"spirituality"

[Xangsamhua]

Are Buddhists "spiritual" people? Is there a "Buddhist spirituality"?

I've been involved recently in a thread on Spirituality in a non-Buddhist forum, which has attracted 740 replies in the past five months.

Some people believe there is no such thing. We are socially and biologically constructed and conditioned by evolution and the cultural memes (common beliefs, generalizations) that have survived over generations.

Some see spirituality as the relationship with a supreme being and its implications for behaviour in the world, often supported or mediated by organized religion.

Others speak not of a supreme being, but some force in the cosmos that both transcends and dwells within phenomena and with which we can attain union by right thought and right action.

But where do Buddhists fit in to these categories? Buddhists meditate, suggesting there is a dimension to life beyond the skandha, but many deny that there is. Buddhists try to follow paths that will lead them to Nirvana/Nibbana, but do not describe this destination as a "spiritual" one. Buddhists see karma/kamma as a moral force impacting on future births, but do not ground this moral value in anything beyond itself. I think, generally, in Theravada at any rate, "spirit" is denied as a category mistake - there is no such thing; it's just an abstraction.

Am I right, or is there a place for Buddhist spirituality?

(Apologies for any errors in the above statements. I know there is great diversity in Buddhism and generalization is hazardous.)

[fabianfred]

To me spirituality is everything to do with the non-material body. The inner self or what different beliefs call soul or spirit or mind. It is the driving force or spark which gives life to the body. ...but is also what came from before this life and goes on forever.

It is not 'me' in the usually understood sense that most people believe (except Buddhists).

So anything to do with past lives, future lives, life after death etc. are spirituality.....and also my recognition of this inner being and my attempts to refine it by practice.

[weary]

Can this 'inner being' actually be refined, or is it more a matter of brushing off layers of evolutional and environmental/social conditioning from it, so it appears more clearly?

[Xangsamhua]

Can this 'inner being' actually be refined, or is it more a matter of brushing off layers of evolutional and environmental/social conditioning from it, so it appears more clearly?

Good question. Is there in fact any "inner being"? Some people would argue there is not; there are just the "layers of evolutional and environmental/social conditioning". But my question is: What do Buddhists think?

Fabian Fred refers to "the non-material body" (but not the I/Me/Ego) that continues across lives as the object and subject of spirituality.

My own position is that there is something that endures, survives material decay, and underpins the aggregates that make up phenomena in the universe, both animate and inanimate. I'm not sure if this is a Buddhist position. It is the outcome of Buddhist study and reflection, but may be more aceptable in some schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana than in Theravada.

But my question was intended, not to provide a platform for my own thoughts, but to elicit from Buddhists in this Forum what they think. Only Fred has come forward so far. Maybe the others are thinking about it (or they think it's a useless question ).

I was surprised, though, at the amount of interest in Spirituality on the other forum I spoke of - an Australian men's multi-interest forum (Australian men are not noted for their interest in matters of the "spirit"). I thought Buddhists might be interested in the topic, unless they believed the "spirit" to be a mere abstraction, a category mistake, not something "real".

[rockyysdt]

My own position is that there is something that endures, survives material decay, and underpins the aggregates that make up phenomena in the universe, both animate and inanimate. I'm not sure if this is a Buddhist position. It is the outcome of Buddhist study and reflection, but may be more aceptable in some schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana than in Theravada.

But my question was intended, not to provide a platform for my own thoughts, but to elicit from Buddhists in this Forum what they think.

I'm analysing what brought me to Buddhism.

1. An unhappy and unfufilled lifetime (dhukka) with no apparent escape other than more of the same.

2. Attraction to meditation/self awareness bringing ever increasing depths of calm and poise.

3. A teaching which promises more than the physical.

Digging deeper and refraining from being attached to a single unchanging doctrine, l'm finding something else.

Non Self.

Nothing solid, fixed or inherent that lasts.

We are a series of processes.

There is no separate entity from this flow of experience.

Who are today is different from who we were 20 years ago.

Nothing can be pointed to that we can say is "me".

Due to its nature the ego thinks that it always will be.

Our sense of self traditionally helps us to look after our carcass (body).

Charlotte Jocobeck:

A life of no self is centered on no particular thing, but on all things (unattached), so the characteristics of a self cannot appear.

To be no self is to be joy, because it opposes nothing.

No self is beneficial to everything.

Suzuki Roshi:

What we call "I" is just a swinging door which moves when we inhale and exhale.

There is no soul which is separate, solid, and unique which goes on.

No essential substance.

There is no permanent essence or sub strata (although some traditions cling to this).

The five skandas (aggregates) is the raw material from which we create a sense of self.

There is no soul, or atman or metaphysical self which can be found.

Clinging to any doctrines of self leads to suffering.

Buddhagosa:

There is suffering, but none who suffers.

There is doing, although there is no doer.

Liberation exists, but no liberated person.

Although there is a path, there is no goer.

In Theravada Buddhism there is an idea that we, and any aspect of ourselves is empty of an enduring, stable, autonomous self or soul.

Deva to the Buddha:

I've been walking forever and cannot find the end of the world.

I've been walking hither and tither to find the end of the world and still cannot find it.

The end of the world of Dukkha and suffering.

The Buddha replied:

You will not find the end of Dukkha by travelling.

Only by being in this fathom long carcass (body).

The origin of the world and the end of the world is to be found in this fathom long carcass. No where else.

This fathom long carcass, endowed with its eyes, its ears, its nose and everything else, is where it is to be found.

My ego desperately desires something more.

My flesh and teeth decay as I rapidly head towards the demise of my current incarnation.

I avoid the reality of my plight, through eyes of youth trapped in an aging body.

I, more than anyone cling to "spirit" and conduct my life not really coming to terms with my impermanence.

Somehow I think I'll be in for a rude awkening.

Enlightenment in three Aeons (Three billion years)?

How many I’s would that involve?

I haven’t given up my attraction to Buddhism, but:

Quote: The sutras talk about ten levels of Bodhisattvas, the tenth being a fully Enlightened One. Reaching the first level is extremely difficult and time consuming to reach (we are talking lifetimes here. I don't believe the Therevada form of Buddhism allows for enlightenment in one life time; I think Theravada allows for enlightenment after "Three Immeasurable Aeons.

Three billion years at an average lifetime of 50, would involve at least 600 million individual “I’s”, each one conditioned, impermanent and without any consciousness of ones that went before.

If my spirit does exist, rockysdt has no cosnciousness of it.

600 million lifetimes onwards rockyysdt will be irrelevant.

For me, Buddhism is living in the present with growing awareness.

Living with compassion for others.

I suspect Awakening is living in the present with pure awareness.

Edited February 8, 2013 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

My own position is that there is something that endures, survives material decay, and underpins the aggregates that make up phenomena in the universe, both animate and inanimate.

There is much in the Pali Canon which speaks of many re births, and ultimately enlightenment with escape to Nirvana.

There is much on cosmology with re birth to many relms.

What is common between such re births, and what becomes enlightened?

We seek escape from re birth, including periods in sublime relms.

Why would one do this unless something metaphysical/enduring awaits?

“There are many indications that [the stories of the First Council] are not correct in the way of a historical report. But they tell us something that is interesting and important,” says von Hinüber. “Buddhists themselves were aware of the fact that at some point in history their texts must have been shaped by somebody into the standard form they now have, beginning Thus have I heard. Who this was, we don’t know.”

Interestingly, built into the traditional account of the First Council is the story of one monk who arrived late. He asked the others what he had missed. When they told him how they had formalized the Buddha’s teachings, he objected. He insisted that he himself had heard the Buddha’s discourses and would continue to remember them as he had heard them.

The Buddha spoke in puns and lampooned rigid thinking, dominated by Brahmanism at the time.

Could future translaters have take what he said as literal?

Not realising the Buddha was laughing at them whilst threading his discrete messages, did scholars incorrectly adopt wholesale Brahmanism as the teaching of the Buddha?

The Buddha never spoke of Enlightenment, but referred to "Awakening".

"Awakening" from the rigid man made stories of the metaphysical, into the present (physical) without attachment.

The word "Bodi" = to wake (to wake is a process).

Buddha = The awakened one.

Seer.

Sacca = The immutable truth.

The immutable truth isn't metaphysical.

Dhuka is the immutable truth.

The four noble truths is the immutable truth.

1. The truth of dukkha (suffering, anxiety, dissatisfaction)
   
2. The truth of the origin of dukkha
   
3. The truth of the cessation of dukkha
   
4. The truth of the path leading to the cessation of dukkha.
   

Is attachment to spirit continuing to dream?

Does it stop us from acheiving the pinnacle (awakening)?

Are many destined to remain attached to rigid dreams?

Is awakening something which grows with awareness to ever deepening levels?

Is awakening to love without condition?

To reach out to another with love.

Metta, Karuna, Mudita,Upekkha.

Edited February 8, 2013 by rockyysdt

[cheeryble]

Personally I think spirituality is an awful term in association with Buddhism.

Do you see any mention of spirit or the like in the Satipatthana teaching which the Buddha recommended above all others?

As this breaks us down to our constituent parts it would be an odd thing to miss.

To point out the lack of an "essence" is the whole point of many most important texts.

No, I think spirituality is a perpetuation of a longing for something "beyond the grave" or whatever....an unrealised form of wishful thinking......and therefore an extension of craving......and therefore dukkha.

Luckily our only problem is the way we see things, and that can be fixed.

Voila!

Edited February 8, 2013 by cheeryble

[Xangsamhua]

Personally I think spirituality is an awful term in association with Buddhism.

Do you see any mention of spirit or the like in the Satipatthana teaching which the Buddha recommended above all others?

As this breaks us down to our constituent parts it would be an odd thing to miss.

To point out the lack of an "essence" is the whole point of many most important texts.

No, I think spirituality is a perpetuation of a longing for something "beyond the grave" or whatever....an unrealised form of wishful thinking......and therefore an extension of craving......and therefore dukkha.

Luckily our only problem is the way we see things, and that can be fixed.

Voila!

Thanks, Cheeryble.

I wonder how many Buddhists are "orthodox" in rejecting the possibility of a "beyond" (or behind, or beneath) the constituent parts.

[rockyysdt]

Personally I think spirituality is an awful term in association with Buddhism.

There was neither non-existence nor existence then.

There was neither the realm of space nor the sky which is beyond.

What stirred?

Where?

In whose protection?

Was there water, bottlemlessly deep?

There was neither death nor immortality then.

There was no distinguishing sign of night nor of day.

That One breathed, windless, by its own impulse.

Other than that there was nothing beyond.

Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning,

with no distinguishing sign, all this was water.

The life force that was covered with emptiness,

that One arose through the power of heat.

Desire came upon that One in the beginning,

that was the first seed of mind.

Poets seeking in their heart with wisdom

found the bond of existence and non-existence.

Their cord was extended across.

Was there below?

Was there above?

There were seed-placers, there were powers.

There was impulse beneath, there was giving forth above.

Who really knows?

Who will here proclaim it?

Whence was it produced?

Whence is this creation?

The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.

Who then knows whence it has arisen?

Whence this creation has arisen

- perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not -

the One who looks down on it,

in the highest heaven, only He knows

or perhaps even He does not know.

Perhaps being certain that there is nothing is just as big an attachment.

Much better to focus on the physical in the present.

Edited February 9, 2013 by rockyysdt

[Xangsamhua]

Personally I think spirituality is an awful term in association with Buddhism.

There was neither non-existence nor existence then.

There was neither the realm of space nor the sky which is beyond.

What stirred?

Where?

In whose protection?

Was there water, bottlemlessly deep?

There was neither death nor immortality then.

There was no distinguishing sign of night nor of day.

That One breathed, windless, by its own impulse.

Other than that there was nothing beyond.

Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning,

with no distinguishing sign, all this was water.

The life force that was covered with emptiness,

that One arose through the power of heat.

Desire came upon that One in the beginning,

that was the first seed of mind.

Poets seeking in their heart with wisdom

found the bond of existence and non-existence.

Their cord was extended across.

Was there below?

Was there above?

There were seed-placers, there were powers.

There was impulse beneath, there was giving forth above.

Who really knows?

Who will here proclaim it?

Whence was it produced?

Whence is this creation?

The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.

Who then knows whence it has arisen?

Whence this creation has arisen

- perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not -

the One who looks down on it,

in the highest heaven, only He knows

or perhaps even He does not know.

Perhaps being certain that there is nothing is just as big an attachment.

Much better to focus on the physical in the present.

From the Rig Veda, Rocky.

Great stuff, but how are you connecting it with Buddhism and spirituality?

I like your comment: Perhaps being certain that there is nothing is just as big an attachment. I'm not sure if the Buddha taught that there is nothing other than the skandhas, or if he was agnostic about it. Or had a view, but didn't want people to be distracted by speculation from following a practical path to the elimination of suffering.

Unwavering literalism in following the Pali texts may also be a form of attachment, mightn't it? Though these texts are the best we have in sourcing the original teachings. I remember Khantipalo Bhikkhu when he was abbot of Wat Buddhadhamma in NSW warning about "the tyranny of views", and it's something I've kept in mind. Having said that, however, I think Cheeryble's comments were quite reasonable for a Theravadin Buddhist.

[rockyysdt]

From the Rig Veda, Rocky.

Great stuff, but how are you connecting it with Buddhism and spirituality?

I like your comment: Perhaps being certain that there is nothing is just as big an attachment. I'm not sure if the Buddha taught that there is nothing other than the skandhas, or if he was agnostic about it. Or had a view, but didn't want people to be distracted by speculation from following a practical path to the elimination of suffering.

Unwavering literalism in following the Pali texts may also be a form of attachment, mightn't it? Though these texts are the best we have in sourcing the original teachings. I remember Khantipalo Bhikkhu when he was abbot of Wat Buddhadhamma in NSW warning about "the tyranny of views", and it's something I've kept in mind. Having said that, however, I think Cheeryble's comments were quite reasonable for a Theravadin Buddhist.

I think the Buddha taught to forget about the unknowable (that which we can never know ), whilst anchored to the physical.

The other important teaching, to develop awareness without attachment (pure awareness ) suggests to me that we should test Buddhagosa's interpretations of what the Buddha taught.

Attachment to anything, Theravada, Mahayana, Zen, is an attachment saddled with preconception.

Imagine investing a lifetime on a misinterpretation.

What a waste of life.

Much better to focus on bare awareness in the present with ever increasing depth.

That which is metaphysical, unfathomable, & unknowing, will take care of itself.

Attachment to any interpretation of the metaphysical, is probably mathematically (probalility) way off the mark anyway.

Take care of the here and now ( deep awareness in the present).

The metaphysical (if there is any) is beyond our control and understanding.

Edited February 10, 2013 by rockyysdt

[cheeryble]

Take care of the here and now ( deep awareness in the present).

The metaphysical (if there is any) is beyond our control and understanding.

Couldn't agree more......

the only thing being that without mundane conceptual stabs at describing the indescribable in the form of words which are of course mere concept instead of the paramattha dhamma you suggest, there can be no discussion....and so no forum!

(Perhaps not a bad thing some might say

Edited February 10, 2013 by cheeryble

[rockyysdt]

Do you see any mention of spirit or the like in the Satipatthana teaching which the Buddha recommended above all others?

All the same I can see why the question of "spirituality" was raised and will be a constant issue.

If you describe John Peacocks interpretation via the earliest texts, of what the Buddha was really about then everything aligns with the teaching of impermanence.

John describes Awakening as a state in which man, through wisdom, concentration, compassion & awareness, becomes free from attachment to greed, delusion & aversion.

A state where one dwells in the present in which mankind achieves the highest potential of being.

A state which has nothing to do with the metaphysical.

John Peacock describes the Buddha as a man with quite a sense of humour, who would lampoon the beliefs of the day (Brahmanism) while carefully slotting in his teachings into the framework of contemporary beliefs.

This was done, not only to disguise his opposition to Brahmanism, but to craft his teaching in a framework that could be understood and accepted within the thinking of the day.

If one reads his teaching many centuries later in a literal way it can very easy to come away with a different interpretation (misinterpretation).

Alternatively, graft a practice (eightfold path) with Buddhist cosmology and we instantly have a problem.

I understand the term is called Paramattha Dhamma and seems to contain "two truths".

On the one hand we have discussed there is no spirit or soul, whilst on the other hand:

Quote:

The inner self or what different beliefs call soul or spirit or mind. It is the driving force or spark which gives life to the body (Is this just window dressing with a soul beneath?)

but is also what came from before this life and goes on forever (is the one of the definitions of soul/spirit?)

my recognition of this inner being and my attempts to refine it by practice (is this saying, "I have seen my soul"?)

What is common and enduring between re birth from body to body, and strives to be Enlightened?

What is re born 600 million times and eventually becomes a fully enlightened being?

One of the reasons why Buddhagosa (father of Theravada) wrote the Pali Canon, was so that he could be reborn into the house of Brahman.

This would allow him to live long enough (in relative comfort) until the coming of the next Buddha at which time he could receive his grace and attain Enlightenment.

Not only does this illustrate a man fetid with "belief", but, if true, demonstrates a belief in a vehicle which is enduring (definition of soul/spirit).

Is John Peacocks understanding (early teachings of the Buddha) more in keeping with, what "we can test for ourselves", and in alignment with no spirit?

Is anything else is attachment to ego?

Or,

If we accept Buddhagosa's interpretations (Theravada), is denial of the soul/spirit baseless and skirting around a critical defect in doctrine?

Edited February 13, 2013 by rockyysdt

[cheeryble]

It's a sunny morning and I'm spring cleaning.

I'll have to get back to you on that....

[Sheryl]

The problem is that the term means very different things to different people, so it is hard to have a discussion of it.

The Western concept of the spirit is rooted in Western philosophic tradition which has a highly dualistic view.

The Buddha taught in a culture with a very different tradition.

[Xangsamhua]

The problem is that the term means very different things to different people, so it is hard to have a discussion of it.

The Western concept of the spirit is rooted in Western philosophic tradition which has a highly dualistic view.

The Buddha taught in a culture with a very different tradition.

Yes and no, I think, Sheryl.

The mainstream Western concept may be rooted in dualism, but there is also a strong mystical and unitive tradition in the West (Meister Eckhart, Ruysbroek, Julian of Norwich, Nicholas of Cusa, Francis of Assisi, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, etc) which speaks of "union with the One", "the Lord of love within", etc, and which is very close to the philosophy of the Vedanta. "Perennial Philosophy" is the belief that there is a "transcendent unity among religions", Eastern and Western, that they have core beliefs and understandings in common, but which are obscured by literalist, mainstream, "official" teachings and explanations.

The prominent atheist, Sam Harris, having studied Hindu and Buddhist meditation in India and Nepal, believes there is also a place for spirituality in an atheist world-view, though he has some trouble getting this across to fellow-atheists, entrenched as they are in the western intellectual tradition.

Of course, “spiritual” and its cognates have some unfortunate associations unrelated to their etymology—and I will do my best to cut those ties as well. But there seems to be no other term (apart from the even more problematic “mystical” or the more restrictive “contemplative”) with which to discuss the deliberate efforts some people make to overcome their feeling of separateness—through meditation, psychedelics, or other means of inducing non-ordinary states of consciousness. And I find neologisms pretentious and annoying. Hence, I appear to have no choice: “Spiritual” it is.

http://www.samharris...or-spirituality

[rockyysdt]

The problem is that the term means very different things to different people, so it is hard to have a discussion of it.

The Western concept of the spirit is rooted in Western philosophic tradition which has a highly dualistic view.

The Buddha taught in a culture with a very different tradition.

High Sheryl, even taking into account the different cultures with their unique accent on "spirit", aren't we still left with a problem?

That which is common/enduring/unique and ties all the re births.

That which ends up with the goal of Enlightenment.

That which becomes the Fully Enlightened One.

That which looks back at all it's previous incarnations (re births), and stops because they are too numerous to take in.

Edited February 13, 2013 by rockyysdt

[Sheryl]

To my understanding the Buddha was quite explicit in saying there is no such entity.

There is consciousness, of course, which is what is capable of remembering past lives, realizing enlightenment etc, but true consciousness is not a personal entity, and indeed to achieve enlightenment requires tat one have seen through the illusion that of a personal entity

At least that is how I understand it. Definitely the "soul" as understood in both the Western religions and Hindu tradition is not part of Buddhist teaching except in the negative.

But equally certain is that the Buddha did teach that there is something beyond the mundane world and beyond what our sense can detect.

" O monks, there is the unborn, ungrown and unconditioned"

Nibbana is clearly described to be a supramundane state that cannot be expressed in words and is not experienced by the senses.

So if one's definition of "spiritual" is anything that is not material then certainly, there is spirituality in Buddhism. Indeed the entire practice and teaching are directed towards transcending the material plane to realize a supramundane state.

But if one's definition of "spiritual" reverts back to the idea of an individual spirit or soul, that is not consistent with the teachings.

[cheeryble]

That which is common/enduring/unique and ties all the re births.

That which ends up with the goal of Enlightenment.

That which becomes the Fully Enlightened One.

That which looks back at all it's previous incarnations (re births), and stops because they are too numerous to take in.

Hey Rocky

This looks to me like the never ending human quest for reification....to make us feel better in the midst of a never ending process which may not at first glance feel cosy until we understand it's true nature, overcome self-grasping, and realise nothing can disturb us when we become another object rather than the subject, the constant central actor in the play.

We in the 21st century should not look only to the past for wisdom, but it seems to me (and Sheryl, it seems), we can look to the core philosophies, things which are virtually self evident and to which we probably all subscribe.

Sunyata, for example, suggests (not state categorically, no!) we are empty of any sort of unconditioned essence.....and that means spirit.

As Sheryl says, if you want to fabricate a spirit to fill a conceptual gap or be a metaphor by all means do so (hope that's fair representation Sheryl).

Personally I find it as counterproductive as the Stoics, who have a philosophy probably more useful to most than Buddhism, speaking of God. Then again they have to speak in the listeners' own language......as perhaps those who speak of rebirth do.

Cheeryble

Edited February 13, 2013 by cheeryble

[Xangsamhua]

That which is common/enduring/unique and ties all the re births.

That which ends up with the goal of Enlightenment.

That which becomes the Fully Enlightened One.

That which looks back at all it's previous incarnations (re births), and stops because they are too numerous to take in.

Hey Rocky

This looks to me like the never ending human quest for reification....to make us feel better in the midst of a never ending process which may not at first glance feel cosy until we understand it's true nature, overcome self-grasping, and realise nothing can disturb us when we become another object rather than the subject, the constant central actor in the play.

We in the 21st century should not look only to the past for wisdom, but it seems to me (and Sheryl, it seems), we can look to the core philosophies, things which are virtually self evident and to which we probably all subscribe.

Sunyata, for example, suggests (not state categorically, no!) we are empty of any sort of unconditioned essence.....and that means spirit.

As Sheryl says, if you want to fabricate a spirit to fill a conceptual gap or be a metaphor by all means do so (hope that's fair representation Sheryl).

Personally I find it as counterproductive as the Stoics, who have a philosophy probably more useful to most than Buddhism, speaking of God. Then again they have to speak in the listeners' own language......as perhaps those who speak of rebirth do.

Cheeryble

Cheeryble, I'm confused by your last paragraph. I really don't know what you are trying to convey. In what way is the language of the Stoics counterproductive, and in what way does this connect with the teachings of the Buddha?

As for the rest of what you say, it seems consistent, logical, and elegant in a minimalist way, but what is there about it that would attract anyone to Buddhism as a way of life? It's certainly counter-consoling, yet many people turn to the Buddhadhamma because they are looking for meaning and completeness in their life. To be told that they are simply the sum of their parts and that there is no substance to anything would be a bit of a downer. But I suspect that most Buddhists do not in fact believe this, whether they should or not.

[weary]

To be told that they are simply the sum of their parts and that there is no substance to anything would be a bit of a downer. But I suspect that most Buddhists do not in fact believe this, whether they should or not.

I will let cheeryble speak for himself, but I will still answer with what I came up with:

I agree it would seem like a downer to most. The next question, then, is 'why would it seem like a downer'. And the answer I came up with was 'because of clinging and attachment to the view or hope that there must be something eternal and endurable'. But when we have tasted the power of letting go for the first time, we may start to view things otherwise.

[camerata]

My take on "spirituality" is that it relates not so much to an afterlife but to being a part of something greater than ourselves - something above and beyond the material world. Seeking the attainment of nibbana in this life seems to me to be a spiritual endeavour.

[rockyysdt]

That which is common/enduring/unique and ties all the re births.

That which ends up with the goal of Enlightenment.

That which becomes the Fully Enlightened One.

That which looks back at all it's previous incarnations (re births), and stops because they are too numerous to take in.

Hey Rocky

This looks to me like the never ending human quest for reification....to make us feel better in the midst of a never ending process which may not at first glance feel cosy until we understand it's true nature, overcome self-grasping, and realise nothing can disturb us when we become another object rather than the subject, the constant central actor in the play.

We in the 21st century should not look only to the past for wisdom, but it seems to me (and Sheryl, it seems), we can look to the core philosophies, things which are virtually self evident and to which we probably all subscribe.

Sunyata, for example, suggests (not state categorically, no!) we are empty of any sort of unconditioned essence.....and that means spirit.

As Sheryl says, if you want to fabricate a spirit to fill a conceptual gap or be a metaphor by all means do so (hope that's fair representation Sheryl).

Personally I find it as counterproductive as the Stoics, who have a philosophy probably more useful to most than Buddhism, speaking of God. Then again they have to speak in the listeners' own language......as perhaps those who speak of rebirth do.

Cheeryble

Hi C.

I'd like to add that I bring a neutral view to the discussion, being equally open to both sides.

It's true that we don't have the capacity to know or answer things metaphysical, but when there are glaring holes and/or conflict in some of the teaching it's wise to share thought with the Sangha.

Although the eightfold path is clear, deep meditative concentration with unquestioned teaching can have profound power over the follower.

One can instill a deep seated belief (self hypnosis or power of suggestion) which then will control ones choices in life.

I don't have an interest in fabrication, but simply put forward points of teaching which appear to be in conflict.

That which is common/enduring/unique and ties all the re births,ends up with the goal of Enlightenment, becomes the Fully Enlightened One, and which looks back at all it's previous incarnations (re births), and stops because they are too numerous to take in aren't something I have constructed in order to create a spirit, but are observations which need an answer without which the existence of spirit is compelling.

Edited February 14, 2013 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

But equally certain is that the Buddha did teach that there is something beyond the mundane world and beyond what our sense can detect.

" O monks, there is the unborn, ungrown and unconditioned"

Nibbana is clearly described to be a supramundane state that cannot be expressed in words and is not experienced by the senses.

So if one's definition of "spiritual" is anything that is not material then certainly, there is spirituality in Buddhism. Indeed the entire practice and teaching are directed towards transcending the material plane to realize a supramundane state.

But if one's definition of "spiritual" reverts back to the idea of an individual spirit or soul, that is not consistent with the teachings.

Thanks Sheryl.

If I was expressing a degfinition of "spirit" I wouldn't refer to it as being mundane.

Spirit aligns with a supramundane state.

The inference of a unified supramundane state (not an individual spirit or soul) is very interesting.

The idea of universal/eternal supramundane consciousness is one of my theories.

If this spirit/soul/supramundane state, call it what we will, is not individual, then, after Awakening, why does the Buddha recollect past lives as an individual supramundane entity?

In the first knowledge, he recollected many eons of his own previous lives:

"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of recollecting my past lives.

Thus I remembered my manifold past lives in their modes & details.

Full quote:

Dvedhavitakka Sutta MN19:

In the first knowledge, he recollected many eons of his own previous lives:

"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of recollecting my past lives. I recollected my manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two... five, ten... fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand, many eons of cosmic contraction, many eons of cosmic expansion, many eons of cosmic contraction & expansion: 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I reappeared there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I reappeared here.' Thus I remembered my manifold past lives in their modes & details.

"This was the first knowledge I attained in the first watch of the night. Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed; light arose — as happens in one who is heedful, ardent, & resolute."

[rockyysdt]

My take on "spirituality" is that it relates not so much to an afterlife but to being a part of something greater than ourselves - something above and beyond the material world. Seeking the attainment of nibbana in this life seems to me to be a spiritual endeavour.

Hi C.

What is your interpetation of "spiritual endeavour"?

[cheeryble]

Rocky

Perhaps I'm just atypical!

I'm afraid the things you speak of like tying together rebirths mean nothing to me. In fact the term rebirth has no meaning for me and occupies none of my attention. Although I have done my hours on the mat and in formal study, even the term Enlightenment seems to me a distraction if used in any grand sense, any sense other than just understanding the way things are and our place in our universe (I changed that from THE universe because things, like the universe, are not as THEY are they are as WE are. In any case I use the word OUR tongue in cheek ha-ha!)

Of course I'm not a normal Buddhist because I'm not the least sure we need to have utter and perfect relief from mental disturbance.....we are formed by nature to bear a great deal so if we have a good ground up understanding of reality and illusion as a foundation we can certainly put up with the normal vicissitudes of life. They're not so bad, they're OK, and they lose any negative power if we merely keep a measure of awareness.

By illusion of course I incorporate things like the big one, duality, which forms the very self which is the source of all our problems and is the very reason for religion and philosophy.

When you throw off duality you automatically also encompass compassion and other virtues, so we shouldn't need to cultivate them off an "enlightenment-list".

I'm afraid I'm rambling and will desist, I don't wish to pontificate but note I am doing so.

Cheeryble

[rockyysdt]

Rocky

Perhaps I'm just atypical!

I'm afraid the things you speak of like tying together rebirths mean nothing to me. In fact the term rebirth has no meaning for me and occupies none of my attention. Although I have done my hours on the mat and in formal study, even the term Enlightenment seems to me a distraction if used in any grand sense, any sense other than just understanding the way things are and our place in our universe (I changed that from THE universe because things, like the universe, are not as THEY are they are as WE are. In any case I use the word OUR tongue in cheek ha-ha!)

Of course I'm not a normal Buddhist because I'm not the least sure we need to have utter and perfect relief from mental disturbance.....we are formed by nature to bear a great deal so if we have a good ground up understanding of reality and illusion as a foundation we can certainly put up with the normal vicissitudes of life. They're not so bad, they're OK, and they lose any negative power if we merely keep a measure of awareness.

By illusion of course I incorporate things like the big one, duality, which forms the very self which is the source of all our problems and is the very reason for religion and philosophy.

When you throw off duality you automatically also encompass compassion and other virtues, so we shouldn't need to cultivate them off an "enlightenment-list".

I'm afraid I'm rambling and will desist, I don't wish to pontificate but note I am doing so.

Cheeryble

I'm with you C.

Ultimately it's all about practice, about compassion for our fellow man/woman & about living in the present.

But I find that I and a number of others here at Thai Visa are also social creatures who enjoy a debate/discussion.

It can be fun, and also allows us to flush out knowledge of scripture, reach out and better know one another, and challenge doctrine rather than accept what others have interpreted as fact.

Edited February 14, 2013 by rockyysdt

[cheeryble]

Since we're challenging things, how about this?

I believe the heart of Buddhism is beyond the understanding of the average Joe.....for instance everyone in my wife's "Buddhist" family.....without the sort of extraordinary efforts and time investment that in real life they simply don't make.

The Buddha obviously thought so too......so why waste people's time with something they ain't going to "get"?

They would be far better off following the straightforward highly wise but eminently graspable tenets of Stoicism which will have real meaning in their lives.

For instance

1. Decide whether things are within your sphere of influence or not. If not, don't give them another thought.

2. It is not events that matter but how one reacts to them.

3. (following 2) do not blame others for how you feel, like the boss "ruins my life because.....", "I can never be happy because of xxxxx....". You and you alone are responsible for how you react.

4. Virtue is all that matters.

These are very empowering maxims.

3 is counterintuitive but is very worthwhile getting one's head around. It becomes easier and easier to not be affected by others when you in fact trust the idea.

If some can also "get" Buddhism and the perennial philosophy that's a cherry on the cake, but the Roman's ran the best period in their history under the Five Good Emperors, and philosopher kings like Marcus Aurelius were what they were very much because of Stoic ideals. I wish present day rulers had half his character. Happily the better ones will keep his "Meditations" close to hand.

http://manybooks.net/titles/aureliusetext01medma10.html

Cheeryble

Edited February 14, 2013 by cheeryble

[Xangsamhua]

I agree with Cheeryble that, if you want to take up a philosophy that doesn't pronounce on ultimate truths, Stoicism is a very good option.

For a novel with a Stoic theme, Tom Wolfe's A Man in Full is a good yarn. William Irvine's A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy (2008) has aroused a lot of interest (82 reviews on Amazon averaging 4.5 stars). And Admiral Jim Stockdale's Thoughts of a Philosophical Fighter Pilot describes how his Stoic philosophy helped him to cope with seven years as a POW in the "Hanoi Hilton".

Of course, the basic text is Epictetus's Enchiridion, a very short (43 pages) manual of Stoic principles.

Stoicism is not Buddhism, but I don't think it conflicts with it.

[camerata]

My take on "spirituality" is that it relates not so much to an afterlife but to being a part of something greater than ourselves - something above and beyond the material world. Seeking the attainment of nibbana in this life seems to me to be a spiritual endeavour.

Hi C.

What is your interpetation of "spiritual endeavour"?

By my definition: "seeking to be a part of something greater than ourselves - something above and beyond the material world."