Tagged: non-dualism Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 7:41 am on August 31, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , innocence, , , non-dualism,   

    Buddhism in the Balance: Right Thoughts, Right Action 

    The wisest person has the mind of a child: always open, always learning. Of course, there are also many types of wisdom that accrue with age, so the perfect balance is just that: a perfect balance. And that’s the hardest part, of course, walking that fine line between two opposite extremes, in order to find that sweet spot that ultimately transcends them both. But that’s what Buddhism is all about, first and foremost, in its highest mode of being, the Middle Path, central to its foundation.

    Meditation is the paradigm of that open child-like mind, to the point that even thoughts should be scared to show their silly faces there, begging for attention and generally making a nuisance of themselves. But I’m being generous on the subject of thoughts and thinking. Many Buddhists, but especially ‘non-dualists’, reject all thought as being of little use and no more than a distraction. But the Buddha promoted ‘right thought’, i.e. good thoughts, and I totally agree with that.

    It’s disturbing that many ‘spiritual’ people are so ready to ‘throw out the baby with the bathwater,’ so to speak, assuming that if our evil thoughts cause so many problems, then all thoughts must be evil. Nothing could be further from the truth, of course. Thoughts have revolutionized the course of human history and propelled us into an era largely peaceful and progressive, at least compared to what came before. You don’t have to study much history before you realize that no matter how bad things are now, they’ve been much worse before. Walk that fine line between innocence and experience for the highest wisdom.   

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 4:06 am on January 20, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Branhmanism, , Divine Feminine, , , , , , , non-dualism, , , ,   

    Buddhism and the Divine Feminine  

    Is a creator God a product of patriarchy? Probably. Buddhism doesn’t need it, regardless. Buddhism embodies the Divine Feminine, whether it knows it or not. This goes way back, of course, even before the Abrahamic religions, at least as far back as the Sanskrit-era Dyaus Pitr (think Deus Pater) ‘Sky Father’ of the proto-Hindu Rigveda, and probably before that. But Sky Father was always with Earth Mother Prithvi Mata, and that pretty much defines the Hindu/Buddhist dichotomy that dominated the philosophical debates of 500 BCE India, Hinduism the more male-dominant principle, Buddhist the more female-dominant. 

    And this is important, even if it is seldom stated, or even acknowledged, given the lesser status of Buddhist nuns, in comparison to their male counterparts. But it’s there, and it’s true, from what I can see, and that is good. It means that Buddhism is non-agressive, and that is purpose-built, in stark opposition to the early Brahmanistic war god Indra, which Buddhism refuses to acknowledge as its heritage. It also means that Buddhism is more concerned with down-to-earth issues of kindness, and craving, than abstract considerations of dualism vs. non-dualism. 

    Thus, Buddhism embodies many of the qualities often associated with the ‘divine feminine,’ such as ‘intuition, nurturing, creativity, empathy, and wisdom’ (www.anahana.com). So, it should be unnecessary to say that Buddhism is not a conquering religion, unless you count the hearts and minds conquered, not bodies inscribed with epithets and enlisted in future wars with imaginary enemies. Buddhism is better than that. Conquer yourself and you will have conquered the world, your world… 

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 3:09 am on October 21, 2023 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , arahat, , , , , , , , , , non-dualism, , , ,   

    Buddhism 201: Theravada and Mahayana  

    Buddhism in Bhutan

    The difference between Theravada and Mahayana is the difference between Self and Other, if there is one. If you’re a ‘non-dualist,’ then there is none, though that defies common-sense logic, which seems to show a diversity of disparate objects. So, that is the point of the new religion, I suppose, to unify existence, since you gotta’ have something to believe in for a religion to have its raison d’etre. But Buddhism wasn’t concerned with such metaphysical stretches, or at least not in the beginning, though Mahayana was the evolution of a more metaphysical stage of Buddhism.  

    That coincided with a geographical transition from India toward Central Asia and then China, and which also coincided with the evolution of Taoism, so more fertile ground to plow right then and there. If the origins of early Buddhism were all about a debate (and competition) with the Brahmanists and Jains of India, then the evolution of Mahayana was all about a competition with the Taoists in China. By that time, with the shunyata ‘emptiness’ doctrine of Nagarjuna, Buddhist and Taoist metaphysics were not far apart, the main difference between the two apparently that the Buddhists were—and are—far superior meditators.  

    And if Theravadan anatta had evolved into Mahayana shunyata, then Theravadan arahats had evolved into Mahayanan bodhisattvas, the spiritually enlightened beings who forego nirvana until everyone is ready for that final step. Arahats were more content to keep it to themselves, each at his own pace. But the issue of Self and Other is a non-issue if there is no substantive Self; so how could there be a substantive Other? Still, we live our lives in the common-sense world of apparently diverse beings, and so it is there that we must find solutions to common-sense problems. My conclusion? Save yourself, and then save the world. Good luck out there. 

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 5:07 am on September 10, 2023 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , mindlessness, miondfulness, non-dualism, , ,   

    Buddhism 499: Washing Dishes… 

    I don’t wash dishes to wash dishes. I wash dishes to get them clean, over and over and over. It can be very meditative. And, of course, that’s what Thich Nhat Hahn meant in his famous quote about “washing dishes to wash dishes,” that that is a meditation in itself, every bit the equal of a walking meditation or even a guided meditation, if not the original cross-legged lotus-pose figure-eight (Thai) immortalized in countless imagery over the ears and centuries, showcasing rishis and maharishis and yogis and sannyasis and vairagis and countless other practitioners of eclectic ascetic disciplines who never wanted to be showcased in the first place. Most just want to be left alone to meditate.  

    But few have that luxury, since even the most renunciant of yogis still must eat sometime, even if that requires leaving the cave to go into town and beg for it. For most Theravada Buddhists, that is the stylized ritual that forms the foundation for their existence in society, if not the world itself, for which meditation is perhaps the precursor to all. And yes, that is usually best done in the silent and still sitting position, for which the only requirement is just that: be silent and be still. Whatever goes on in your mind is your business, unfortunately. But modern Buddhism has brought many new ways, and so the old ways must re-invent themselves, also, to stay relevant to new Buddhist adepts.  

    Thus, the TNH invocation to get your meditation wherever you can find it. Mindfulness must be careful not to drift into mindlessness, however, and ‘washing dishes to wash dishes’ comes dangerously close to that, as if there is nothing really to be accomplished in the world and all such efforts are equally destined to fail. The Buddha never said that. But many ‘non-dualists’ do. I don’t. That is a luxury I can’t afford. So, if TNH’s message is to take your meditation where you find it, my message is to make the world a better place, also, in your short time on this piece of earth. Don’t be obsessed with it and/or possessed by it, but don’t waste the opportunity, either. 

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 12:04 am on May 28, 2023 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , no self, non-dualism,   

    Buddhist No-self (Anatta) and Non-Dualism  

    The Buddhist concept of “No self”, Anatta, doesn’t mean to imply passivity and no confidence. But it does imply non-aggression and no selfishness. Remember the middle path. But this is one of the oldest and thorniest problems that Buddhism has had to deal with, and the modern repercussions are almost as absurd. Back in the old days, 2500 years ago, or so, Brahmanism was consolidating its doctrines of a cosmic Brahman and a cosmic Atman, reality and self, whose highest goal was to unite in some sort of cosmic union… 

    But the Buddha came along and said something like, “Meh,” declaring that the idea of a cosmic self, whether individual or universal, was not only not likely, but wrong. And thus began the Buddhist doctrine of anatta, which was never intended to argue that you and I don’t even exist, but just not in any permanent way. Well, now the ‘Non-dualists” come along and say no, you don’t exist at all, just something like a collective figment of imagination that asserts itself through the power of repetition, so something like a cloud Matrix. 

    But reality is reality, and science doesn’t support the non-dualist conclusion, any more than it supports the original Hindu idea of Brahman and Atman in cosmic union. But science can support the Buddhist attitude, as long as it avoids superstitions (not always easy) and sticks to asking the right questions in order to avoid contentious answers. Ego is a term I usually avoid, though, given the historical circumstance that Freud has forever made in changing our use of that term.

    And that is something which the ‘ancients’ could’ve had no knowledge of, and which is about as familiar to the modern American as quantum mechanics. Passivity has been something of a problem for Buddhism, though, and that is not a desirable conclusion except for monks, possibly. But most of us live and navigate the real world, and it’s nice if we can make that a bit better, without being obsessive about it. As always, the best path is the middle one… 

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 8:41 am on March 25, 2023 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Drake Equation, , non-dualism,   

    The Lessons of Life and the Lessons of Buddhism  

    Sometimes the worst disasters teach the best lessons. And this itself is one of the most sublime lessons of Buddhism, if never the easiest to embrace, that all of our most elaborate plans will certainly fall apart, sooner or later, in part if not wholly. We will be left with whatever remains, and we should be prepared to deal with it. That doesn’t mean elaborate rituals to be done or the best insurance to be had, simply a willingness to move on with whatever life brings and letting go of any pretense to authority over things we can’t control. 

    Now, I certainly won’t go as far as many ‘non-dualists,’ and neither would the Buddha, in asserting that, essentially, we are nothing, neither doer nor actor nor creator, simply witnesses to that over which we have no control, which is almost everything. I won’t go that far. I’d only say that it’s limited, and all pretenses otherwise are extremely il-advised. The Buddha made it clear that we are composite beings on the best of days, however intelligent, and much less than that quite often. We are not Gods nor even masters of our own domains.  

    As a firm follower of science, but not necessarily a believer, I give us all the credits due any featherless biped, and much more, since it’s not yet proven that there are any more of us ‘out there,’ unless they are related to us, or until we find at least one. The Drake Equation is logic, not evidence. No, I believe that this species is unique, as are each and every one of us, with our own DNA and fingerprints. But that doesn’t give us any special rights to command others and the universe. We are children of this universe. Enjoy.  

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 10:58 am on January 7, 2023 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , non-dualism, , ,   

    Buddhist Emptiness and the Path to Infinity… 

    Christians cling to abundance the way that Mahayana Buddhists cling to Emptiness. The truth probably lies somewhere in between. So, the appearance of exact conceptual opposition may be more apparent than real. Or maybe I’m obsessed with the reconciliation of these two opposites. The short story on Buddhist shunyata, i.e. ‘Emptiness’ (maybe not the best translation), is that it’s a logical conclusion to the previous early Buddhist insistence on anatta, i.e. ‘non-self’, in which not only is a permanent non-changing self not real, but in fact nothing is now real, not in the sense of something permanent.

    The problem is that the next logical conclusion to the previous logical conclusion is the very illogical conclusion that nothing is real in any sense, which is likely far from what the Buddha intended, thus leading to Zen, non-dualism, and other ersatz religions perfect for artists, intellectuals, and other spiritual seekers for whom simple silent meditation will never be enough. And I mean no insult to them, for whom I hold much sympathy and synchronicity, only that such lofty metaphysics are best for debates and dialectics, not for universal belief systems that might change the course of civilization.

    And to do that we’ll need to somehow reconcile the apparent opposites of West and East, Christianity and Buddhism. Emptiness might help here. For Christians are as obsessed with Infinity and Eternity (read ‘no limits’) as they are with abundance, an obvious similarity. You want infinity? Want eternity? Want a world without limits? No problem, it’s all around you. There’s only one problem: it’s empty. If you want stuff, then restrictions apply. Now if we can only sell Christians on the concept of conceptual abundance, not physical stuff, then we might have something. Stay tuned…

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 10:41 am on January 1, 2023 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , by-passing, , , hungry ghost, non-dualism, observer effect, , , , ,   

    Buddhism and the Observer Effect… 

    The one who can control himself, can control the world—his world…

    The more you look for the beauty in this world, the more that you will find. Which, if that sounds self-intuitive, is certainly worth a reiteration, and possibly, a fresh new look. Because, the danger is to take this intuitive truth to its illogical conclusion, and thereby decide that nothing truly exists. This is what the ‘non-dualists’ and even some Buddhists do, and in making a conundrum of existence, essentially make it non-workable, in that nothing gets done, simply because there is no longer any reason to do it…

    The subjective nature of perception is obvious and its contribution to our further conceptions of reality well-documented in the ‘observer effect,’ which makes a mockery of measurement, and, in return, our reliance on science. But does that mean that all Science is unreliable? No, of course not. Does that mean that there is no objective truth? Not necessarily. Does that mean that ‘Buddhism is True?’ Haha, silly book title…

    The cognitive bias of our own subjectivity is itself measurable and can usually be factored into any equation that lends itself to a margin for error. And, considering that the effect shows up in physics, psychology, and even sociology, its impact is notable. That is, like gravity, it can not only bring us down, haha, but it can bend and distort the very nature of our existence. But, what does this have to do with Buddhism?

    Buddhism, especially in its earliest days, long before Emptiness and Zen and Hungry Ghosts, was known mostly for its training of the mind, for the simple purpose of taking a sad situation and making it better, simply by readjusting the usual reactions. And, while this can subject Buddhism to charges of ‘bypassing’ and passivity, it can also have good results to great effect. Regardless, the important point is to balance this with empirical objective information for best results. The world tends to look best at sunrise and sunset, as every photographer knows, wink wink, something about the nature of light and our need for it. Happy New Year!

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 12:05 pm on October 30, 2022 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , non-dualism, , , Right Thought, Samma sankapppa   

    The Role of Thought in Buddhism… 

    The Buddha never taught or recommended No Thought, an idea popular in some Buddhist and all ‘non-dualistic’ groups, which should be labeled ‘non-pluralistic,’ btw, just saying. The Buddha taught Right Thought, samma samkappa. But don’t thoughts sometimes just pop up? Yes, they do. the issue here is not one of ownership, though, but the true nature of thoughts and feelings. For some reason, we tend to trust our feelings, but reserve much suspicion toward our thoughts. But are they any different, really?

    So, maybe they are as different as heart and head, but is that any different, either, really? Because those bodily locations have only been known since recently, but the concept of Mind, as citta, has been known since almost forever, and certainly since the time of Buddha. Indeed, during the Buddha’s time, and even later, there was considerable debate in Greece, and possibly India, over the location of the origin of thought, such that Plato placed it at or in the brain, while his student Aristotle placed it firmly in the heart.

    And if it seems obvious that the source of all sensations originating in the eyes, ears, nose, and mouth could only logically be mixed and matched somewhere nearby such as the gray matter that constitutes a brain, then it is equally plausible that the center could be where the pathways of the blood start and finish, itself perhaps the mechanism for mixing and matching those sensations into more complex feelings and thoughts. Modern neuroscience has come a long way since then, of course, but still we ‘listen to our hearts,’ even if we prefer to ‘use our brains’ for the heavy lifting, intellect being generally considered superior to intuition.  

    That distinction is sometimes used to differentiate men and women, to generally ill effect, but the fact remains that the two activities are intertwined. But to imagine that thoughts have no proper human origin nor intention, per the ‘non-dualist’ screed, is absurd and counterproductive, and for what purpose it is not clear. Even if Buddhism is technically non-dualist, in the sense that ‘we are one with everything’ like the joke about the monk ordering hot dogs, the modern ‘non-dualists’ go much too far in asserting that we are therefore nothing. That may pay well in the online debates, but it’s not what the Buddha said, and that is my only concern. Think good thoughts.

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 10:47 am on May 22, 2022 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Brahmanist, , , George Harrison, , , , , non-dualism, ,   

    Self, Ego, Identity, or the Lack Thereof in Buddhism… 

    Permanent self and immortal soul are a convenient fiction, but a fiction, nevertheless. And this is what the whole ‘no-self’ on ‘non-self’ debate is all about, or at least WAS. And if it’s disturbing enough that that principle is often misrepresented, it’s downright ridiculous that there is often even a debate over the preference or appropriateness of ‘non-self’ vis a vis ‘no-self.’ But the issue is very clear within the historical context of the competition and ongoing debate between the Brahmanists, Buddhists, and Jains way back some 2500 years ago.

    And the reverb echoes even today when George Harrison opines during his last days that these souls go on forever, so death is essentially meaningless. And whatever qualms you might have about such a statement from a scientific viewpoint would hopefully be secondary to the hope and optimism that it might do for you in the short-term of this life span. But it’s very popular now amongst ‘non-dualists’ as much or more than Buddhists to claim that thoughts have no thinker and actions have no doer. They even claim that the Buddha said that, but if so, then I can’t name the sutra, and even if he did it was likely in a metaphorical usage.

    Because Buddhism in general is nothing if not mental training, and so to conclude that there is nothing there, nothing at all, would seem counterintuitive. But that is the modern ‘non-dualist’ assertion, that any and all self-identity is detrimental to one’s spiritual well-being. And that may or may not be true, but I don’t think the Buddha said that, because it would render the Eightfold Path pointless. When you believe in yourself, don’t believe too much, just enough to accomplish what you need, not enough to inflate your ego. That’s the Middle Path between excess and lack…

     

← Older posts

c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel