectual hair splitting!

'real' free will my man, not choices. animals even make choices.

Whether to walk in the park, or not, is a choice. We all have choices, and, I guess that is considered 'free will'. In my Post, I said 'real' free will, 'true' free will. Can we become the park? Was A & E allowed to eat of the fruit from the tree of knowledge? If the 20 websites on the internet who claim Tony Blair is the Antichrist, is somehow true, does he have a choice? The Jews will soon rebuild the temple and sacrifice a red heifer, soon; do they have a choice?

Maybe 'free will' is not the correct term for what I am professing. Maybe Thought morphing for survival might explain it?

Maybe Buddha explains, He told of His discovery of the universe of nothing, which is an important element of understanding that Thought is seeking to stabilise Itself, to survive. Humans are the most important creations in existence, because we are the 'attempt' at making Thought worthwhile.

Up until now, it has not quite made it out of the factory as a working model. It would be great to think that Buddha, or any other 'religion' made a working model, because the 'darkness' of Time ending could be set to rest.

It's a hair splitting choice whether I decide to write this or not. Should I go to the beach at low tide today, or research my radar project?

Should Governments allow banks to be Usurers, or not? [All examples of hair splitting!?]

Can anybody, and I mean ANYbody answer whether Time has always existed?

You have a choice to believe, or not believe, my 'theory' on why mankind even exists.

You also have a choice to explain what you think our purpose is, or whether you think we even have a purpose.

I hope it is considered simple logic that if we do not have purpose, then any and all religion would be superfluous redundancy.

Would anybody mind giving their opinion on a question I am struggling with? Is there a way to determine if Thought is Existence, or whether Thought had a beginning? [This is on the premise, for the sake of all of human modeling, Thought is the most important, be all, end all quantity].

My vision is that Thought, by and/or in the form of humans is 'trying' to set down roots and grow into true free will, Something that Time cannot blow over or wash out. I'm not saying it is possible, I'm saying it is Thought's hope, desire, wish, dream.

I really do believe Buddha, and maybe others?, understood these Concepts and He, hopefully, perfected and/or became perfected. When one thinks about it, that would be 'nice'. Believing it would certainly drive the wolves of Time and Nothingness from the worried mind, from our 'thoughts'.

To seriously contemplate the other side of the coin is not something I would recommend people try at home. Hairs might split AND fall out.

Semantics is too trivial, my friend.

attachment=116309:2Sak Jin 049 (39).jpg]

Through what "choices" are selected?

The park, "free will" and choice's made, are in their very essence not different, if questioned, buddhahood is in question too - it's just how things are!

practice (walk in the park) is way more important then mind mining - or "hair splitting", even if it's about "Buddha", "Buddhism" or the much revered "Buddhahood"!

that's what was meant, never mind...!

Edited June 26, 2010 by eggomaniac

[rockyysdt]

Buddhists don't care much if non-Buddhists don't choose their path, which is quite different from what we often see with Islam or Christianity.

Perhaps it's due to my conditioning and defilements, but l do care for and have a soft heart for those who suffer.

Vince may not be aware, but my dwelling on regular Dhamma practice has been indirect suggesting as l care for him.

Having said that, l know how entrenched conditioning can be for all of us, and have little expectation for others to alter their behavior to align with mine.

Edited June 26, 2010 by rockyysdt

[Samuian]

(Don't get upset, plesae) [okay I won't, but have to be amused you could imagine I could be]

Actually, over 80% of the time I understand your posts, but, these 2, I don't have clue. My Comments were to try to show the over riding reasons, platforms, for engaging in the pursuit of Betterment. This should be helpful in pursuing any religious path. The number 1 purpose of man is to struggle to attain real free will, being equal to Christ and Buddha free will; not should I have cheerios or corn flakes free will. A close second 'motivator', but not necassarily a good one, is to be 'better' than the next person. This is stronger than the sex drive. [don't be upset if I do a better post than yours, plesae]

Yesterday I actually had complete enlightenment on what the purpose of Existence and Creation is all about, and got to fully participate. At the park, my little girl went up and danced her little world for the people in the band shell who were doing the tribal drum circle. Then she climbed a tree and did her latest tricks, played in the playground, played with her fairy friends in the flower bed and threw rocks in the water. Talk about meditation, talk about watching the movie of what Thought is trying to create out of Existence![

[don't be upset if I do a better post than yours, plesae]

Well, well, well... nope, sure not!

The intention in this approach is quite clear and because of this it's clear that the point I try to make in expressing a differing point of view is clearly misunderstood all the way to aggravation - sorry!.

---------------------------------------------<

However, there are some serious practitioners out there, who think, that ANY "wrapper", Club, Foundation any religious grouping is detrimental to any genuine spiritual development, it will thus remain pure and plain intellectual property!

This is why "Buddhahood" or a discussion about it I render deplorable and hairsplitting.

"Betterment" will automatically set in if one starts serious practice (walk in the park) that is the message!

Since when do painted cakes satisfy hunger?

It is nothing else then a mere thought construction, as all other thoughts are, no matter how sublime, or noble, the thoughts may be regarded, they remain thoughts, mere mind constructions, guided by desire and want, maybe vanity.

On the contrary immediate, practice is the path, the remembering of the target, the goal we are trying to reach, thinking or talking about it, is trying to bring water home to fill the bathtub with bare hands, cause the immediate is all hope, no the only chance, the target, if this immediacy is projected into the future of many tomorrows, to come, and fulfillment to be reached, it is certainly the way in to the barren lands of sorrow.

The ending of sorrow is never in the immediate response to the many challenges or in projecting something in the future, even noble Betterment or "Buddhhood".

The ending lies in seeing this fact."

To underline this point here a quote from J.Krishnamurti:

The core of Krishnamurti's teaching is contained in the statement he made in 1929 when he said: ' "Truth is a pathless land'. Man cannot come to it through any organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, not through any philosophic knowledge or psychological technique. He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection. Man has built in himself images as a fence of security - religious, political, personal.

These manifest as symbols, ideas, beliefs. The burden of these images dominates man's thinking, his relationships and his daily life. These images are the causes of our problems for they divide man from man. His perception of life is shaped by the concepts already established in his mind.

The content of his consciousness is his entire existence. This content is common to all humanity. The individuality is the name, the form and superficial culture he acquires from tradition and environment. The uniqueness of man does not lie in the superficial but in complete freedom from the content of his consciousness, which is common to all mankind. So he is not an individual.

Freedom is not a reaction; freedom is not a choice. It is man's pretence that because he has choice he is free. Freedom is pure observation without direction, without fear of punishment and reward. Freedom is without motive; freedom is not at the end of the evolution of man but lies in the first step of his existence. In observation one begins to discover the lack of freedom.

Freedom is found in the choiceless awareness of our daily existence and activity.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Samuian

[eggomaniac]

Buddhists don't care much if non-Buddhists don't choose their path, which is quite different from what we often see with Islam or Christianity.

Perhaps it's due to my conditioning and defilements, but l do care for and have a soft heart for those who suffer.

Vince may not be aware, but my dwelling on regular Dhamma practice has been indirect suggesting as l care for him.

Having said that, l know how entrenched conditioning can be for all of us, and have little expectation for others to alter their behavior to align with mine.

The point is, why have Buddha Forums, then? While Islam and Buddhism are registered 'official' religions of some countries, along with Judaism, hasn't Christianity progressed away from that? If one doesn't believe Buddha's message has been discombobulated, just look, for one example, at the million Buddha statues in the World. The biggest here, the most golden one there, let's throw in an emerald one every so often, can I maybe patent the idea for platinum ones?

99% of the time Camerata makes sense and is often, even, inspirational, not that he cares, but when it is practically mandatory for all males to serve some time as monks, I don't quite see the picture of this religion being any less indoctrinary than the others mentioned.

Did Buddha prescribe this practice, or not?

[eggomaniac]

(Don't get upset, plesae) [okay I won't, but have to be amused you could imagine I could be]

Actually, over 80% of the time I understand your posts, but, these 2, I don't have clue. My Comments were to try to show the over riding reasons, platforms, for engaging in the pursuit of Betterment. This should be helpful in pursuing any religious path. The number 1 purpose of man is to struggle to attain real free will, being equal to Christ and Buddha free will; not should I have cheerios or corn flakes free will. A close second 'motivator', but not necessarily a good one, is to be 'better' than the next person. This is stronger than the sex drive. [don't be upset if I do a better post than yours, please]

Yesterday I actually had complete enlightenment on what the purpose of Existence and Creation is all about, and got to fully participate. At the park, my little girl went up and danced her little world for the people in the band shell who were doing the tribal drum circle. Then she climbed a tree and did her latest tricks, played in the playground, played with her fairy friends in the flower bed and threw rocks in the water. Talk about meditation, talk about watching the movie of what Thought is trying to create out of Existence![

[don't be upset if I do a better post than yours, plesae]

Well, well, well... nope, sure not!

The intention in this approach is quite clear and because of this it's clear that the point I try to make in expressing a differing point of view is clearly misunderstood all the way to aggravation - sorry!.

---------------------------------------------<

However, there are some serious practitioners out there, who think, that ANY "wrapper", Club, Foundation any religious grouping is detrimental to any genuine spiritual development, it will thus remain pure and plain intellectual property!

This is why "Buddhahood" or a discussion about it I render deplorable and hairsplitting.

"Betterment" will automatically set in if one starts serious practice (walk in the park) that is the message!

Since when do painted cakes satisfy hunger?

It is nothing else then a mere thought construction, as all other thoughts are, no matter how sublime, or noble, the thoughts may be regarded, they remain thoughts, mere mind constructions, guided by desire and want, maybe vanity.

On the contrary immediate, practice is the path, the remembering of the target, the goal we are trying to reach, thinking or talking about it, is trying to bring water home to fill the bathtub with bare hands, cause the immediate is all hope, no the only chance, the target, if this immediacy is projected into the future of many tomorrows, to come, and fulfillment to be reached, it is certainly the way in to the barren lands of sorrow.

The ending of sorrow is never in the immediate response to the many challenges or in projecting something in the future, even noble Betterment or "Buddhhood".

The ending lies in seeing this fact."

To underline this point here a quote from J.Krishnamurti:

The core of Krishnamurti's teaching is contained in the statement he made in 1929 when he said: ' "Truth is a pathless land'. Man cannot come to it through any organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, not through any philosophic knowledge or psychological technique. He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection. Man has built in himself images as a fence of security - religious, political, personal.

These manifest as symbols, ideas, beliefs. The burden of these images dominates man's thinking, his relationships and his daily life. These images are the causes of our problems for they divide man from man. His perception of life is shaped by the concepts already established in his mind.

The content of his consciousness is his entire existence. This content is common to all humanity. The individuality is the name, the form and superficial culture he acquires from tradition and environment. The uniqueness of man does not lie in the superficial but in complete freedom from the content of his consciousness, which is common to all mankind. So he is not an individual.

Freedom is not a reaction; freedom is not a choice. It is man's pretence that because he has choice he is free. Freedom is pure observation without direction, without fear of punishment and reward. Freedom is without motive; freedom is not at the end of the evolution of man but lies in the first step of his existence. In observation one begins to discover the lack of freedom.

Freedom is found in the choiceless awareness of our daily existence and activity.

Now that you have clarified what your snippets meant, I must say, I am almost in complete agreement with what you are saying, and really agree with your friend's comments. [religions = coffers, mainly, misinterpreated dogma a close 2nd]

On the face of it, if someone did not know better, they would think I plagiarised Krishnamurti. "Freedom is not a reaction; freedom is not a choice. It is man's pretence that because he has choice he is free." <That is EGGsactly what I said. "Freedom is pure observation without direction, without fear of punishment and reward. Freedom is without motive; freedom is not at the end of the evolution of man but lies in *the first step of his existence. In observation one begins to discover the lack of freedom.' My theory is that freedom is goal of Thought, but a logical and mathematical impossibility. I am trying to find out if Buddha somehow devolved this enigma. [if it was the first step, why are there wars, child molestors, and so on?]

Was Krishnamurti Yoganda's guru? I must have read Auotobiography of a Yogi 2 dozen times back in my hippy daze.

[camerata]

'Buddhists don't care much if non-Buddhists don't choose their path,"

Do you mean only lay Buddhists don't care; what about Monks and, to this topic, Buddha Himself?

I mean that Buddhists don't (present tense) go around evangelizing and insisting non-Buddhists embrace Buddhism. I've lived in Thailand half my life and no one has ever asked me why I wasn't a Buddhist or suggested I should be. The tradition for monastics here - despite what the Buddha said and with the possible exception of the Dhammakaya sect - is not to speak to the laity about Dhamma unless asked. I've never seen a monk threatening the crowds at Nana Plaza with hel_l and damnation for their sins, I've never had a Buddhist knock on my door and try to convert me. In the Christian-Buddhist marriages I know of personally, it's always the Christian who nags the Buddhist to convert, never the other way round. That's what I mean. But now we're going way off topic...

[Xangsamhua]

Was Krishnamurti Yoganda's guru?

Unlikely, Eggo. They were contemporaries, K two years younger than Y. Perhaps Y was influenced by K, who was something of a cross-cultural celebrity after his discovery by Charles Leadbeater and Annie Besant. But it could have been two-way, as Y was well-known outside India from an early age, too.

[Samuian]

Was Krishnamurti Yoganda's guru?

Unlikely, Eggo. They were contemporaries, K two years younger than Y. Perhaps Y was influenced by K, who was something of a cross-cultural celebrity after his discovery by Charles Leadbeater and Annie Besant. But it could have been two-way, as Y was well-known outside India from an early age, too.

Right!

Sri Yukteswar Giri was Y's. Guru and they are out of a uninterrupted chain what is understood as "Guruparampara" (Guru-Disciple-Guru a.s.f.) interesting is that both were born at very much the same time 1892/95.. Yogananda a went to the US in the 1920' By 1911 K. was in England both of them ahd a great influence bringing new, little known concepts to the west.

I think both would have much to discuss about, even each one had a very, very different path they followed, one from a very traditional yoga-lineage, spreading Kriya-Yoga, a very specilized form of Yoga, K. more like a spiritual revolutionary thinker (Jnani-Yogi).

Amazing thing is that K. went to California in 1922, the 2 could have met.

Due thought some physical Condition Krishnamurti had lapses into "unconcious state", but he called it "mystical union":

"I was supremely happy, for I had seen. Nothing could ever be the same. I have drunk at the clear and pure waters and my thirst was appeased...I have seen the Light. I have touched compassion which heals all sorrow and suffering; it is not for myself, but for the world...Love in all its glory has intoxicated my heart; my heart can never be closed. I have drunk at the fountain of Joy and eternal Beauty. I am God-intoxicated.

did he touch "buddhanature's" very core?

[Xangsamhua]

The idea that, "the truth of an idea needed to be tested to prove its validity" surely points – at least in my view – that the way most people (including in this group) practice their Buddhism is as a religion, rather than a philosophy of life. Which, of course, is fine and up to them. But I personally see merely "accepting Buddhism" or "accepting Christianity" as not seeking a truth, but as blindly following.

Phetaroi, you may find some encouragement from the following remarks by Matthieu Ricard in his introduction to The Quantum and the Lotus (Three Rivers Press, 2001, p. 3).

Profound as the findings of Buddhism are, it is important to keep in mind ... that the Buddha's teachings are not dogmatic. The teachings should be considered as the insights of a guidebook that allows the traveler to follow in the Buddha's footsteps. Buddhism stands ready to revise its beliefs at any moment if they are proved to be wrong. ... The teachings of Buddhism are based entirely on experience ...

But Buddhism's open-minded attitude is not cheap opportunism. It has an impressive philosophical tradition to offer, as well as profound and inspiring texts on the contemplative life, and a spiritual practice that requires unbreakable perseverance. The inner transformation that leads to enlightenment is quite different from philosophical research or investigation in the natural sciences. Buddhism is basically a science of enlightenment.

These comments also suggest to me that while Buddhism includes both "believers" and "seekers" it is open to some variety and flexibility of interpretation and implementation. To follow in the Buddha's footsteps is not the same as imitating him. While the Buddha, his dhamma and his organization of the sangha provide us with models and guides, there is room for adaptation to new knowledge, different cultures and whatever insights we've gained in the past 2500 years. We don't need to believe everything the Buddha said (e.g. about cosmology or geophysics); nor does the sangha and its relationship to the laity have to be the same as it was in his lifetime. Even the teachings, in my opinion, can be revised without compromising the essential Buddhadhamma.

[fabianfred]

One certainly doesn't have to be a buddhist to be able to practice vipassana and by that way attain to stream-entry.

The Dhamma is neutral...being natural laws... and apply to all beings.....whereas religions are formulated by men and are illusions.

[phetaroi]

I mean that Buddhists don't (present tense) go around evangelizing and insisting non-Buddhists embrace Buddhism. I've lived in Thailand half my life and no one has ever asked me why I wasn't a Buddhist or suggested I should be. The tradition for monastics here - despite what the Buddha said and with the possible exception of the Dhammakaya sect - is not to speak to the laity about Dhamma unless asked. I've never seen a monk threatening the crowds at Nana Plaza with hel_l and damnation for their sins, I've never had a Buddhist knock on my door and try to convert me. In the Christian-Buddhist marriages I know of personally, it's always the Christian who nags the Buddhist to convert, never the other way round. That's what I mean. But now we're going way off topic...

Yes, I agree with you very much. It is rare that I have seen the kind of behavior you describe, and it is one of the things I most respect about Buddhism. Long before I began considering myself a Buddhist, I felt that evangelizing as wrong and that it only really mattered if one was seeking spiritual matters of their own volition. And, with rare exceptions, I have not seen Buddhists talking down to non-Buddhists.

[phetaroi]

Phetaroi, you may find some encouragement from the following remarks by Matthieu Ricard in his introduction to The Quantum and the Lotus (Three Rivers Press, 2001, p. 3).

Profound as the findings of Buddhism are, it is important to keep in mind ... that the Buddha's teachings are not dogmatic. The teachings should be considered as the insights of a guidebook that allows the traveler to follow in the Buddha's footsteps. Buddhism stands ready to revise its beliefs at any moment if they are proved to be wrong. ... The teachings of Buddhism are based entirely on experience ...

But Buddhism's open-minded attitude is not cheap opportunism. It has an impressive philosophical tradition to offer, as well as profound and inspiring texts on the contemplative life, and a spiritual practice that requires unbreakable perseverance. The inner transformation that leads to enlightenment is quite different from philosophical research or investigation in the natural sciences. Buddhism is basically a science of enlightenment.

These comments also suggest to me that while Buddhism includes both "believers" and "seekers" it is open to some variety and flexibility of interpretation and implementation. To follow in the Buddha's footsteps is not the same as imitating him. While the Buddha, his dhamma and his organization of the sangha provide us with models and guides, there is room for adaptation to new knowledge, different cultures and whatever insights we've gained in the past 2500 years. We don't need to believe everything the Buddha said (e.g. about cosmology or geophysics); nor does the sangha and its relationship to the laity have to be the same as it was in his lifetime. Even the teachings, in my opinion, can be revised without compromising the essential Buddhadhamma.

Thank you for the reference, and your post, in general. Although I couldn't have said it nearly as well, it does describe where I am and how I think. For some who are Buddhist, and for many who are in certain other religions, it almost has to be...well, sort of parallel to what George Bush said after 9/11..."you're either with us or against us". Of course, it's not that simple, not that black or white. I especially liked your comment about the difference between following in Buddha's footsteps and imitating him. Very insightful.

[phetaroi]

One certainly doesn't have to be a buddhist to be able to practice vipassana and by that way attain to stream-entry.

The Dhamma is neutral...being natural laws... and apply to all beings.....whereas religions are formulated by men and are illusions.

I don't feel that the way to endorse the merits of Buddhism (which are many) is to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Those types of comments are very much like the child who might yell, "My religion is better than your religion, na na na na na na." What does seem fair is to critique specific attributes of various religions, but painting all other religions as illusions formulated by men is, in my view inappropriate. Particularly when Buddha never claimed to be anything himself other than a man.

[Brucenkhamen]

but painting all other religions as illusions formulated by men is, in my view inappropriate. Particularly when Buddha never claimed to be anything himself other than a man.

If you check again you'll notice he didn't say "all other religions" but "religions" so I'd assume he was including Buddhism, and so differentiating the religion of Buddhism from the Dhamma which is universal and applies to all beings.

I wouldn't use the word illusion, perhaps "conceptual contruct" is a better phrase. From that point of view the religion of Buddhism is no more or less a "conceptual contruct" than other religions, however when you look past that you can see that the Dhamma is truth no matter what organised religion someone may or may not subscribe to.