Ten misconceptions about Buddhism

[VincentRJ]

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.

Trd,

I have a problem with the concept of a sensory input which is not interpreted. There's logically no such thing. If sensory input is not interpreted, for whatever reason, then it's not sensory input.

An example of sensory input which is not interpreted would be a completely blind person gazing at something. The reflected light from the object he is gazing at might be entering his eyeballs, but it's not interpreted because the person is blind. There is therefore no sensory input.

Ignorance is thinking you are a mind and body and separate from the external world.

Don't you think such statements are a bit over-simplistic, like concepts of good or bad? Does anyone really think they are completely separate from the external world? Surely there are many levels of understanding, in any person's mind, of degrees of separateness and degress of connectedness.

I consider myself separate, to a large degree, from the computer I'm using to write this, but not completely separate. My fingers connect with the keyboard, and I get various sensory inputs from the monitor, via sight, and from the keyboard, via touch.

If I were not separate from the computer in any way, then it follows if the computer were to suddenly break down, I would also break down. Of course, I don't. I remain calm and peaceful.

To the contrary, I imagine that those who would believe they are not separate from the external world, and think that their computer and themselves are one and the same, would be more likely to fly into a rage if their computer were to break down.

Am I twisting the meaning of words?

[trd]

I have a problem with the concept of a sensory input which is not interpreted. There's logically no such thing. If sensory input is not interpreted, for whatever reason, then it's not sensory input.

If you hear the sound of a bell, your mind will give it that label or interpretation because you have heard it before and it is stored in the mind as memory. But what of a sound you haven't heard before? Initially there will be the sensation of a sound without interpretation. But then the mind will start to try and categorize it by comparing it with something similar you have heard in the past.

Similarly, if you are thinking and you interrupt the process by asking, "Who am I", the mind will temporarily be suspended as there is no concrete, factual answer to the question. In that gap there will be just undifferentiated silent awareness without interpretation until the mind kicks in again and serves the apparent person you think you are with answers like, my name is Vincent, I live in Thailand etc etc.

Does anyone really think they are completely separate from the external world? Surely there are many levels of understanding, in any person's mind, of degrees of separateness and degress of connectedness.

Yes, most people think they are separate from the world. I am here and the tree is at the bottom of the garden.

Am I twisting the meaning of words?

Yes Edited July 8, 2014 by trd

[VincentRJ]

If you hear the sound of a bell, your mind will give it that label or interpretation because you have heard it before and it is stored in the mind as memory. But what of a sound you haven't heard before? Initially there will be the sensation of a sound without interpretation. But then the mind will start to try and categorize it by comparing it with something similar you have heard in the past.

Ah! I see the problem here. Your definition of 'interpretation' is a fully conscious process of verbalization, whereas my definition includes all processes of interpretation, whether subliminal, subconscious or unconscious.

There is so much sensory input which escapes our fully conscious processes. Without getting into deep Freudian-type analysis, a very simple example would be 'peripheral vision'.

Normal eyesight has a fairly narrow angle of view, in terms of a clear description or interpretation of what we see. However, peripheral vision includes a much wider angle of view which can detect movement, but not detail of the thing that moved.

The detection of movement is still an interpretation, although not a full interpretation.

Likewise, when we hear any sound, familiar or not, a basic, biological interpretation has, and must, take place in order for the sound to register in our mind. There may follow a range of further interpretations, associating an unfamiliar sound with some memory of a similar sound, or there may be no memory of a similar sound; in which case the sound may be interpreted as new and unique.

Similarly, if you are thinking and you interrupt the process by asking, "Who am I", the mind will temporarily be suspended as there is no concrete, factual answer to the question. In that gap there will be just undifferentiated silent awareness without interpretation until the mind kicks in again and serves the apparent person you think you are with answers like, my name is Vincent, I live in Thailand etc etc.

Not in my experience. I've long understood that a person is a combination of his genetic make-up plus every experience and thought (or meme) that he/she has been been exposed to from his time in the womb to the present moment.

Why am I impressed with the Kalama Sutta? Partly because my parents were agnostic (or perhaps atheists) and because my education was science oriented, and partly because of other reasons which are not readily apparent to me.

For opposite reasons, I imagine a Muslim, brought up in a devoutly religious family, would have no regard for the Kalama Sutta, and perhaps even consider it offensive.

We're all subjects of our conditioning. That's the problem.

[trd]

Your interpretation of "interpretation" is not relevant to realisation.

If it is not your experience of a suspension of mind when asking the question, "who am I", you are simply not looking hard enough. There is no other explanation.

Edited July 8, 2014 by trd

[trd]

Actually what you have said is quite interesting because you totally deny the possibility of escaping the conditioned mind. Therefore for you, Buddhism cannot be a means to liberation, so it is presumbly just an intellectual curiosity.

[VincentRJ]

Your interpretation of "interpretation" is not relevant to realisation.

Everything is an interpretation, including your interpretation of 'realisation'.

[VincentRJ]

Actually what you have said is quite interesting because you totally deny the possibility of escaping the conditioned mind. Therefore for you, Buddhism cannot be a means to liberation, so it is presumbly just an intellectual curiosity.

The first step in escaping the conditioned mind is the realisation that it is conditioned. The final escape may be a long and gradual process as we become increasingly aware of the ways in which our mind has become conditioned, and how our actions and behaviour are a response to that past conditioning.

[trd]

Your interpretation of "interpretation" is not relevant to realisation.

Everything is an interpretation, including your interpretation of 'realisation'.

Absolutely not! Realisation is not subject to interpretation of any kind. That is the whole point. Realisation is unconditioned.

You are free to accept or reject what I say. That is up to you. You have your own life to live. You have to make your own decisions and walk your own path.

[VincentRJ]

Your interpretation of "interpretation" is not relevant to realisation.

Everything is an interpretation, including your interpretation of 'realisation'.

Absolutely not! Realisation is not subject to interpretation of any kind. That is the whole point. Realisation is unconditioned.

You are free to accept or reject what I say. That is up to you. You have your own life to live. You have to make your own decisions and walk your own path.

Just for the record, here are a few definitions of the English word 'realization', taken from the Oxford English dictionary.

1a. The action of making real or investing with reality; the process of becoming or being made real; conversion into real fact.

b. A case or instance of this.

c. An instance or embodiment of an abstract group, as the set of symmetry operations or the like, of some object or set. (As in maths)

d. A particular series which might be generated by a specified random process. (As in statistics)

2a. The action of forming a clear and distinct concept, or the concept thus formed.

b. The phonetic, phonological, graphic or syntactic manifestations of a linguistic unit, structure or set of features. (As in linguistics)

3a.The action of converting (paper money, property etc.) into a more available form, chiefly applied to the sale of stock, or of a bankrupt's estate, in order to obtain the money value.

b. The action of obtaining or acquiring (a sum of money, a fortune etc.).

4. The action of completing or enriching the texture of a piece of music left sparsely notated by a composer; also a piece of music so completed or enriched.

Whilst some of these definitions above are a bit specialized, there's no reference to 'realization' in a Buddhist context.

I suppose 'self-realization' in a Hindu context would imply knowledge of the true self beyond both delusion and identification with material phenomena. However, in a Buddhist context I see a contradiction in terms. Since Buddhism denies the existence of a separate self, there can be no self-realization.

In fact, since 'realization' is a process that occurs in the mind, there can be no true and factual realization of anything in Buddhism, because the mind is an illusion and all realizations are dependent upon the existence of a mind.

Perhaps you can explain, Trd, how it is possible to have any realization or any awareness, of anything whatsoever, without a mind.

Edited July 9, 2014 by VincentRJ

[trd]

I am speaking of Self realization. Anatta, (not self) is misunderstood. Buddha used the term to illustrate that the idea of a personal self is an illusion. However, that poses the question as to whether there is something permanent. Mainstream Buddhists, particularly Theravadins, don't address this very well. Most of the emphasis is on that which is impermanent. There is much more focus on what it is that is permanent in the Vedic teachings. If Buddha used the term "not self" to describe the impermanent, does that by implication point to something which is Self?

It may surprise you to discover he did speak of this.

In the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, Buddha says,

The Self (ātman) is reality (tattva), the Self is permanent (nitya), the Self is virtue (guna), the Self is eternal (śāśvatā), the Self is stable (dhruva), the Self is peace (siva).

http://www.nirvanasutra.net

http://www.bu.ac.th/knowledgecenter/epaper/jan_june2010/pdf/Page_47.pdf

Perhaps you can explain, Trd, how it is possible to have any realization or any awareness, of anything whatsoever, without a mind.

Mind is just a bundle of thoughts. Are you thinking all the time? No you are not. But you miss what remains in the absence of thought. You pay no heed to the permanent screen of awareness on which these impermanent images are projected as mere fleeting reflections of your true nature. The true Self. This is beyond your current understanding. It will always be beyond your understanding until you realise that there is nothing to understand. It is in the letting go, the surrendering of all concepts that results in the ultimate understanding of just being as you are.

[VincentRJ]

I'm very good at letting go, and not doing anything. You should speak to my ex-wife.

[sabaijai]

Please name one Buddhist "holy war."

Not only that some Buddhists have their own holy wars, but in America some people seem to think that you can use Buddhist practices to make better soldiers:

I read somewhere that the American army want to use meditation as a means to make the soldiers more able to handle the stresses of warfare.

I fear there may be some unexpected side effects when the soldiers in their foxholes start losing their hate for the enemy and begin to see more clearly what a madness the whole thing is.

I will name you two buddhist "holy wars".

Myanmar.

Sri Lanka.

Although Buddhist Burma and Thailand fought several wars they were not wars fought about faith but territory. The violence in Myanmar and Sri Lanka between Buddhists and Muslims are incited by feelings of threat to the status quo.

IMHO one who does not do their best to keep the five precepts are only pretend Buddhists. Anyone involved in violence is not really Buddhist at all since they are not following the teachings of the Buddhas. I'm sure there are many good Buddhists in both Countries who shake their heads and have no wish to get involved.

I would consider the Bodu Bala Sena (Buddhist Power Army) movement in Sri Lanka as Buddhist holy war, not unlike the reformist jihad movements of radical Islam.

Bhikkhu Wirathu and his 969 movement in Myanmar are not far off.

[Maggusoil]

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

If you have something to say, why take the rhetorical route?

Or are you just a fool like us?