I don't know that all Buddhists reject the caste system or that it is a tenet of the faith to do so — thewonder

It's a matter of fact. The Buddha never recognised castes or discriminated on the basis of caste. He adopted the term 'brahmin', which means for Hindus 'born into the priestly caste', to mean 'those of noble behaviour' thereby explicitly denying the notion of birth-right.

An Unreal Experience

I climbed the Himalayas, long ago,
While traveling for the Army DIA to be,
And complained to the wise Lama
Up there that life could be hell.

He said “Get lost!
Go make a heaven of hell and then me tell.
The door is never shut on the prison cell,
So, why would you ever want to stay inside it
When the exit is always wide open.”

A week passed, then a month, and then 31 years,
And I found myself at a Buddhist-run cafe,
In New Hamburg, NY, and decided to sit there
Through most of the summer,
Having just retired from IBM,
And becoming as free as a neutrino.

The cafe was run by the Buddha Girls
From the monastery on Shafe Road,
Home to one of only two Lamas
In the entire United States,
And the only one on the east coast.

The cafe was called
“Himalayas on the Hudson”,
And the Lama often came to dine there,
With his entourage of higher-ups and bodyguards.

Because I was there often,
I got to know the old Lama,
His bodyguards ever retreating,
And so I taught him how to do
High fives and low fives and such,
And we began to talk about
The connectedness that underlies all things,
The reaching of which meditative state
Through the removal of all thoughts
Being the very heart of Buddhism.

In addition, I always gave him the weather
For the rest of the day and for the next day,
Always saying that
It would become sunny if it was raining,
And that it would be still sunny
If it was already sunny,
And if it was really raining heavily,
That it was always sunny on the inside.

I remember,
Thinking upon first meeting him
That “here he is”, the great one,
And so I have a chance to ask
A deep question of him,
Without having to go back over to
Tibet or India and climb up a mountain,
So, I pointed to an article
In the newspaper that said,
“We may never know who won
The Presidential election, Bush or Gore”
And so I asked him for his wisdom on the matter.

Well, he thought for only a second or two and said,
“Who cares!”, and such it sunk into me a bit later
That this was a great wisdom, indeed.

The Cafe workers didn’t wear the flowing gold
And reddish robes that the Buddhists wore,
But wore regular clothes and even had long hair,
And so, many of the hectic type customers,
Unknowing of their servers’ Buddhism,
Wondered at the peace and joy
That the workers radiated,
As if they were in some sort of serenity field,
Which I suppose the workers were,
Plus they being chosen for their outgoingness.

I talked with them about string theory,
The theory that the differing vibrations
Of really small ‘strings’ gives rise
To all of the elementary particles and forces,
And, so, we related this to all that is absolute
And fundamental beneath this projection
Of reality in which we live out life dreams.

Buddhism is not a religion, but a way of life,
And Buddhists can still have friends,
Outside jobs, fun, sex, and whatnot,
Although some of them spend a lot of time
On the inner world, which, like meditation,
Can only be known as “not what you think”.

Summer soon died in his sleep one night,
And so Time hurled its waves ever onward

Until even Old Autumn had passed on.

The cafe had now been rented out,
Having become an American-Korean restaurant
Run by Sin-Ha and Su-Nee,
Although still owned by the Buddhists.

Winter had snowed us in.

In late spring, the Cafe, still my ‘office’,
Announced that it was closing down,
Right away, for it could talk,
Although its Garden of Peace and Serenity,
Surrounded on three sides by 30-foot rocks,
The “Himalayas”, was still open,
And so I figured that it was time
To move my “office” outdoors,
Not that I would ever do any W-O-R-K there,
For that is a four-letter word to a retired person.

Then, miracles of miracles, that day,
After saying good-bye to the Koreans
And taking home 50 eggs
And many bags of chocolate chip cookies,
I went back to the Cafe garden
To sit under an umbrella table in the rain,
And there was the old Lama himself,
Sitting there, all alone,
Having just shown the building
To someone who might lease it.

I hadn’t seen him in six months,
For he had been off to other continents.

He gave me a medium high five
And I told him that the sun would be out tomorrow,
And that it was always sunny on the inside.
He said, “Thanks, old friend.”

“Re-leasing the building?”

“Yes, probably, but we’d like sell it.
Perhaps Buddhists shouldn’t be in business.”

“Well, it worked as a kind of outreach,
When you ran it,
And the Koreans liked it for a while.”

“True.”

“How’s the new golden temple going?”

“It’s about half completed.
We need another three million dollars.”

“Hmmm.”

“Yes, I know.
Perhaps Buddhists shouldn’t be looking for money,
Nor building a golden temple that’s not really real.”

“Yes, I’ve heard that this world isn’t really real,
That we shouldn’t worry about the rain
Or about life’s tribulations.”

“That’s what we believe.
Tell me, does that work?”

“Well, um, does not life’s existence
Look, seem, and act just the way it would,
In every detail, as if it were really real?”

“Yes, indeed. Exactly.
That’s what they say makes for the great illusion.”

“I hate to say this,
But a ‘difference’
That makes no difference
Is no difference.”

“I think you’re onto something.”

And that makes sense to you?
— praxis

Sure, in the context. There is not a single thing that exists independently or in isolation from everything else. — Wayfarer

This “continual and enduring personality” that you speak of apparently does. Where does this thing exist? Let me guess, it exists in a ‘formless realm’. The whole point of a formless realm is to put things that exist independently or in isolation from everything else.

Where does this thing exist? Let me guess, it exists in a ‘formless realm’. — praxis

No, it exists in relationship.

Well, okay. Perhaps I shouldn't be so negative. What is there to gain by only seeing what is negative about other worldviews?

Where does this thing exist? Let me guess, it exists in a ‘formless realm’.
— praxis

No, it exists in relationship. — Wayfarer

“Relationship” isn’t a where, but you know that of course.

You’re not doing a good job at appearing that this stuff actually makes sense to you. If it made sense to you then you’d be able to talk about it freely and sensibility, rather than behaving like you’re trying to conceal nonsense.

Perhaps I shouldn't be so negative. What is there to gain by only seeing what is negative about other worldviews? — thewonder

I'm sure there are many things that can be criticized about Buddhism as a cultural phenomenon. But it is originally based on a critical philosophy.. There's a good argument that the original Greek scepticism was based on contact between Greek travellers and Buddhists in Gandhara (then part of the Alexandrian empire.)

Interesting. I'll have to look into that at some point.

Here is one source. Google 'pyrrho and Buddhism' for many more.

I'll be taking a class on Ancient Philosophy in the fall and so may take you up on this. I'll be leaving here then, though.

It might not come up - depending on the school. It's not mainstream. There's a book by an art historian, name of Thomas McEvilly, called the Shape of Ancient Thought, which presents an extremely detailed case for strong mutual influence between ancient Greek and Indian philosophy via the Silk Road. But again, you could study both Eastern and Ancient Greek philosophy and not be told about it.

I think from a very high-level view, what's interesting about it is the connection between the suspension of belief and ecstatic states ('ecstatic' meaning 'outside the normal stasis'.) In the West,because of the way religion developed, it is natural to assume that religious philosophies imply acceptance of dogma. But the yogic/meditative traditions are not necessarily dogmatic in that sense, they are based on insight and highly refined states of attention, although in practice this often goes hand in hand with dogmatic elements.

In the class that I took on Gnosticism, it was suggested that Buddhism had an influence on the Gnostic depiction of Christ. That's probably the extent of my knowledge on the connection between Buddhism and Ancient Greece which doesn't have too much to do with the subject at hand altogether. I had never heard of the connection between the suspension of belief and ecstatic states. That sounds fairly interesting. I like the concept of ekstasis. You don't really have to concede the point as I have already retracted my former position.

Beware Siddartha’s “middle way”. Buddha led the most foundational times of his life to the extremes, in both extreme opulence and extreme poverty. Surely that factored into his enlightenment more than any middle way.

Beware Siddartha’s “middle way”. Buddha led the most foundational times of his life to the extremes, in both extreme opulence and extreme poverty. Surely that factored into his enlightenment more than any middle way. — NOS4A2

This is a good point. Harkens back to the epigram “Life is a journey.” If Siddhartha had not experienced the extremes, would he have attained enlightenment? Perhaps ‘enlightenment’ can be achieved through many different paths, and it’s a destination that results in a ‘middle way’ lifestyle.

Weird to accept that there is “enlightenment,” and that there’s a method to achieve enlightenment, by the mere authority of a man, and then doubt the method he laid out.

:lol: I guess it is weird when you put it that way! I don’t really know what enlightenment is actually. I was trying to give some comfort to Wallows.

Well, even Buddhists don’t know what enlightenment is so you’re in good company.

On the contrary, the depiction of the Buddha’s awakening in the early Buddhist texts is crystal clear, although nobody here seems to have read any of them.

Soooooooo.... what is it?

If you get a straight answer that is coherent and plausible I'll eat my (filthiest) hat! :joke:

It might be useful to spell out where the word ‘enlightenment’ comes from. It was the term chosen to translate the Buddhist word ‘bodhi’ (Sanskrit: बोधि ) by the founder of the Pali Text Society, T. W. Rhys Davids. He chose it partially because it was suggestive of the way the word was used in relation to the European Enlightenment, as he was of the view that Pali Buddhism (the Buddhism preserved in the texts in that language) was indeed an ‘enlightened religion’ compatible with science. This he contrasted with both other forms of Buddhism (e.g. Tibetan or Mahāyāna) and with Christianity, which he thought had been corrupted by dogma and superstition.

In any case, ‘bodhi’ is often translated as ‘wisdom’ although like a lot of Buddhist terms, there is no direct synonym.

As regards the meaning of the word, it is not something that can be conveyed easily, i.e. it takes some reading and reflection to understand its import. The idea needs to be understood in the cultural context in which it developed, which is very different to our own. But there are plenty of internet resources and a plethora of books around nowadays, maybe a good starting point would be Access to Insight. The Buddha's self-description of the awakening is taken from the Dhammapada:

Through the round of many births I roamed
without reward,
without rest,
seeking the house-builder.
Painful is birth
again & again.

House-builder, you're seen!
You will not build a house again.
All your rafters broken,
the ridge pole destroyed,
gone to the Unformed, the mind
has come to the end of craving.

As to what the 'unformed' is, that is another term for the 'unconditioned, unmade, unfabricated'. And what that is, is again difficult to convey, but that there is an 'unconditioned, unmade, unfabricated' is central to all schools of Buddhism. But here you run up against the difficulty that many of the key principles of Buddhism are not really conceptual in the modern sense of being able to be conveyed in words or formulae, which again is why it takes some study to understand.

If you can’t say what something is then it’s safe to say that you don’t know what that thing is. That’s not a problem in religion, in fact it may be a requirement.



Aren’t you the big risk taker. :grin:

What, exactly, is the difference between the way in which an atheist materialist views brain death, and parinibbana?

Functionally, they are identical, no?

The ending of this life with no new rebirth (because there exists neither craving nor ignorance in the arahant).
You don't go anywhere beyond death because there was no substantial "you" to begin with (just a process sustained by brain function/dependently originated khandas).

As far as I can tell, the Buddha refused to answer the question as to where we go after death (I assume because the question itself assume a view of a substantial self).

Removing ignorance! — hillsofgold

Shooting from the hip, here, until @Wayfarer checks in, I'd say that "ignorance" can refer to not knowing everything, or not knowing anything. Socrates apparently achieved what I think is the kind of knowledge in question when he finally decoded the Oracle's message to him that he was the wisest man, in understanding that he alone was the man who knew that he did not know. Perhaps Buddha recognized the same thing, and then relaxed.

What if all consciousness is set up this way? To end suffering, we have to become know-it-alls? — hillsofgold

Nice. It's good to keep such doors open. Not because I quite believe this one, but I think interesting thinking leaves on the table, at least for a while, things we think we can readily dismiss.

I would say some other similar things to consider: I think it can be useful to read texts or hear lectures by people, say, who present their ideas as certain, correct and indisputable. Even if the person in question, has times of doubt or has made some leaps, which they themselves notice, in logic and argument or even in experience. Why? Well, then you get to experience something in a pure form and try it on. This is a different and potentially useful experience, different from someone who qualifies everything. I am not saying this is right in all cases, though I think it can be useful in some. I have heard college lecturers I disagreed with, but where I was glad they just laid it out as fi they knew. I got to experience their personality and position in a kind of pure form. If I had a long term more closely interpersonal relationship with them, I would start to see this as a failure of character, though I still might find it useful, but in a short term situations, I think it is great provocation and can be clearer than something more carefully qualified.

In relation to the Buddha. I think one can have solved one set of problems, how the subject object split is handled, while being sexist, for example. A lot of masters and gurus have clearly, to me at least, had a range of skills that are quite impressive, but they also had huge blind spots that no amount of meditation will ever get rid of. Sometimes this ends up popping out and they abuse, for example, their position of power over women followers. But sometimes it does not pop out, but is still there is expecting women to have traditional roles. There are some things meditation is not going to touch. Ken Wilber goes into this in great detail in his system. Sex Ecology and Consciousness and another more recent work go into this. I think he is on to something, though he is pretty Buddhist and I, frankly, don't like Buddhism.

Couldn't his so called anti scientific assertions be considered about internal experiences or as metaphors. Also couldn't he have found stuff not yet confirmed by science?

So here's what I'm getting at: Is it too outlandish to think that the pitfall of achieving enlightenment is that it requires that we become unable to ever be ignorant about ANYTHING? — hillsofgold

Someone once asked some modern pundit if he knew something that the Buddha didn't. 'Yeah', he said, 'how to drive a jeep'. Of course it was a tongue in cheek answer, but the point is, the Buddha couldn't have known that kind of fact, given the circumstances of his birth.

The term translated as ignorance is actually 'avidya', which is a Sanskrit word. It is the negation (a-) of 'true knowledge' (vidya) - a word which is from an Indo-European root that Latin has in common by way of videre, to see (hence video etc). So 'a-vidya' means ignorance in the sense of 'not-seeing'. Whether this means that the Buddha's knowledge (jñāna) amounts to actual omniscience (meaning 'all knowing' or knowledge of all facts) is a point of contention within Buddhism itself. Some say that the Buddha knows everything that can be known; others that he knew everything that was conducive to the attainment of Nirvāṇa (the cessation of all suffering.) Of course, understanding what the Buddha might have known, is a major interpretive challenge.

But it should be interpreted in the context of ancient Indian religious culture, which had the conception that life itself was part of an endless cycle of birth-and-death, in which beings are trapped because of ignorance of their real nature. The Hindus depicted the real nature in terms of ātman or 'higher self' in the philosophy of the Vedanta.

The Buddha had a different approach, based on the 'doctrine of dependent origination'. The Buddha rejected the Vedas and traditional religious lore, including the lexicon of the 'higher self'*; he was a non-conformist (or 'heterodox' in the language of comparative religion).

But both Hindus and Buddhists seek the state variously known as mokṣa, vimukti, nirodha, or Nirvāṇa, signifying release or escape from the endless cycle of birth and death. The problem with that is, there is no obvious counterpart to such an idea, within traditional Western culture (which rejected the idea of re-birth early in the Christian era), or within the scientific worldview. So it's a difficult issue to interpret, but I'm inclined to think that most 'common-sense' analyses are going to miss the mark.

----------------
*Although, that said, in later Buddhism, a conception of 'Buddha Nature' arose which bears many resemblances to a 'doctrine of higher self'.

I suppose I understand where you're coming from in that presentations with too many qualifiers are distracting, if that's what you mean. I'm not sure what you mean by "pure" unless you're referring to lecturers or other presenters who believe what they're saying but are just adding in qualifiers to be scientific/political - that would be an awkward way to talk.

However, it's too often in my book that teachers, doctors, and buddhists talk about something for which they have no proof as if it were fact. That's annoying primarily because we're not machines able to immediately add asterisks to potentially false information - it's been evidenced, rather, that we believe everything we hear as true at least momentarily as we decide whether or not to accept it. I have to wonder where the Buddha got his information on earthquakes and rebirth - I leave way for the possibility that something inexplicable was going on, but again, I wonder just what the Buddha had to do to his brain if he really removed suffering, that most natural and fundamental part of being conscious.

I wonder just what the Buddha had to do to his brain — hillsofgold

Rick Hanson might have some answers.

Some say that the Buddha knows everything that can be known; others that he knew everything that was conducive to the attainment of Nirvāṇa (the cessation of all suffering.) O

My impression for the longest time was that it was the latter - in my encounters and studies with buddhist teachers in the past, they tended to steer clear of making many science-contradicting statements and stuck with matters related to mind, suffering, etc. Even the Dalai Lama recently said that if Buddism is found to contradict science, buddhists must change their beliefs. I agree with that, but from reading the sutras, it's not clear that the Buddha would have agreed. Perhaps not for a rational reason, but again because to admit he was wrong, that there are things he does not know, is not possible for him or it would change some necessary condition in his neurology, would destroy his enlightenment. Again conjecture, but I think I've made my point based on making the premise that he did in fact end suffering...

But both Hindus and Buddhists seek the state variously known as mokṣa, vimukti, nirodha, or Nirvāṇa, signifying release or escape from the endless cycle of birth and death.

I found that suspicious as well, that the religion of his place and time just happened to be what he claimed to be the truth. I lend way for the possibility that some as-of-yet-not-understood scientific oddity is reincarnating us all and that attaining enlightenment involves accessing that, but I think back to that quote made by...some scientist (Neil Degrasse Tyson maybe??) asking what's more likely, that nature bent its rules for something to happen, or that some one misunderstood something. Perhaps the buddha understood his own mind so well, so perfectly, he thought to extend that confidence to the natural world at large. Or again, maybe he couldn't help it?

Hillsofgold, I loved your initial post.

It was informed, smart, and logical.

In my private opinion -- not to coerce or convince anyone else -- Buddhism is just another gibbery-hogwash system of faith, full of holes that the knowledge gap has since filled, and the followers are too busy ignoring or trying to forget it's part of Buddhism.

Also, please note, that in court if the witness of a party is found to be lying, his testimony will affect the client's interest rather negatively. Now that Buddha got caught on lying, we may want to reconsider the "wisdom" in all his other insights.