For Buddhists
- Thread starter radvermin
- Start date
rossum
Well-known member
You should ask a Buddhist how to meditate.
rossum
Well-known member
The Dhammapada summarises Buddhism as:That's an unexpected answer
Why is that?
To avoid all evil,
to cultivate good,
and to meditate –
this is the teaching of the Buddhas.
– Dhammapada 14:5
Generally other religions, and atheism, follow the first two more or less closely. Many lack the third: meditation. Learning to meditate would likely be the most helpful for non-Buddhists.
What's the goal of meditation?
*A child must walk before he can run. I however am an infant, so my questions are even more simple. I hope to run, someday.
rossum
Well-known member
Peace, happiness and the attainment of nirvana.
So I get how meditation can bring peace and happiness, so long as one does so in the right way.
Isn't nirvana like nothingness?
I don't mind the short answers, as I'm asking short questions
rossum
Well-known member
All descriptions of nirvana are false. They have to be, because any description will use words, and words are a human construct which are insufficient in this case.
A better expression for "nothingness" would be "does not possess a permanent essence or self." Buddhism denies the existence of any essence or self in anything; humans, gods and nirvana included. Anything which changes cannot have an unchanging essence or self. Humans change, gods change, nirvana changes and the world changes.
It is one of the characteristics of Buddhism that any form of permanent unchanging soul/essence is denied. Rather than the more common approach of seeing the world as basically unchanging with some appearance of change laid over it, Buddhism does the reverse. The world is always changing, though we can mistake slow changes as an appearance of permanence.
Our senses are imperfect, so we can be mistaken. A mirage is not water, it is a mirage. However, a mirage is not nothing either. It is something, but it is not what our senses are telling us.
Hi there
So different sort of questions.
1. If all descriptions of Nirvana are insufficient because words are a human construct, then why can we name it?
2. If our senses are imperfect, and you use it to not only learn about Buddhism but also the things that affirm Buddhism, how do you know that you're on the right path, if the very things that teach you that everything is a mirage is the very thing you use to confirm Buddhism?
3. Why can't things that change have a real self? I grow facial hair, and that's change, but I'm still me. Is this because it's just a teaching, like something you just have to accept, or is this based on some other teaching in Buddhism?
4. I've read elsewhere that you say we're already in Nirvana. So what is the relationship between Nirvana and enlightenment? I get that this is different than the Christian idea of Heaven (as a place you can go), but when I watch different shows, enlightenment is something that allows you to ascend to some other place, which I always thought was Nirvana. Kung Fu Panda comes to mind.
Been reading your other posts and doing my best to learn and understand.
Patiently looking forward to your reply.
Peace
rossum
Well-known member
Do you know the position and composition of every crystal in the rock of Mount Everest. The name "Mount Everest" is a place holder for an immense amount of information, most of which we don't know. It is a convenience.
Actions cause effects. The actions are judged by their effects. The Kalama sutta tells us to judge things for ourselves:
Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are bad; these things are blameable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them. ... Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blameable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them."
Anguttara Nikaya, 3.65
Anything that changes cannot be permanent. Hence a self cannot be permanent, but temporary and impermanent. Buddhism denies the existence of any permanent unchanging essence of anything, from gods to men to ants to grains of sand.
If the self/essence is permanent and the person is impermanent, then there are two different things; a single thing cannot be both. Our memory changes from minute to minute, so memory cannot be part of any unchanging essence. Similarly for many other things. Both our mind and body change. There is nothing permanent for any unchanging self/essence to attach to.
Enlightenment is when you realise that you are already in nirvana. The Buddha attained enlightenment at age 35. He died age 80. For 45 years he was living his life on earth, while at the same time being in nirvana. Nirvana is here and now. Just as we are always here, and the time is always now, so with nirvana.
Learn, understand and practice as well. Buddhism is a practical religion, it is up to you to do the work.
Fair enough.
That didn't answer my question. I think that might be a blind spot in Buddhism, as it is with Hard Solipsism. Do you need me to explain the question so you can try again, or do you want to leave this question alone?
That's also answering a different question than I asked. I actually read through all your posts on the immutability of God, and I think I got a good handle on it.
But my question was on you saying...
and then you said...
That this was right after the denial of the existence of self made me think that since things change they cannot exist. Like, just because something changes doesn't mean it doesn't exist... at least I don't see why one's existence is reliant on permanence.
Are you therefore enlightened, since you realize this?
This doesn't make much sense to me for a Buddhist to say in light of the some of the questions that I've raised. Hopefully with time I'll understand.
Thank you again for your time
rossum
Well-known member
It did, in a roundabout way. Certainly I do rely on my imperfect senses to learn what the path is. However, when I start on the path for myself I can see the results of my work, albeit imperfectly. I use my own (imperfect) judgement to assess the results of my actions, and adjust things as I go. As I progress on the path I learn to more easily recognise the effects of the imperfection in my senses and to make allowance for them. I learn to recognise a mirage as a mirage, not as water.
This will be a somewhat complex answer. Our brain does not directly sense anything, all it senses are electrical impulses in the various sensory nerves from eyes, ears etc. Our brain acts as a pattern recogniser, matching the incoming signals in the nerves to pre-existing patterns it has learned; this pattern is a tree, that pattern is a cloud etc. In our brains there is a vast library of patterns ready to be matched. As with a mirage, the pattern matching is not always right, Because of the imperfections of our senses the brain is working with a set of imperfect patterns. They are generally good, but they contain errors.
As an example, take spiders. Most people have a pattern for 'spider'. An arachnologist will have a lot more patterns, having learned to distinguish many different species of spider. An arachnophobe will have a 'fear' pattern attached to the 'spider' pattern, something which is not externally present in the spider, but is incorrectly attached to their internal 'spider' pattern.
An essence, self or soul is a reification of an internal pattern. It takes an internal mental construct and projects it out onto the real world as a really existing thing. That is an error. These patterns are purely internal to our brain, not external in the world. Commonly these reifications are assumed to be unchanging because our internal patterns are unchanging. The error there is that all the real entities, trees or clouds etc, are changing.
Meditation is a way to help analyse what is present in the real world and what is incorrect in our library of patterns. We examine the raw sense inputs, and our internal mental reactions to those inputs. By seeing where the mismatches are, we can improve our internal patterns, hence suffering less of a mismatch between what our internal patterns tell us and what the real world tells us.
The mismatch between our internal patterns and the external world is one of the causes of suffering.
Very definitely not.
Here's my thought on that.
"If something is imperfect, then you could be wrong, and if you could be wrong then you do not know."
For example, with regards to God, people who do not know whether or not God exists are called agnostic. They say that God may exist, they could be wrong, and because they could be wrong, they do not know.
If your senses (and I'll say reasoning is included) could be wrong, then you do not know that you're on the right path.
Thoughts?
Definitely complicated, but you explained it very well, I think (hope).
One of the questions that I think may be helpful to me is the question, "How would you answer the question 'Who am I?'" For me I would say I am a unique creation of God. But how would you answer that question?
Another question I have to help me understand is, "Does the soul/self not exist because it changes, or because it just doesn't exist?"
So how does one attain enlightenment if it's not the realization that we are already in Nirvana?
From what I read from you, it sounds to me that it's not so much about knowledge.
Thank you so much for taking the time to talk with me.
Blessings
rossum
Well-known member
As with Heraclitus, I cannot step in the same river twice. It is not the same river and I am not the same I. I am constantly changing with time, as the river is changing. When I take the second step, I have the memory of taking the first step. That memory was not present when I took the first step. My memory is part of my, so I have changed. I am not the same.
Buddhism emphasises change. Everything is changing, though some things change slowly.
The soul/self exists, but not in the way people usually think it does. I talked about the internal models in our brain. One of those models is our own model of ourselves. The soul is a projection of that internal model of ourself out into the real world, as if it had a real separate existence outside our head. The philosophical term is 'reification': projecting something internal out onto the external world.
Our internal model of ourselves does exist. The idea that it has a real external existence is an error. Naturally that model is imperfect and changing, as with all our internal models.
Okay, I think I understand. So when you said,
You more specifically meant that 'Buddhism denies the existence of any [unchanging] self in anything.'
Am I following correctly?
rossum
Well-known member
Yes. The classic introduction to the idea is the Chariot Simile taken from the discussion between Nagasena and King Milinda (aka Meneander).
Okay. Glad I'm getting the hang of this.
Different question:
Are the laws of logic unchanging?
rossum
Well-known member
Not so much unchanging, as you have various different sets of laws to choose between. Two-valued logic has true or false. Three valued logic has true, false and unknown. Four valued logic has true, false, both or neither. For an example of the last, a chessboard is not white, it is not black but it is both white and black.
So if logic is unchanging, then is it eternal?
Side question, does eternal mean that it always will exist and also has always existed, or just will always exist?
I have 2 more questions, if you're up for it.
Does Buddhism talk about how the illusion started?
And...
It seems like when the Buddha went on his path to enlightenment, he encountered many things. One after another conflicted with what he previously thought. These things led, eventually to him becoming enlightenment.
Does this mean that illusion can be a good thing?
If so, do illusions have a purpose?
(Please correct any misunderstanding I may have in my thinking).