Ten misconceptions about Buddhism

[RandomSand]

Why do buddhists worship images of the buddha when he himself instructed people not to?

Do any of the so-called "Buddhists" follow through with any of the instructions given anyway? In Thailand I haven't seen one, especially the monks seem to have a hidden agenda that instructs them to do exactly the opposite of what they teach. Time for reform and time for "believers" to wake up and stop bowing in front of persons who are nothing but a pretender in a colored robe, same goes for worshipping of idols, etc...

After all what I have learned here in my 20+ years in LOS, it appears that some of the biggest crooks take refuge in temples to either hide or try to wash themselves clean of their sins by doing a few years in a temple instead of a prison. Look into their eyes and be amazed of the filth hiding behind them.

So far we had Thai abbots collecting Mercedes limousines, travelling first class by air, owning thousands of Rai of land, abbots with huge bank accounts, gold, jewelry and other luxurious items stacked up to the roof, all paid with "alms", we had abbots and monks raping dogs (no joke!) and children, performing sodomy, sleeping with massage and bar girls, monks betting, gambling, bribing, even killing and robbing people... But still Thai people believe that this exact monk there, standing with his alm bowl in front of them in the morning is one of the good guys, someone to look up to, someone above them... It makes me sick at times, especially when I think about what a truly amazing life philosophy the true Buddhism really is.

Good question by the way! Let's disassemble the myth of Buddhism...

A vitriol post indeed and I don't disagree with what you wrote except "But still Thai people believe that this exact monk there, standing with his alm bowl in front of them in the morning is one of the good guys,"

You make presumptions. A lay-person's practice is personal to them and doesn't necessarily depend upon any monk's individual character or steadfastness. I feel you underestimate Thai people, and together with your main bout of vitriol, your post reads as hoity-toity dramatica.

Edited June 20, 2014 by RandomSand

[camerata]

The topic is 10 popular misconceptions about Buddhism in general. Any more Thai-bashing or monk-bashing posts will be deleted.

[trd]

Dutchguest ... meditation is not an exclusive of Buddhism. It is practiced in many forms and religions and traditions and in all ages ... but only by following the methods laid down by the Buddha is it able to bring one to Nibbana.

Actually, your first part is correct. However, whether it be the various yoga methods like Gnani, Raja, Kyria and others, or the Toaist NeiDan practices many hold that liberation can result from their meditative practices. Yes, if looked at closely you can clearly see Buddhist influences. But in the Christian mystical tradition, like Raja Royal yoga, often devotees attain "liberation" less by mindfulness than by identifying and subsuming into their focus- god, Jesus, Krishna. Is it really the same thing though? They think so; I do not. I assert that unless the mind is unfettered of appellations, deity, mindless orthodoxy, etc., you cannot close the distance to liberation. On this regard I hold Buddhism does contain the "cleanest," least busy map to get you to the goal.

Although there are various subsets, the two main paths of yoga are Jnana yoga, the path of knowledge through direct inquiry, and Bhakti yoga, the path of devotion to God or Guru. It is important to realise that both are essentially the same, although each approach may be more suited to different personality types. Jnana includes meditation practices leading to the unfettered mind to which you refer, whereas Bhakti is about devotion and would include The Judea Christian religions as well as Hindu sects such as the Hare Krishna movement. Zen and Theravada would lean more towards Jnana, but some aspects of Mahayana where deities become prominent is more of a mix and includes elements of the devotional qualities of Bhakti.

The important point is that although Jnana and Bhakti are different approaches, the goal is the same. That of surrender. Meditative practices that result in the dissolution of ego, end of suffering and the realisation of the unbounded awareness that is your true nature is no different to that obtained by the Bhakti who surrenders all to the object of devotion, God or Guru, in whatever form that may be. It is the surrendering, the letting go of all ideas, concepts and teachings that leads to freedom. The Jnani will do it by transcending the mind and know the unconditioned state in a very direct practice which can be difficult for some. I would argue this is the quickest of the two paths but only if it is suitable for that particular person. I would certainly include Buddhist meditation practices here. The Bhakti will at first experience the duality of seeing himself as separate from God, but through love and then surrender, if it is genuine and unfading, will ultimately result in the transcending of this duality to arrive at the same unconditioned non dual state as the Jnani.

Although the possibility exists for a Bhakti to discover his true state by devotion to a deity and subsequent surrender, it must be said that any such image or idea of God in the mind is an illusion and is impermanent as everything else is in the relative. That is why Buddha was silent on the matter. But this is no different to a non theistic approach where the mind rather than God is the instrument in which surrender results in realisation that mind too is an illusion.

When you say that the liberation gained by mindfulness is not the same as that gained by Christians who identify with God, I would therefore urge caution on making such a judgement. In the same way that mindfulness as a path is not liberation unless permanently established, neither is devotion as a path if there is still duality, a separation between an apparent individual and God and no doubt this is the case with many if not most who subscribe to the main monotheistic world religions.

[arjunadawn]

Dutchguest ... meditation is not an exclusive of Buddhism. It is practiced in many forms and religions and traditions and in all ages ... but only by following the methods laid down by the Buddha is it able to bring one to Nibbana.

Actually, your first part is correct. However, whether it be the various yoga methods like Gnani, Raja, Kyria and others, or the Toaist NeiDan practices many hold that liberation can result from their meditative practices. Yes, if looked at closely you can clearly see Buddhist influences. But in the Christian mystical tradition, like Raja Royal yoga, often devotees attain "liberation" less by mindfulness than by identifying and subsuming into their focus- god, Jesus, Krishna. Is it really the same thing though? They think so; I do not. I assert that unless the mind is unfettered of appellations, deity, mindless orthodoxy, etc., you cannot close the distance to liberation. On this regard I hold Buddhism does contain the "cleanest," least busy map to get you to the goal.

Although there are various subsets, the two main paths of yoga are Jnana yoga, the path of knowledge through direct inquiry, and Bhakti yoga, the path of devotion to God or Guru. It is important to realise that both are essentially the same, although each approach may be more suited to different personality types. Jnana includes meditation practices leading to the unfettered mind to which you refer, whereas Bhakti is about devotion and would include The Judea Christian religions as well as Hindu sects such as the Hare Krishna movement. Zen and Theravada would lean more towards Jnana, but some aspects of Mahayana where deities become prominent is more of a mix and includes elements of the devotional qualities of Bhakti.

The important point is that although Jnana and Bhakti are different approaches, the goal is the same. That of surrender. Meditative practices that result in the dissolution of ego, end of suffering and the realisation of the unbounded awareness that is your true nature is no different to that obtained by the Bhakti who surrenders all to the object of devotion, God or Guru, in whatever form that may be. It is the surrendering, the letting go of all ideas, concepts and teachings that leads to freedom. The Jnani will do it by transcending the mind and know the unconditioned state in a very direct practice which can be difficult for some. I would argue this is the quickest of the two paths but only if it is suitable for that particular person. I would certainly include Buddhist meditation practices here. The Bhakti will at first experience the duality of seeing himself as separate from God, but through love and then surrender, if it is genuine and unfading, will ultimately result in the transcending of this duality to arrive at the same unconditioned non dual state as the Jnani.

Although the possibility exists for a Bhakti to discover his true state by devotion to a deity and subsequent surrender, it must be said that any such image or idea of God in the mind is an illusion and is impermanent as everything else is in the relative. That is why Buddha was silent on the matter. But this is no different to a non theistic approach where the mind rather than God is the instrument in which surrender results in realisation that mind too is an illusion.

When you say that the liberation gained by mindfulness is not the same as that gained by Christians who identify with God, I would therefore urge caution on making such a judgement. In the same way that mindfulness as a path is not liberation unless permanently established, neither is devotion as a path if there is still duality, a separation between an apparent individual and God and no doubt this is the case with many if not most who subscribe to the main monotheistic world religions.

Wow. I like your mind. Wish I had someone like this to talk with. Thank you. I'll be sitting with this again later. Thanks.

[camerata]

9. Zen frees its followers from extended regimens of training

The East Asian Zen tradition has long understood enlightenment to be a sudden flash of insight rather than a gradual revelation. Zhongfeng Mingben, a Chinese Chan (Zen) master in the Linji (Japanese, Rinzai) lineage, described the sudden approach to enlightenment in verse:

Chan practice does not involve any progression,
The absolute essence is free from all extremes and representations.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In one realization, all is realized,
In one flash of cognition, all is cognized.

According to an aphorism attributed to Bodhidharma, the founder of Zen, sudden awakening occurs by “pointing directly to the human mind so that one may see the nature and achieve buddhahood.” In some accounts, a focus on “seeing the nature” (Japanese, kensho; Chinese, jianxing) frees followers from the extended regimens of training outlined in so-called conventional forms of Buddhism. This “subitist,” or sudden, approach to liberation—what we in the business call a “soteriology”—is so central to Zen’s identity that the broader East Asian Buddhist tradition often refers to it as the “Sudden Teaching.”

There is, however, great debate as to exactly how sudden “sudden enlightenment” is.

[rockyysdt]

8. The Four Noble Truths are noble

We ordinary persons are foolish because we don’t know the truth. Specifically, we don’t know that existence itself is suffering, that suffering has an origin, that suffering can be brought to an end, and that there is a path to that state of cessation. We may know it intellectually, we might know it well enough to list it correctly on the midterm, but this does not make us noble. Only the person who has direct insight into the four truths is noble. And it is only for such people that the four truths are, in fact, true.

A scholar of Pali & Sanskrit languages suggests that a more accurate title for "The Four Noble Truths" is "The Four Ennobling Truths" as practising them has the power to ennoble us.

Edited June 27, 2014 by rockyysdt

[VincentRJ]

8. The Four Noble Truths are noble

We ordinary persons are foolish because we don’t know the truth. Specifically, we don’t know that existence itself is suffering, that suffering has an origin, that suffering can be brought to an end, and that there is a path to that state of cessation. We may know it intellectually, we might know it well enough to list it correctly on the midterm, but this does not make us noble. Only the person who has direct insight into the four truths is noble. And it is only for such people that the four truths are, in fact, true.

A scholar of Pali & Sanskrit languages suggests that a more accurate title for "The Four Noble Truths" is "The Four Ennobling Truths" as practising them has the power to ennoble us.

I see! So this is the motivation to take the path of Buddhism. We want to become a 'noble'.

I've always found the choice of key words in English translations of Buddhist texts very quaint and over-simplistic.

Here is a common definition of 'noble' that you'll find in most dictionaries : "Of exalted rank; of or relating to the nobility; distinguished from the masses by birth, station, or title; highborn."

Of course, I'm not so stupid as to not realize that there are usually several meanings to common words, and in this context, the definition of Noble, as in "The four Noble Truths", would more appropriately mean, "Having honorable qualities; having moral eminence and freedom from anything petty, mean or dubious in conduct and character".

Nevertheless, the phrase brings to mind the question as to whether there exist ignoble truths. Are there two types of truth; noble and ignoble? If not, then why use the word noble?

I suggest it is to impress the commoner and the ignorant. For me, truth is truth. That's all I need to know.

Edited June 27, 2014 by VincentRJ

[rockyysdt]

Nevertheless, the phrase brings to mind the question as to whether there exist ignoble truths. Are there two types of truth; noble and ignoble? If not, then why use the word noble?

I suggest it is to impress the commoner and the ignorant. For me, truth is truth. That's all I need to know.

You did miss out on the following meanings of Noble:

• of an exalted moral or mental character or excellence
• worthy,
• meritorious

Of course "mental" isn't applicable in our case as we aim to extinguish it.

More likely a translation deficiency.

I doubt early Buddhist authors would be seeking to impress.

I still like "ennobling":

• to elevate in degree,
• excellence,

In our case to the highest degree and ultimate excellence.

Edited June 27, 2014 by rockyysdt

[VincentRJ]

Nevertheless, the phrase brings to mind the question as to whether there exist ignoble truths. Are there two types of truth; noble and ignoble? If not, then why use the word noble?

I suggest it is to impress the commoner and the ignorant. For me, truth is truth. That's all I need to know.

You did miss out on the following meanings of Noble:

• of an exalted moral or mental character or excellence
• worthy,
• meritorious

Of course "mental" isn't applicable in our case as we aim to extinguish it.

More likely a translation deficiency.

I doubt early Buddhist authors would be seeking to impress.

I still like "ennobling":

• to elevate in degree,
• excellence,

In our case to the highest degree and ultimate excellence.

I can only repeat, truth is truth. If one has to describe truth an ennobling, or good, or meritorious, one must be addressing people who have little conception of what truth is. Perhaps such people don't even have a clue what truth is.

Early Buddhist authors lived 400 years or so after the Buddha died. I get the impression that all religions are an attempt to control their adherents and society in general, in a good way of course, but nevertheless control.

If an atheist commits a serious crime in Australia, say murder, he gets a life sentence in jail. With good behaviour he might be released before he dies.

If a Christian commits a serious crime, he might spend eternity in a hot hell, after he dies. That's an absolutely terrible and inhumane punishment.

Buddhism might be a bit more humane. If you lead an unethical life, and commit a few serious crimes, you might be reborn as a worm in your next life. Not at all nice, although worms are very good for the soil.

I don't see these two examples as 'truths'. I see them as stories and narratives created to control the population. It's a lot cheaper than employing thousands of policemen, lawyers, judges and courts.

[camerata]

8. The Four Noble Truths are noble

We ordinary persons are foolish because we don’t know the truth. Specifically, we don’t know that existence itself is suffering, that suffering has an origin, that suffering can be brought to an end, and that there is a path to that state of cessation. We may know it intellectually, we might know it well enough to list it correctly on the midterm, but this does not make us noble. Only the person who has direct insight into the four truths is noble. And it is only for such people that the four truths are, in fact, true.

A scholar of Pali & Sanskrit languages suggests that a more accurate title for "The Four Noble Truths" is "The Four Ennobling Truths" as practising them has the power to ennoble us.

Right. That's exactly what the article says:

Thus, the term that we know as the “four noble truths” should really be translated as the “four truths for the [spiritually] noble.” The truths themselves are not noble; the people who understand them are. And it is the understanding of these truths that makes them noble. Another translation might be the “four ennobling truths.”

The idea that those who have attained stream-entry and above are "noble ones" comes from a comment by the Buddha himself:

This phrase — the customs of the noble ones — comes from an incident in the Buddha's life: not long after his Awakening, he returned to his home town in order to teach the Dhamma to the family he had left six years earlier. After spending the night in a forest, he went for alms in town at daybreak. His father the king learned of this and immediately went to upbraid him. "This is shameful," the king said. "No one in the lineage of our family has ever gone begging. It's against our family customs."

"Your majesty," the Buddha replied, "I now belong, not to the lineage of my family, but to the lineage of the noble ones. Theirs are the customs I follow."

Source: The Customs of the Noble Ones by Ven Thanissaro

[VincentRJ]

Well, it wasn't my intention to stymie debate, but I do see a huge problem in ascribing certainty (or belief) to that which appears to be beyond normal comprehension.

I admire certain historical figures, such as Gautama Buddha, and Confucius, partly because they take a very sensible view of the concept of a single, creator God. They seem to intuitively realize that any communication between a mere human being and an entity that created the entire universe, if such a God were to exist, would be very bizarre, unbelievable and unprovable.

The Buddha goes further and encourages those who are skeptical (as I am) not to believe something merely because it's mentioned in some religious scripture, or because it has become a cultural practice over the centuries. (The Kalama Sutta).

I respect such wisdom. I sometimes try to imagine what the same Gautama Buddha, who lived 2,500 years ago, would think of the current Buddhist practices around the world, if he were he were regenerated, and brought back to life in the modern era, and saw giant statues of himself, and people bowing in front of the statues.

Would he think, "Crikey! They haven't even grasped the basics."

[VincentRJ]

8. The Four Noble Truths are noble

We ordinary persons are foolish because we don’t know the truth. Specifically, we don’t know that existence itself is suffering, that suffering has an origin, that suffering can be brought to an end, and that there is a path to that state of cessation. We may know it intellectually, we might know it well enough to list it correctly on the midterm, but this does not make us noble. Only the person who has direct insight into the four truths is noble. And it is only for such people that the four truths are, in fact, true.

A scholar of Pali & Sanskrit languages suggests that a more accurate title for "The Four Noble Truths" is "The Four Ennobling Truths" as practising them has the power to ennoble us.

Right. That's exactly what the article says:

Thus, the term that we know as the “four noble truths” should really be translated as the “four truths for the [spiritually] noble.” The truths themselves are not noble; the people who understand them are. And it is the understanding of these truths that makes them noble. Another translation might be the “four ennobling truths.”

The idea that those who have attained stream-entry and above are "noble ones" comes from a comment by the Buddha himself:

This phrase — the customs of the noble ones — comes from an incident in the Buddha's life: not long after his Awakening, he returned to his home town in order to teach the Dhamma to the family he had left six years earlier. After spending the night in a forest, he went for alms in town at daybreak. His father the king learned of this and immediately went to upbraid him. "This is shameful," the king said. "No one in the lineage of our family has ever gone begging. It's against our family customs."

"Your majesty," the Buddha replied, "I now belong, not to the lineage of my family, but to the lineage of the noble ones. Theirs are the customs I follow."

Source: The Customs of the Noble Ones by Ven Thanissaro

"This is shameful," the king said. "No one in the lineage of our family has ever gone begging. It's against our family customs." "Your majesty," the Buddha replied, "I now belong, not to the lineage of my family, but to the lineage of the noble ones. Theirs are the customs I follow."

Do you see the problem here? Does this story really make sense?

There are many ways of interpreting this. Here's one interpretation,as follows:

The Buddha's father, and king, did not consider himself to be as exalted as a noble, and the Buddha, by using the term 'noble', was implying that he had found a life which was more rewarding than merely belonging to the lineage of a Royal family.

Why use the word 'noble'? Surely every king is even more exalted, and respected, than a mere noble (person).

Of course, we can use the term 'spiritually noble', which makes more sense, in which case I would rephrase Buddha's reply to his father along the following lines:

"Your majesty," the Buddha replied, "I now belong, not to the noble lineage of my family, but to the lineage of a different type of nobility which I would describe as a spiritual nobility. Theirs are the customs I follow."

Perhaps the problem here is that the Pali word which has been translated as 'noble'. does not have a variety of different definitions, as it does in English. Perhaps this Pali word has no association with Kings and aristocrats, as it does in English. Perhaps there is no exact equivalent in English for the Pali word (whatever it is), and 'spiritually noble' is the closest we can get. Nevertheless, it is unfortunate that the term 'noble' has unavoidable associations with the aristocracy and the privileged. It tends to create a certain amount of confusion.

[camerata]

The story becomes clear if we look at the Tricycle article:

The key term is “noble.” The original Sanskrit term arya—adopted by the Nazis as the centerpiece of their racist ideology—was in ancient India an ethnic self-designation used by inhabitants of north India (whether they were invaders, migrants, or natives remains a topic of scholarly debate) to distinguish themselves from other inhabitants of the region. The Buddha reinterpreted the word, which means “noble” or “superior,” from an ethnic designation into a spiritual one, referring to those with an insight into reality superior to that of ordinary people.

So the king is talking about being of a noble Aryan ethnic lineage, but the Buddha changes the meaning of the word to a spiritual one. Creating his own definition of words was a technique of the Buddha (most famously in his redefinition of the word "karma"), in particular when talking to Brahmins. Instead of just saying "You guys have got it all wrong," the Buddha would hark back to a golden age when Brahmins (supposedly) practised the Dhamma, and explain that they had lost their way and could get back to their roots by following his teachings. So we see that all the way through the Dhammapada there are references to "the good Brahmin," meaning a typical "noble one" rather than an animal-sacrificing religious functionary of the Buddha's time.

[VincentRJ]

Interesting! Here are some earlier forms of the word, or etymons, from Wikipedia. The word 'arya' appears to have some interesting associations, many of which make sense to me within the context of Gautama's lifestyle, such as, to assemble skillfully, one who roams, friendly, hospitable, fitting, proper, nurturing, companionable.

By contrast, the etymology of 'noble' has very clear associations with high birth, fame and celebrity. Such associations are suggestive to me of an ego, which we all know is an illusion. I guess that's why I don't like the term. I'm a commoner.

According to a 1957 theory by Laroche, Indo-Iranian ar-ya- descends from Proto-Indo-European (PIE) *ar-yo-, a yo-adjective to a root *ar "to assemble skillfully", present in Greek harma "chariot", Greek aristos, (as in "aristocracy"), Latin ars "art", etc. Thus, according to this theory, an Aryan is "one who skillfully assembles". Proto-Indo-Iranian arta was a related concept of "properly joined" expressing a religious concept of cosmic order.[16]

Various attempts to find an etymon are as follows:

Before 1950 – all are reductions of the historical variety to an original unity:[clarification needed]

Bopp (1830): ar- "to go, to move", read as "one who roams" (like a nomad)

Müller (1862): ar- "to plough", read as "cultivator of the land"[17]

Güntert (1924): ar- "to fit", read as "allied, friendly"

Thieme (1938): ar- "to give, allot, share", read as "hospitable"

After 1950 – all treat the autonym as distinct from similar-looking words:[clarification needed]

Laroche (1957): ara- "to fit", read as "fitting, proper"

Dumézil (1958): ar- "to share", read as a uniting property of "appartenant au monde aryen"

Bailey (1959): ar- "to beget", read as "born, nurturing"

Benveniste (1969): ar- "to fit", read as "companionable"

[rockyysdt]

Interesting! Here are some earlier forms of the word, or etymons, from Wikipedia. The word 'arya' appears to have some interesting associations, many of which make sense to me within the context of Gautama's lifestyle, such as, to assemble skillfully, one who roams, friendly, hospitable, fitting, proper, nurturing, companionable.

By contrast, the etymology of 'noble' has very clear associations with high birth, fame and celebrity. Such associations are suggestive to me of an ego, which we all know is an illusion. I guess that's why I don't like the term. I'm a commoner.

One of the Buddhist teachings revolves around Kharma (action) and the fruits of Kharma, Vipaka.

There is also Awakening which ends all suffering by extinguishing the cycle of Re Birth.

To be born is to suffer.

Awakening is of the unborn, the deathless.

If this is so, then doesn't "high birth" & "noble" align with such teaching?

Many have said that we are the result of almost countless re births, eventually leading to a favorable realm/life, perhaps as a wise Buddhist Monk (to be high born via the fruits of noble past lives).

A birth which is favorable in gaining wisdom and success in our practice.

One can logically say that to believe in re birth involving countless lives is the height of egotism.

One could also say that such belief dovetails nicely into the 4 Noble Truths.

What is your take, especially considering your agreement to TRD's insights involving realisation of Awakening (timeless, deathless, unborn, extinction of mind/ego)?

Edited June 29, 2014 by rockyysdt

[VincentRJ]

Interesting! Here are some earlier forms of the word, or etymons, from Wikipedia. The word 'arya' appears to have some interesting associations, many of which make sense to me within the context of Gautama's lifestyle, such as, to assemble skillfully, one who roams, friendly, hospitable, fitting, proper, nurturing, companionable.

By contrast, the etymology of 'noble' has very clear associations with high birth, fame and celebrity. Such associations are suggestive to me of an ego, which we all know is an illusion. I guess that's why I don't like the term. I'm a commoner.

One of the Buddhist teachings revolves around Kharma (action) and the fruits of Kharma, Vipaka.

There is also Awakening which ends all suffering by extinguishing the cycle of Re Birth.

To be born is to suffer.

Awakening is of the unborn, the deathless.

If this is so, then doesn't "high birth" & "noble" align with such teaching?

Many have said that we are the result of almost countless re births, eventually leading to a favorable realm/life, perhaps as a wise Buddhist Monk (to be high born via the fruits of noble past lives).

A birth which is favorable in gaining wisdom and success in our practice.

One can logically say that to believe in re birth involving countless lives is the height of egotism.

One could also say that such belief dovetails nicely into the 4 Noble Truths.

What is your take, especially considering your agreement to TRD's insights involving realisation of Awakening (timeless, deathless, unborn, extinction of mind/ego)?

Hi Rocky,

I have little motivation to believe in stuff for which I can find is no sound evidence. I do find wisdom in parts of the Buddhist teachings, but also a lot of stories that seem to me like fairy tales for children.

Examples of the wisdom in Buddhism would include the concept that everything we see, hear, read and experience, including an experience of suffering, is largely, or at least partly an illusion, in the sense that each person ascribes an individual and different meaning and interpretation to the same sensory input that he/she is exposed to.

If one accepts the reality of such different interpretations, and who could not, considering all the disputes in the world, then the notion that such interpretations exist only in the mind, and are not in themselves 'reality', is a concept that makes sense to me.

However, I do have a problem in accepting that all sensory input is a complete illusion. I do believe that there are certain basic experiences of reality that will be very similar for all people regardless of their culture, background, education, social status, and regardless of the state of their ego.

For example, I do believe if anyone were to kick a brick wall with his toe and bare foot, with the same force that he would kick a football into a goal, he would experience a broken toe and a great deal of pain. Even a 'noble' one would experience a broken toe, although I suspect that someone who is experienced in meditative practices would be able to handle the pain with more composure, having learned not to resist the pain.

I also have difficulty with the concept of the extinction of mind and ego. I think extinction is probably not the best word to use in this context. Something that becomes extinct is lost for ever. It cannot be brought back.

I would prefer to use words like 'quieten' or 'still' the mind. An analogy would be the practice of fasting, which has certain health benefits. One doesn't usually fast in order to extinguish life, ie. starve to death. One fasts in order to allow the body to repair itself. When the body is free of the usual and constant chores of digesting food, it is more able, and more free to attend to the fixing and repairing of any problems. Recent scientific research has shown that serious and regular fasting can be just as effective in curing cancer as chemotherapy, but a lot cheaper and without the usual side effects, of course.

Likewise, stilling and quietening the mind should, or could, I imagine, allow the mind to free itself of the many practical concerns and worries that constantly nag most people, and in place produce a sense of peace and equanimity, at least temporarily.

ps. In view of the other recent thread, Dark Night Project, I should add that fasting also might not be advisable for everyone. A person of average health, who is perhaps a bit overweight, should be able to fast safely for up to 40 days, but drinking water as needed, of course.

[fabianfred]

Interestingly, the original meaning of Sangha applied only to those who were of Ariya status (from Sotapanna to Arahant) and not all monks. Nowadays in Thailand it is often applied to all ordained and even those on the eight precepts on retreat.

The Triple gem arose when the Sangha was first formed when one of the five disciples listening to the teaching about the Four Noble Truths attained to Stream-entry.

Edited June 30, 2014 by fabianfred

[VincentRJ]

Interestingly, the original meaning of Sangha applied only to those who were of Ariya status (from Sotapanna to Arahant) and not all monks. Nowadays in Thailand it is often applied to all ordained and even those on the eight precepts on retreat.

The Triple gem arose when the Sangha was first formed when one of the five disciples listening to the teaching about the Four Noble Truths attained to Stream-entry.

I've always been puzzled by the fact that certain people seem to assume that the traditions of the past must apply to the present, regardless of our continuing increase in knowledge.

I'm currently reading a book by a Moslem author, Reza Aslan, on the historical Jesus. I find it interesting and illuminating to read different scholarly perspectives.

I find it interesting that current scholars on the subject cannot even agree if Jesus was literate or not. Aslan claims that Jesus was basically an illiterate peasant, as 95% of the Jews were at that time. Who know what the truth is?

The first of the Gospels was written about 3 decades after Christ's death, according to Biblical scholars. The Pali Canon was written about 450 years after Buddha's death.

Whatever difficulties there may be in describing the real, historical Jesus, such difficulties in describing the real, historical, Gautama Buddha must be compounded many fold.

[fabianfred]

Vincent... The monks kept alive the Buddha's teachings by memorising and chanting them. Also there were still many Arahants among those monks, so their abilities in recall are beyond our comprehension.

I myself have doubts about the veracity of the bible, but none about the Pali scriptures.

Christian noble ones (saints) are appointed as such by ordinary people after they have died.

Buddhist noble ones (stream-enterers to Arahants) have achieved this by their own efforts and often nobody knows about their status.

[VincentRJ]

Vincent... The monks kept alive the Buddha's teachings by memorising and chanting them. Also there were still many Arahants among those monks, so their abilities in recall are beyond our comprehension.

I myself have doubts about the veracity of the bible, but none about the Pali scriptures.

Christian noble ones (saints) are appointed as such by ordinary people after they have died.

Buddhist noble ones (stream-enterers to Arahants) have achieved this by their own efforts and often nobody knows about their status.

Fabianfred,

If you are satisfied that the Pali Canon accurately describes what the Buddha taught and what he really meant, then best of luck! I have no wish to undermine your faith.

Speaking for myself, I would say that I'm more like one of those Kalama people in Kesaputta, whom the Buddha is reported to have addressed with what is now known as the Kalama Sutta.

I don't even need to believe that the Kalama Sutta, or English paraphrases of it, accurately represents what the Buddha actually said. The advice in the Sutta makes so much sense to me, in the light of other life experiences and situations, that I'm willing to accept it as wise advice regardless of who the true, historical author may have been.

I'm also impressed with the four solaces that follow in the Kalama Sutta, particularly the assertion that a happy and moral life would be correct even if there is no karma and reincarnation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalama_Sutta

I also tend to think, rightly or wrongly, that as time goes by, humankind is gradually evolving as a result of our better and more widespread education, and that not everything that was considered true and helpful during the time of the Buddha, is necessarily, equally true, appropriate and helpful in our modern era. I like to be able to pick and choose what makes sense.

[fabianfred]

I also tend to think, rightly or wrongly, that as time goes by, humankind is gradually evolving as a result of our better and more widespread education, and that not everything that was considered true and helpful during the time of the Buddha, is necessarily, equally true, appropriate and helpful in our modern era. I like to be able to pick and choose what makes sense.

Not an uncommon view ... but false IMHO. Our education nowadays is not getting better, because much of what is taught is untrue or useless. Knowledge is not synonymous with wisdom. Most knowledge is mundane ... just accumulation of useless facts (or fiction). An old farmer who never was educated could have much natural wisdom, whereas many University graduates are quite unwise.

Wisdom cannot be taught but must be learned, and doesn't evolve naturally.

It appeals to our ego to think we are superior in our knowledge than those who came before us... when in fact past civilizations have exceeded our present level of technology.

[VincentRJ]

I also tend to think, rightly or wrongly, that as time goes by, humankind is gradually evolving as a result of our better and more widespread education, and that not everything that was considered true and helpful during the time of the Buddha, is necessarily, equally true, appropriate and helpful in our modern era. I like to be able to pick and choose what makes sense.

Not an uncommon view ... but false IMHO. Our education nowadays is not getting better, because much of what is taught is untrue or useless. Knowledge is not synonymous with wisdom. Most knowledge is mundane ... just accumulation of useless facts (or fiction). An old farmer who never was educated could have much natural wisdom, whereas many University graduates are quite unwise.

Wisdom cannot be taught but must be learned, and doesn't evolve naturally.

It appeals to our ego to think we are superior in our knowledge than those who came before us... when in fact past civilizations have exceeded our present level of technology.

I think you have a very romanticised view of the past, Fabianfred. I've mentioned before that history usually does not provide us with many of the gory details of ordinary life in the past, as experienced by common folk and old farmers, whereas modern news reportage does an incessantly good job of highlighting every slight misdemeanor or accident, including unending details of the more serious crimes and conflicts.

As a result it becomes easy to get the false impression that conflicts and troubles in our modern era are getting worse as time goes by.

I consider myself very fortunate to have been born in a modern, civilized society. If I were given an imaginative 'science fiction' choice of repeating my current existence in Northern India at the time of the Buddha, or Palestine at the time of Jesus of Nazareth, or in modern Australia or Europe, I would definitely choose modern Australia or Europe, without a shadow of a doubt.

Of course, if time travel were possible, I'd love to be able to temporarily visit such places to record for myself the conditions of the past, and take a camera with me.

[camerata]

However, I do have a problem in accepting that all sensory input is a complete illusion.

The teaching is not that sensory input itself is an illusion, but that the results after processing the input do not reflect reality because we have added to it. What we get is sensory-input++. What's added is in effect opinions/biases resulting from genetic programming, socialization and life experiences.

I also have difficulty with the concept of the extinction of mind and ego. I think extinction is probably not the best word to use in this context. Something that becomes extinct is lost for ever. It cannot be brought back.

I would prefer to use words like 'quieten' or 'still' the mind.

Yes, stilling the mind is what happens. Before awakening, the mind continually thinks itself into existence (along with the "self"). Afterwards, the arahant can utilize the thinking mind as and when he wants or needs to.

It's probably true to say the ego is eradicated or dissolved. There are 10 fetters or mental chains (tying us to samsara) that have to be broken to attain nibbana:

1: personality-or-ego-belief sakkāya-ditthi,

2: sceptical doubt vicikicchā,

3: clinging to mere rules and ritual sīlabbata-parāmāsa, see: upādāna

4 sense-craving kāma-rāga.v.,

5 ill-will vyāpāda

6 craving for fine-material existence rūpa-rāga

7 craving for immaterial existence arūpa-rāga

8 conceit māna,

9 restlessness uddhacca,

10 ignorance avijjā.

I think 1 and 8 cover the modern word 'ego' pretty well.

[camerata]

10. All spiritual traditions are different paths to the same mountaintop

Many think of Buddhism as a tolerant religion, one that recognizes the value of all religious traditions. In recent years, there have been growing numbers of Buddhist-Christian dialogues and Buddhist-Jewish dialogues. The Dalai Lama has even commented on the gospels. This might suggest that Buddhism holds that all religions are one, that all spiritual paths lead to the same mountaintop. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[trd]

What is this Buddhism you refer to? Is it modern day Theravada. Is it Buddhist Tantra that was practised before the political decision was made in Thailand to revert to pure Theravada practices to present a more acceptable face to the West which thought that Vajrayana practices were too weird. Or is it Mahayana with its five schools. Which school would be the true school? Or is real Buddhism when the Dalai Lama consults the Nechung oracle, a disembodied spirit which temporarily inhabits the body of a monk and is consulted on matters of State or the whereabouts of new incarnations of Lamas. What would the Theravadins think of all that? So when you say that nothing could be further from the truth that Buddhism holds that all religions are one, which particular Buddhist truth are you referring to?

To say that all spiritual paths lead to the same mountaintop is meaningless. To either agree or disagree with that assertion is also meaningless.

To refer to all spiritual path suggests that you have an intimate knowledge of all possible spiritual paths and their outcomes.

To refer to a mountaintop which has not been seen, but is merely an idea, a concept, a belief or an aspiration of some distant goal based on practice, scripture, heresay, cultural exposure or association with supposed spiritual persons is also meaningless.

The statement is totally without merit or meaning.

Edited July 4, 2014 by trd

[camerata]

It's a quote from the linked Tricycle article. When Tricycle says, "Buddhism," they generally mean everything known as Buddhism. "All spiritual traditions are different paths to the same mountaintop" is a common misunderstanding about Buddhism (according to Tricycle), not a claim they are making. In the article, they attempt to debunk it:

http://www.tricycle.com/blog/one-way-nirvana

[trd]

I see. I read the whole article which puts that first paragraph into context and which matches my sentiments on the subject. Thanks.

[VincentRJ]

However, I do have a problem in accepting that all sensory input is a complete illusion.

The teaching is not that sensory input itself is an illusion, but that the results after processing the input do not reflect reality because we have added to it. What we get is sensory-input++. What's added is in effect opinions/biases resulting from genetic programming, socialization and life experiences.

Are you sure? The above view is just basic common sense from a Western Philosophy perspective. All sensory input is interpreted, at least slightly differently, depending on the characteristics of the recipient, and sometimes drastically differently if the recipient has a different cultural background, or, if the recipient is a different species to Homo Sapiens.

Perhaps incorrectly, I got the impression that Buddhism attempted to transcend such differences, and claim that all sensory input is fundamentally an illusion in relation to the absolute, or Nirvana.

[trd]

The word "illusion" is being used without an agreed definition.

In both Vedanta and Buddhist literature, "illusion" means that which appears and disappears, which is impermanent or always changing. This would apply to all sensory input whether interpreted or not. Reality (the unconditioned state) on the other hand is constant and unchanging. You cannot add to reality or subtract from it as it is beyond any form of conditionality and is totally complete within itself. By this definition, eveything in the relative field of existence is an illusion. However, if absolute unconditioned reality is everything there is, it must also include the illusory. So you could say that these illusions are neither real or unreal. It is a question of identification. Ignorance is thinking you are a mind and body and separate from the external world. Enlightenment is knowing you are the unchanging transcendent reality and the world is also you.

[camerata]

The above view is just basic common sense from a Western Philosophy perspective.

But the uniquely Buddhist aspect of this is that our conditioning prevents us from seeing the three characteristics of existence (anicca, dukkha, anatta) in ourselves and the phenomena around us:

To "see things as they really are" means seeing them consistently in the light of the three characteristics. Ignorance of these three, or self-deception about them, is by itself a potent cause for suffering — by knitting, as it were, the net of false hopes, of unrealistic and harmful desires, of false ideologies, false values and aims of life, in which man is caught. Ignoring or distorting these three basic facts can only lead to frustration, disappointment, and despair.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/wheel186.html