I think the main confusion arises from the vast range of interpretation and, in particular, from the divergence of popular vs. philosophical or "educated" views. — Apollodorus

This statement doesn't make sense because, if nothing else, all philosophical or "educated" views are not in agreement.

all philosophical or "educated" views are not in agreement. — praxis

Well, if they aren't in agreement this increases the divergence of views and resulting confusion as to which of them is the "correct" view. If even scholars can't agree, one can't expect any better from the uneducated.

If you had only one educated and one uneducated view, the options would be reduced to just two, making it much easier to choose.

In religion, the only "correct" view is the one coming from religious authority and the view that most people believe is true. It's not known to be true of course but believed to be true. It's a matter of faith.

If you had only one educated and one uneducated view, the options would be reduced to just two, making it much easier to choose. — Apollodorus

Does God exist? An educated person could probably make a better argument one way or the other, I suppose, but in the end only experience matters, unless it doesn't matter and the point is other than spiritual.

I think you misunderstand my comment.

I was talking about the "correct" view in historical terms, i.e., the view about "self" actually held by Buddha as opposed to what later Buddhists (and non-Buddhists) believe to have been his view.

In other words, not whether Buddha's view was correct, but what his view was - as far as this can be determined by the evidence available.

However, if Nirvana exists and is a permanent reality, then it may be argued that the state of Nirvana is "with self", i.e. with substance or existence and, by extension, one's real self. — Apollodorus

I would agree, but this misses an essential point about Buddhist philosophy. This is that the assertion that 'the self exists' is a dogmatic belief (dṛṣṭi) - but so too the view 'the self doesn't exist'. This entails the suspension of judgement, which is close to the original meaning of scepticism.

I thnk I've referred to it before already but the germ of this idea is expressed in this verse. The Buddha is asked, does the self exist? and declines to answer. Not answering is not the same as either yes or no. (It's also salient that this is about the only place in the Pali texts where 'the self' is spoken in the nominative as distinct from the adjectival sense.)

But as I've already said, in my view many people act as though the answer was 'no' - that the Buddhist teaching is that there is no self. But that can't accomodate this verse.

(If you're interested I'll pm you a link to the thesis I did on this topic if I haven't previously.)

I think you misunderstand my comment. — Apollodorus

How so?

Anyway, I guess my point is that because religion is based on faith rather than reason, an uneducated but charismatic person could do just as well if not better than an educated person in establishing the "correct" view.

(If you're interested I'll pm you a link to the thesis I did on this topic if I haven't previously.) — Wayfarer

I'd be interested in reading that. :smile:

in my view many people act as though the answer was 'no' - that the Buddhist teaching is that there is no self. But that can't accomodate this verse. — Wayfarer

Correct. He clearly says:

When there is the element of initiating, initiating beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer.

To me, this sounds like it confirms my suspicion. In which case the "no-self" doctrine may be a Buddhist doctrine, but not necessarily Buddha's own view, and this seems to bring Buddha much closer to Greek philosophy than generally assumed!

It also raises the question of where the idea of "no-self" actually comes from. Definitely not from the Dhammapada, unless we insist on putting a "Buddhist" spin on it ... :smile:

BTW, the device I'm currently using doesn't always like pms but you can send me the link, anyway. Thanks.

I guess my point is that because religion is based on faith rather than reason, an uneducated but charismatic person could do just as well if not better than an educated person in establishing the "correct" view. — praxis

Well, I wouldn't say religion is based exclusively on faith. But in general I agree with that statement on the "correct" view. This is why I for one prefer philosophy to religion.

To me, this sounds like it confirms my suspicion. In which case the "no-self" doctrine may be a Buddhist doctrine, but not necessarily Buddha's own view, and this seems to bring Buddha much closer to Greek philosophy than generally assumed! — Apollodorus

I can't stress enough that this is not correct. In fact speculative ideas of the higher self (etc) are anathema to the Buddha:

Vaccha, the position that 'after death a Tathagata exists' is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, and fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding. 1

'Believing in a higher self' is just that - a belief. The Buddha frequently says that one that understands correctly doesn't believe, but sees the principle of dependent origination. The mind that really understands is transformed by that understanding, which is not a belief, but prajna, a meta-cognitive awakening.

I agree that there are paralells with Greek philosophy, but please don't believe they're both 'saying the same', because it distorts the meanings of both. I think it's also the case that Buddhism became a 'religion of belief' over time, because grasping the liberative insight (prajna) is a very difficult thing to do - hence popular sects and cults based on avatars or incarnations of the Buddha. Not that these are in any way wrong or false, but it's important to grasp the unique insight at the core of the teaching.

I'd be interested in reading that. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Now pinned to profile page.

The Buddha frequently says that one that understands correctly doesn't believe, but sees the principle of dependent origination. — Wayfarer

Sure, of course he would say that. But this is common sense. Experience has precedence over belief whether in Buddhist, Hindu, or Greek philosophy.

And if belief in higher self is "just a belief", then so is belief in "Nirvana". After all, Buddha is said to have attained enlightenment not as a result of belief, but by practicing meditation which he admittedly learned from non-Buddhists.

In the final analysis, belief is irrelevant to direct experience of reality, and all that really matters is introspective inquiry leading to insight (a) into the self and (b) into whatever turns out to be beyond the self, exactly as in Platonism.

And to achieve that, one need not be a Buddhist or follow any particular religious system ....

Now pinned to profile page. — Wayfarer

Thank you! :smile:

Very theosophical of you :wink:

Well, it may sound “theosophical” but I don’t believe in Krishnamurti as an incarnation of Jesus and Buddha who is going to “save of the world”, and all that stuff :smile:

Incidentally, Theosophy’s logo “there is no religion higher than truth” should be something that I think all philosophers can subscribe to. Unfortunately, despite its logo, Theosophy is doing the opposite, which is trying to sell (invented) religion as truth.

And I think this brings us to the crux of the matter, because a lot of your statements seem to suggest that you haven’t yet decided in favor of truth and that despite your apparent disclaimers you are speaking from the perspective of someone who is at least in part psychologically committed to Buddhism as a belief system or religion.

From what I see, Buddhism isn’t really so different from Platonism.

If Buddhism claims that phenomena are not ultimately real, so does Platonism.

If Buddhism posits a higher reality (assuming Nirvana to be real and not imaginary) that can be achieved through meditation, so does Platonism which aims for an experience of ultimate reality through introspective inquiry and contemplation.

If Buddhism teaches that man must gain insight into the true nature of the self, so does Platonism. “Know thyself” is central to all Greek philosophy.

Both Buddhism and Platonism use terminology like “release” or “liberation” from conditioned existence.

Even the Buddhist tathagata, “one who has arrived at the final goal”, has its equivalent in the Greek teleios anthropos, “one who is accomplished, perfected, who has reached the goal or telos”. The very practice of authentic Greek philosophy is a continual process of perfection that has no upward limit aside from ultimate truth itself.

Of course it may be argued that there are different degrees or levels of accomplishment. However, assuming that ultimate reality is one, and that there is nothing higher, how can one who has attained an experience of ultimate reality be more spiritually accomplished than one who has attained the same (or even similar) experience?

Again, one could argue that only Buddhists are capable of attaining the highest possible experience. But this hasn’t been demonstrated to be the case. So, the way I see it, it boils down to personal (and unproven) belief, i.e., exactly what Socrates and Plato (and, apparently, Buddha himself) are warning against.

And, as we have seen, there seems to be a difference between belief and actual knowledge even when it comes to Buddha's own teachings ....

Again:

The only evidence we could ever have for someone's "enlightenment" would be behavior that indicates a disposition of predominant concern for others.
— Janus

Why? — baker

Whence the idea that enlightenment would have something to do with a disposition of predominant concern for others?

Even if you define enlightenment in terms of "overcoming one's ego" or similarly, this doesn't yet entail that the thusly enlightened person will be concerned with others.

In fact, someone who has overcome egoic thinking as such will have no regard for other people's egos as well, and will thus exhibit behavior that is usually considered rude, a callous disregard for others.

I also want to stress that I am not closed-minded to the idea of being convinced by intellectual intuitions of metaphysical ideas for the individual, but I have never seen any convincing argument that such intuitions could ever form the basis of any open and unbiased inter-subjective discourse. — Janus

"Unbiased" discourse? What is that??

And it has to be said that no one does Christianity the kind of disservice that Christianity has done to itself, with its emphasis on shallow-faith literalism and punishment. — Tom Storm

I find their non-communication and hostility are what tends to put people off.

Riiight. Let's go to a slaughterhouse or an abortion clinic where we can observe the "the miraculous nature of everyday reality".
— baker

I eat meat, and I respect a woman's right to choose - if and when she commits to the economic life changing, body morphic trauma that is bringing another life into the world. — karl stone

I'm not talking about the politically correct "woman's right to choose". I'm talking about the supposed "miraculous nature" of living a lifestyle in which having to have an abortion is always in sight.
What is so "miraculous" in damaging one's health with hormonal contraceptives, and, if they fail, with abortions?
You think it's "miraculous" to TOLO, like a robot?

I've worked in a slaughterhouse - chickens, but still, I eat chicken. There's nothing like hot chicken breast on brown bread with mayo. It produces a transcendent, almost orgasmic pleasure in me.

I wonder what you have to say about people who don't feel that way about food, animal or plant based.

I think one has to respect a woman's right to choose, precisely because we are the only animals who cook, rather than simply eat. An animal killed in nature suffers a worse death by far than humane slaughter at the hands of humans; and there's a parallel to a child brought into the world unwanted - in that, your bleeding heart humanity would be the cause of greater suffering of which you'd wash your vegan pro-life hands.

You missed the forest, not just the tree to bark at.

And to achieve that, one need not be a Buddhist or follow any particular religious system .... — Apollodorus

To _deliberately_ achieve anything, one needs to follow a system. To follow a religious system, one has to become a member of a religion.

And I think this brings us to the crux of the matter, because a lot of your statements seem to suggest that you haven’t yet decided in favor of truth and that despite your apparent disclaimers you are speaking from the perspective of someone who is at least in part psychologically committed to Buddhism as a belief system or religion. — Apollodorus

*tsk tsk*

Again, one could argue that only Buddhists are capable of attaining the highest possible experience. But this hasn’t been demonstrated to be the case. So, the way I see it, it boils down to personal (and unproven) belief, i.e., exactly what Socrates and Plato (and, apparently, Buddha himself) are warning against.

Blimey, religious/spiritual people competing as to who is most exalted!! How ordinary.

Well, it may sound “theosophical” but I don’t believe in Krishnamurti as an incarnation of Jesus and Buddha — Apollodorus

Neither did he.

From what I see, Buddhism isn’t really so different from Platonism. — Apollodorus

That's because of your prior inclinations. And that's what I mean by 'theosophical' - small 't', right? Not a member of the Theosophical Society, but an attitude which sees common truths in different spiritual traditions.

They have some things in common, but they're worlds apart in other ways. There are no forms/ideas in Buddhism, and no chain of dependent origination in Platonism. Buddhist philosophical logic is strictly nominalist and differs fundamentally from Aristotelian metaphysics.

Both Buddhism and Platonism use terminology like “release” or “liberation” from conditioned existence. — Apollodorus

What is the Platonist/Greek equivalent for mokṣa, as a matter of interest?

Platonism uses several terms, one of them being lysis, i.e., liberation or release from conditioned existence, which is the equivalent of Hindu mokṣa.

The Platonic Forms are not ultimate realities, so they must not be confused with the highest truth.

And the Platonic goal is to discover the "source of all knowledge and all truth", i.e., the source of all things, which in my view, is very much what Buddhist practice is aiming to achieve.

Incidentally, your (admittedly well-written) paper says that:

A crucial distinguishing feature of Buddhist thought is its concern with teaching individuals to see for themselves.
But something that remains unstated is: what is the mind that can see this? What faculty discerns the dependent nature of existent beings? Obviously, the Buddha perceives this – that, in fact, is what makes him ‘Buddha’.

Clearly, then, something remains after “everything has been abandoned”.

If everything is being abandoned, then presumably there is an agent that performs the act of abandoning. We don’t know what it is, but there must be something there following Nirvana, as otherwise the consciousness that sees or experiences the Nirvanic state would disintegrate and the awakened (buddha) or arrived/gone beyond (tathagata) individual would have nothing to report, if he or she even existed at all.

Another question that is left open is whether there is any difference between the individual who has attained Nirvana while the body-mind complex is still alive and after the death of the same.

If I am not mistaken, it appears from the available texts that Buddha spoke about Nirvana while still living and not after he died. Therefore we have no direct information regarding his post mortem state or the permanence or otherwise of the Nirvanic state.

This raises the possibility that there may, indeed, be nothing left after Nirvana in which case it would be incorrect to say that Buddha “conquered Death”, for example. It would be more correct to say that Death conquered him.

So, the puzzle seems to remain unsolved ....

To _deliberately_ achieve anything, one needs to follow a system. To follow a religious system, one has to become a member of a religion. — baker

Correct. However, your two statements aren't necessarily logically connected, as "system" is not the same as "religion".

Blimey, religious/spiritual people competing as to who is most exalted!! How ordinary. — baker

Well, we can't let you have all the fun, can we? And as a Buddhist, you ought perhaps to be less self-centered .... :smile:

Clearly, then, something remains after “everything has been abandoned”. — Apollodorus

I agree, but the point I'm obviously failing to make, is that believing it and seeing it are different things. Put another way, dogmatic belief in it is not the same as liberating insight into it. And yes, that is a difficult line to draw.

BUT, I'm very enamoured of the Buddha Nature teachings. And it is they which seem most like Advaita, as they seem to posit the buddha nature as a higher self. However even that is qualified, as the distinguishing feature of Buddha Nature is that it is utterly devoid of self!

I've recently discovered a very well-produced site about this topic https://buddhanature.tsadra.org/index.php/Main_Page

(admittedly well-written) — Apollodorus

Why, thanks (kind of.)

:up:

Platonism uses several terms, one of them being lysis, i.e., liberation or release from conditioned existence, which is the equivalent of Hindu mokṣa. — Apollodorus

do you have a reference for that? None of the sources that come up for me support that.

D T Suzuki compares the Platonist 'metanoia' with the Buddhist 'paravritti'.

Greek lysis ("liberation" or "release") and similar terms occur in Plato's dialogues. Liberation from ignorance and union with the Ultimate are central to Platonism.

Metanoia is more like transformation of the mind or consciousness, i.e., a process that leads to the final state of release or self-realization.

Liberation from ignorance and union with the Ultimate are central to Platonism. — Apollodorus

I think that language belongs much more to Plotinus than to Plato, and even more so to later Christian Platonism. Do you think you might tend to evaluate Platonism from a Christian Platonist perspective?

When look up Lysis in Platonism, I get

Lysis (/ˈlaɪsɪs/; Greek: Λύσις, genitive case Λύσιδος, showing the stem Λύσιδ-, from which the infrequent translation Lysides), is a dialogue of Plato which discusses the nature of philia (φιλία), often translated as friendship, while the word's original content was of a much larger and more intimate bond.

iberation from ignorance and union with the Ultimate are central to Platonism.
— Apollodorus

I think that language belongs much more to Plotinus than to Plato, and even more so to later Christian Platonism. Do you think you might tend to evaluate Platonism from a Christian Platonist perspective? — Wayfarer

To be honest, before I started this OP, I had a view that enlightenment was probably understood just as @Apollodorus has so succinctly described.

The area I find most interesting at the moment is the idea of this liberation from ignorance. Or the attainment of divine knowledge (what is the best term?) In the tradition that @Apolloduros has described, is it generally understood that union and knowledge are always concomitant?

"Unbiased" discourse? What is that?? — baker

Science, mathematics, logic, phenomenology. Any discourse which depends on observation and reason, and does not depend on authority. Any discourse, that is, that is in principle at least, defeasible and endlessly revisable, and wherein expertise can be gained by understanding clearly defined ideas, principles and observable or self-evident facts.

Any religion, including Buddhism, cannot be an unbiased discourse, because it depends on faith. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, by the way, but in order to respect intellectual honesty it should at least be acknowledged. Talk of "direct knowing" is a nonsense, inter-subjectively speaking, and can never constitute an unbiased discourse.