Buddhism Thread: Bitch I just told you about kshitigarbha

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Buddhism Thread: Bitch I just told you about kshitigarbha

Herstory Begins Now: Aug 5, 2003; SOME REALLY TEDIOUS DUMB SHIT THAT SUCKS ASS TO READ ->>

Nessus posted:

At first I thought to post, "Even Trump has Buddha-nature."

Then I thought: But it is peculiar indeed to use a sort of pat, joking interpretation of a major philosophical tenet of a religious philosophy as a reason to be rude.

But then I thought further: It seems unlikely that an NFT bro would be making any sort of formal anti-Buddhist statement.

It is interesting to see these images have cultural penetration in a way that pictures of rabbis or priests do not.

tbh it's very on brand with very old chan to wonder if some infamously corrupt, incompetent, piece of poo poo official has buddha nature and to make provocative statements one way or another

# ? Oct 28, 2022 12:23

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 18:04

BIG FLUFFY DOG: Feb 16, 2011; On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.

NikkolasKing posted:

I'm reminded of the Trump Buddha statue from a few years ago.

That one wasn't really promoting trump even though people who spent too much time on twitter insisted it was. It was reminding people that all beings have a buddha-nature in a shocking way likely to get people to actually intellectually respond to it. Shock factor is a normal teaching tool.

BIG FLUFFY DOG fucked around with this message at 12:40 on Oct 28, 2022

# ? Oct 28, 2022 12:37

corn haver: Mar 28, 2020

prom candy posted:

My meditation has kinda sucked lately, my mind is just going every which way and I'm really resisting even sitting down. Any suggestions?

Slowly doing walking meditation and being very attentive of my bodily habits has been helping me a lot, even though I just started a few days ago and I'm terrible at it. It's a lot of work to learn how to walk like an accomplished dancer if you're used to just stomping around, but that's the way that the Buddha was described as moving. It feels better than just listening to the dictates of the more cerebral stuff going on in us. I'm finding that a lot of my mental tension and restlessness is related to physical discomfort that I'm trying to ignore, and really making sure that I'm moving in the most easeful way calms that way down.

# ? Oct 28, 2022 14:53

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Herstory Begins Now posted:

tbh it's very on brand with very old chan to wonder if some infamously corrupt, incompetent, piece of poo poo official has buddha nature and to make provocative statements one way or another

Yeah, I mean, it's true, so :shrug:

Get with it.

It is interesting how so many of these relatively esoteric teachings are readily available compared to the past, and it got me thinking about what impact that would have on people's various realizations, since it also opens stuff up to parody and misinterpretation. On the other hand, the morning light is not somehow dirtied because it shines on a man scheming crimes.

# ? Oct 28, 2022 16:09

Pollyanna: Mar 5, 2005; Milk's on them.

Herstory Begins Now posted:

tbh it's very on brand with very old chan to wonder if some infamously corrupt, incompetent, piece of poo poo official has buddha nature and to make provocative statements one way or another

I have yet to fully understand what Buddha nature is, but how does recognizing its presence in someone change things? What meaning does possessing the nature have, and how does it change how we think of that subject?

# ? Oct 28, 2022 19:46

Virgil Vox: Dec 8, 2009

Pollyanna posted:

I have yet to fully understand what Buddha nature is, but how does recognizing its presence in someone change things? What meaning does possessing the nature have, and how does it change how we think of that subject?

The Tathāgata never spoke of it nor is it in the Suttas or commentaries. Likely a later addition from another religion to avoid personal responsibility.

# ? Oct 28, 2022 20:12

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Pollyanna posted:

I have yet to fully understand what Buddha nature is, but how does recognizing its presence in someone change things? What meaning does possessing the nature have, and how does it change how we think of that subject?

To speak very humbly: the potential for enlightenment exists in all things, rendering many classifications laughable at best. At least that�s where I�ve gotten to.

# ? Oct 28, 2022 20:17

Thirteen Orphans: Dec 2, 2012; I am a writer, a doctor, a nuclear physicist and a theoretical philosopher. But above all, I am a man, a hopelessly inquisitive man, just like you.

Virgil Vox posted:

The Tathāgata never spoke of it nor is it in the Suttas or commentaries. Likely a later addition from another religion to avoid personal responsibility.

In regards to the bolded part of your post, Tathāgatagarbha theory is absolutely a Mahayana teaching and not found in orthodox Theravada Buddhism. In regards to the italicized portion of your post, this is extremely dismissive and unnecessarily aggressive.

# ? Oct 28, 2022 21:27

Beowulfs_Ghost: Nov 6, 2009

Nessus posted:

To speak very humbly: the potential for enlightenment exists in all things, rendering many classifications laughable at best. At least that�s where I�ve gotten to.

It is pretty much this. Especially given that enlightment is most often explained as giving up on the bullshit, rather than as gaining some new ability. To blow out the desire that leads to suffering. To lose the dust in your eyes, and so on.

So deep down in everyone, even in Donald Trump, is an enlightened awareness.

# ? Oct 28, 2022 21:28

Virgil Vox: Dec 8, 2009

Thirteen Orphans posted:

In regards to the italicized portion of your post, this is extremely dismissive and unnecessarily aggressive.

I think it leads to ignorance. Every skillful or unskilled act is because of your own effort not some "Buddha nature" that was inside you all along. Our skill in practice comes from effort and testing that it's true not some innate ability. It leads to complacency, it's a distraction, you cannot depend on it, there's no "Buddha nature" force that will push the mind towards skillful acts. It cheapens the concept of a Buddha with the idea that beings are "already enlightened", if you want to be awakened you must follow the path. To go to an extreme why would we need a teacher if we already had it inside us? Buddha nature is unnecessary if you're serious about the practice.

# ? Oct 28, 2022 22:31

Thirteen Orphans: Dec 2, 2012; I am a writer, a doctor, a nuclear physicist and a theoretical philosopher. But above all, I am a man, a hopelessly inquisitive man, just like you.

Virgil Vox posted:

I think it leads to ignorance. Every skillful or unskilled act is because of your own effort not some "Buddha nature" that was inside you all along. Our skill in practice comes from effort and testing that it's true not some innate ability. It leads to complacency, it's a distraction, you cannot depend on it, there's no "Buddha nature" force that will push the mind towards skillful acts. It cheapens the concept of a Buddha with the idea that beings are "already enlightened", if you want to be awakened you must follow the path. To go to an extreme why would we need a teacher if we already had it inside us? Buddha nature is unnecessary if you're serious about the practice.

I�m not Buddhist so I feel like arguing theology might not be my place but if Buddha Nature is what you think it is I would actually agree with you. The problem is you don�t understand Buddha Nature in the context it�s actually taught (which is itself quite varied). I don�t want to change your mind or anything to be honest but I am concerned about people reading this who are interested in diverse traditions, like Zen, Tantra, or Pure Land and become discouraged because it isn�t from the first couple hundred years after the death of the Buddha.

# ? Oct 28, 2022 22:41

corn haver: Mar 28, 2020

Virgil Vox posted:

I think it leads to ignorance. Every skillful or unskilled act is because of your own effort not some "Buddha nature" that was inside you all along. Our skill in practice comes from effort and testing that it's true not some innate ability. It leads to complacency, it's a distraction, you cannot depend on it, there's no "Buddha nature" force that will push the mind towards skillful acts. It cheapens the concept of a Buddha with the idea that beings are "already enlightened", if you want to be awakened you must follow the path. To go to an extreme why would we need a teacher if we already had it inside us? Buddha nature is unnecessary if you're serious about the practice.

From the Bahiya Sutta:

quote:

Where neither water nor yet earth
Nor fire nor air gain a foothold,
There gleam no stars, no sun sheds light,
There shines no moon, yet there no darkness reigns.

When a sage, a brahman, has come to know this
For himself through his own wisdom,
Then he is freed from form and formless.
Freed from pleasure and from pain.

I think that a Mahayana practitioner would recognize this as what they call the Buddha-nature. Hakuin called it lacquer-black light, which is exactly the same imagery used here. I don't think that being open to misuse is a criticism that also doesn't apply to Theravadin teachings. Ideally, each person would be given whatever teaching is most useful to their specific afflictions.

# ? Oct 28, 2022 22:46

Herstory Begins Now: Aug 5, 2003; SOME REALLY TEDIOUS DUMB SHIT THAT SUCKS ASS TO READ ->>

Virgil Vox posted:

I think it leads to ignorance. Every skillful or unskilled act is because of your own effort not some "Buddha nature" that was inside you all along. Our skill in practice comes from effort and testing that it's true not some innate ability. It leads to complacency, it's a distraction, you cannot depend on it, there's no "Buddha nature" force that will push the mind towards skillful acts. It cheapens the concept of a Buddha with the idea that beings are "already enlightened", if you want to be awakened you must follow the path. To go to an extreme why would we need a teacher if we already had it inside us? Buddha nature is unnecessary if you're serious about the practice.

what is it that 'your own effort' is nurturing or working on

# ? Oct 28, 2022 23:00

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Virgil Vox posted:

I think it leads to ignorance. Every skillful or unskilled act is because of your own effort not some "Buddha nature" that was inside you all along. Our skill in practice comes from effort and testing that it's true not some innate ability. It leads to complacency, it's a distraction, you cannot depend on it, there's no "Buddha nature" force that will push the mind towards skillful acts. It cheapens the concept of a Buddha with the idea that beings are "already enlightened", if you want to be awakened you must follow the path. To go to an extreme why would we need a teacher if we already had it inside us? Buddha nature is unnecessary if you're serious about the practice.

My own very limited understanding is that Buddha nature is a potential and not a force or a teacher. It is an indicator of �what it is that practice reveals�.

# ? Oct 28, 2022 23:29

ram dass in hell: Dec 29, 2019

Virgil Vox posted:

I think it leads to ignorance. Every skillful or unskilled act is because of your own effort not some "Buddha nature" that was inside you all along. Our skill in practice comes from effort and testing that it's true not some innate ability. It leads to complacency, it's a distraction, you cannot depend on it, there's no "Buddha nature" force that will push the mind towards skillful acts. It cheapens the concept of a Buddha with the idea that beings are "already enlightened", if you want to be awakened you must follow the path. To go to an extreme why would we need a teacher if we already had it inside us? Buddha nature is unnecessary if you're serious about the practice.

i don't think you're wrong or right, I think that the dynamic tension between this perspective and its opposite is what actually gives the concept of buddha-nature its significance in the teachings

what comes to mind is a passage from, I believe the teaching of Foyan, where he asks "tell me - Awakening, is it good or bad"? It's a sort of trap question. From the perspective of a novice or lay practitioner of course it is good. that's why all the practice, all the learning and unlearning, all the GREAT EFFORT!. From the perspective of the teacher, good and bad are categories. You say it cheapens the concept of a Buddha, but in a certain way, that's the point. You can't cheapen the concept of sunlight. These things are universally available to us if we choose. As you said you must follow the path. But the path doesn't pick and choose who it is and isn't available to. It just is.

ram dass in hell fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Oct 29, 2022

# ? Oct 29, 2022 00:33

Cephas: May 11, 2009; Humanity's real enemy is me!
Hya hya foowah!

Even a murderer, a child molester, or a rapist has the potential to become a Buddha. The seed of kindness is within them. No human being has gone their whole life without having some small moment of kindness, no matter how minor. If only they could recognize that kindness is right at their feet, and nourish it, their seed of kindness could grow and bear fruit for the rest of their life. But if they continue to trod the soil and trample the seed it will never grow. Wrong effort is guided by craving; Right effort is guided by awakening.

I think that's what the Angulimala Sutta teaches.

quote:

[Angulimala:]
"While walking, contemplative,
you say, 'I have stopped.'
But when I have stopped
you say I haven't.
I ask you the meaning of this:
How have you stopped?
How haven't I?"

[The Buddha:]
"I have stopped, Angulimala,
once & for all,
having cast off violence
toward all living beings.
You, though,
are unrestrained toward beings.
That's how I've stopped
and you haven't."

[Angulimala:]
"At long last a greatly revered great seer
for my sake
has come to the great forest.
Having heard your verse
in line with the Dhamma,
I will go about
having abandoned evil."

....

Where once I stayed here & there
with shuddering mind �
in the wilderness,
at the foot of a tree,
in mountains, caves �
with ease I now lie down, I stand,
with ease I live my life.
O, the Teacher has shown me sympathy!

Before, I was of brahman stock,
on either side high-born.
Today I'm the son
of the One Well-gone,
the Dhamma-king,
the Teacher.

Rid of craving, devoid of clinging,
sense-doors guarded, well-restrained,
having killed the root of evil,
I've reached fermentations' end.

The Teacher has been served by me;
the Awakened One's bidding,
done;
the guide to becoming, uprooted;
the heavy load, laid down.

# ? Oct 29, 2022 03:34

Virgil Vox: Dec 8, 2009

Thirteen Orphans posted:

I�m not Buddhist so I feel like arguing theology might not be my place but if Buddha Nature is what you think it is I would actually agree with you. The problem is you don�t understand Buddha Nature in the context it�s actually taught (which is itself quite varied). I don�t want to change your mind or anything to be honest but I am concerned about people reading this who are interested in diverse traditions, like Zen, Tantra, or Pure Land and become discouraged because it isn�t from the first couple hundred years after the death of the Buddha.

I was concerned beings reading this thread may be lead to think Buddha Nature is required. I do not intend to go on a war path against Mahāyāna, you are correct, it was harsh, I should have posted more skillfully, apologies.

corn haver posted:

From the Bahiya Sutta:

I think that a Mahayana practitioner would recognize this as what they call the Buddha-nature. Hakuin called it lacquer-black light, which is exactly the same imagery used here. I don't think that being open to misuse is a criticism that also doesn't apply to Theravadin teachings. Ideally, each person would be given whatever teaching is most useful to their specific afflictions.

I don't have a commentary on hand but to me this is a direct reference to Nibbana: the Buddha goes thru the realms of existence in this quote, where all rupa ceases and beyond the realm of perception and nonperception

Herstory Begins Now posted:

what is it that 'your own effort' is nurturing or working on

purification of consciousness and/or uprooting the defilements

Nessus posted:

My own very limited understanding is that Buddha nature is a potential and not a force or a teacher. It is an indicator of �what it is that practice reveals�.

I feel we already have the vocabulary to describe that, but meant in this way I can understand the phrase being useful. I've heard "oh that's the dogs buddha nature" or "does Jesus have Buddha nature?" in these contexts it's dismissive of the animals own right effort (maybe, idk I'm not a dog), or it leads to someone thinking "was Jesus a Buddha???", nonsense. I guess my encounters with the phrase in the wild have not been great or I haven't been exposed to it in the right form.

ram dass in hell posted:

i don't think you're wrong or right, I think that the dynamic tension between this perspective and its opposite is what actually gives the concept of buddha-nature its significance in the teachings

what comes to mind is a passage from, I believe the teaching of Foyan, where he asks "tell me - Awakening, is it good or bad"? It's a sort of trap question. From the perspective of a novice or lay practitioner of course it is good. that's why all the practice, all the learning and unlearning, all the GREAT EFFORT!. From the perspective of the teacher, good and bad are categories. You say it cheapens the concept of a Buddha, but in a certain way, that's the point. You can't cheapen the concept of sunlight. These things are universally available to us if we choose. As you said you must follow the path. But the path doesn't pick and choose who it is and isn't available to. It just is.

Indeed

Virgil Vox fucked around with this message at 03:45 on Oct 29, 2022

# ? Oct 29, 2022 03:43

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Virgil Vox posted:

I feel we already have the vocabulary to describe that, but meant in this way I can understand the phrase being useful. I've heard "oh that's the dogs buddha nature" or "does Jesus have Buddha nature?" in these contexts it's dismissive of the animals own right effort (maybe, idk I'm not a dog), or it leads to someone thinking "was Jesus a Buddha???", nonsense. I guess my encounters with the phrase in the wild have not been great or I haven't been exposed to it in the right form.

Yeah, most of my formal language about Buddhism first came from either stuff in the earlier form of this thread or in literature I ordered from BDK and studied pretty intensively, so my like, basic vocabulary roots in the Japanese/Mahayana tradition I guess.

The Buddha nature koan about the dog has gotten into pop culture, I think... which is unfortunate, but it's like the folk version of karma, I suppose.

# ? Oct 29, 2022 04:47

Herstory Begins Now: Aug 5, 2003; SOME REALLY TEDIOUS DUMB SHIT THAT SUCKS ASS TO READ ->>

Virgil Vox posted:

purification of consciousness and/or uprooting the defilements

what exactly is this inherent consciousness

# ? Oct 29, 2022 04:48

Spacegrass: May 1, 2013

Nessus posted:

Buddhism has no singular Author of the Universe, which makes a lot of things easier i m o.

I agree, but unfortunately I don't think it's true.

It would be like a huge weight off my shoulders, though. Sometimes I get tired of praying to Jesus to help me in this wretched life. He has helped though.

"No Christ, no cross no pain no loss. No guilt... No Jesus - No beast."

Those are lyrics from a death metal band I loved in my Anton Lavey Satanist days. I miss those days and it would be nice not having to answer to Jehovah.

Spacegrass fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Oct 29, 2022

# ? Oct 29, 2022 05:29

corn haver: Mar 28, 2020

Virgil Vox posted:

I don't have a commentary on hand but to me this is a direct reference to Nibbana: the Buddha goes thru the realms of existence in this quote, where all rupa ceases and beyond the realm of perception and nonperception

Yes, it is fully seeing and understanding what is profoundly rich and self-complete outside of nama and rupa that was always there, buried under the defilements and habitual activity. This is what makes arahants never pick up nama and rupa as a real fact about reality ever again. It just causes suffering and they know it unfailingly. In the absence of name and form, name and form is comprehended. Nuns and monks in the canon sometimes became enlightened simply because the conditions were right, they saw something very deeply, and let go, without necessarily a lot of development in following the Buddha's teachings in terms of stability and consistency.

Theravadins tend to be a little coy about this for various reasons, many of them extremely good ones. Mahayanists emphasize the inherent presence of this bare knowing, especially to arouse deep compassion for all beings and to promote healthy moral shame in pursuit of being a Buddha 24/7, instead of just hanging out blissfully until dying. But it has created some unbalanced tendencies and delusions in Mahayana as well, which happens with all teachings because beings are deluded. This is well understood by many within the tradition. Hence the "Does even a dog have buddha-nature? No." koan and various other approaches to combat coarse and very subtle delusions about beings.

e: perceiving/seeing isn't right. it's just stopping. all of our understandings about this are utterly, utterly flawed due to delusion or else we would just be there. i need to pay more attention to this because it's just idle chatter and can be very harmful

corn haver fucked around with this message at 13:58 on Oct 29, 2022

# ? Oct 29, 2022 06:26

Virgil Vox: Dec 8, 2009

Herstory Begins Now posted:

what exactly is this inherent consciousness

A response to mental factors

# ? Oct 29, 2022 08:20

DiscoWitch: Oct 16, 2009; uwu

I have found myself being pointed again and it appears Shikantaza is here now.

# ? Oct 29, 2022 10:09

DiscoWitch: Oct 16, 2009; uwu

Thoughts, many thoughts. Attaching to sounds and feelings. Sensations, judgements. Sounds and naming sounds, naming sensations. Urgency, impatience, judgement. Shifting focus, thoughts. Watching the session end, judgement that I gave in to the urge to end the session, realisation of that judgement.

Posting :v:

# ? Oct 29, 2022 10:27

corn haver: Mar 28, 2020

Cephas posted:

Even a murderer, a child molester, or a rapist has the potential to become a Buddha. The seed of kindness is within them. No human being has gone their whole life without having some small moment of kindness, no matter how minor. If only they could recognize that kindness is right at their feet, and nourish it, their seed of kindness could grow and bear fruit for the rest of their life. But if they continue to trod the soil and trample the seed it will never grow. Wrong effort is guided by craving; Right effort is guided by awakening.

I think that's what the Angulimala Sutta teaches.

Yes, thank you. As you put very well, due to the immense harm they cause others, we fail to see the good qualities in such people. Often, they have only a tiny whiff of apparent good qualities and have extremely dim faculties. But this isn't always the case. Angulimala was literally chasing everyone he could find down to hack them to pieces at great risk to himself, while living a rough life in the woods. That takes a lot of (extremely misapplied and heedless) diligence and courage, things that the Buddha could see because there was no praise and blame. And when Angulimala could see human suffering again due to renunciation, his capacity for vigorous effort and the knowledge of the immense torment he had caused himself and others led to him quickly liberating himself and benefiting others.

corn haver fucked around with this message at 15:36 on Oct 29, 2022

# ? Oct 29, 2022 14:26

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

corn haver posted:

Yes, thank you. As you put very well, due to the immense harm they cause others, we fail to see the good qualities in such people. Often, they have only a tiny whiff of apparent good qualities and have extremely dim faculties. But this isn't always the case. Angulimala was literally chasing everyone he could find down to hack them to pieces at great risk to himself, while living a rough life in the woods. That takes a lot of (extremely misapplied and heedless) diligence and courage, things that the Buddha could see because there was no praise and blame. And when Angulimala could see human suffering again due to renunciation, his capacity for vigorous effort and the knowledge of the immense torment he had caused himself and others led to him quickly liberating himself and benefiting others.

drat that's a great story, I hadn't heard of it before.

I think one complication in learning to see such things is the cultural environment. It is, to say the least, difficult to discuss the good qualities of wicked or controversial people in a dispassionate way or without engaging in unskillful speech towards other parties. Which of course leads back to the shock value of the trump buddha.

# ? Oct 29, 2022 18:49

corn haver: Mar 28, 2020

Nessus posted:

drat that's a great story, I hadn't heard of it before.

I think one complication in learning to see such things is the cultural environment. It is, to say the least, difficult to discuss the good qualities of wicked or controversial people in a dispassionate way or without engaging in unskillful speech towards other parties. Which of course leads back to the shock value of the trump buddha.

Yeah, it's not easy to talk about. People cannot just dive into the things in a really bad person's head without really, really wanting to do so. If you have compassion but no equanimity you're just going to be falling down the stairs constantly and hurting people in the process. The Buddha didn't run to go tell the people who killed Angulimala what a terrible thing they did, even though killing an arahant is traditionally held to be just about the worst possible thing that one can do. The Buddha ultimately decided that it was impossible to admit people like Angulimala into the Sangha without destroying it.

corn haver fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Oct 30, 2022

# ? Oct 29, 2022 19:42

Pollyanna: Mar 5, 2005; Milk's on them.

quote:

Buddha nature

Sounds to me like everyone just kinda wants to be okay.

Either way, the way I see it, having Buddha nature makes you worthy of compassion but not of unquestioning acquiescence and infinite deference.

�

Continuing to read.

quote:

�Dear Buddha, are you a living being?� We want the Buddha to confirm the notion we have of him. But he looks at us, smiles, and says, �A human being is not a human being. That is why we can say that he is a human being.� These are the dialectics of the Diamond Sutra. �A is not A. That is why it is truly A.� A flower is not a flower. It is made only of non-flower elements � sunshine, clouds, time, space, earth, minerals, gardeners, and so on. A true flower contains the whole universe.

I think I have a very basic inkling of what is being spoken of here, but it�s hard to put into words. There is something important about the relationship between what we identify as individual entities and the holistic universe. They are connected in some fashion, and that connection binds(???) them(???).

It�s like water flowing between two tanks connected by a pipe - it�s all the same water. I think.

quote:

If we return any one of these non-flower elements to its source, there will be no flower.

�To its source� still escapes me. I�ll have to mull it over.

Pollyanna fucked around with this message at 14:23 on Nov 3, 2022

# ? Nov 3, 2022 14:18

BIG FLUFFY DOG: Feb 16, 2011; On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.

Pollyanna posted:

Sounds to me like everyone just kinda wants to be okay.

Either way, the way I see it, having Buddha nature makes you worthy of compassion but not of unquestioning acquiescence and infinite deference.

�

Continuing to read.

I think I have a very basic inkling of what is being spoken of here, but it�s hard to put into words. There is something important about the relationship between what we identify as individual entities and the holistic universe. They are connected in some fashion, and that connection binds(???) them(???).

It�s like water flowing between two tanks connected by a pipe - it�s all the same water. I think.

�To its source� still escapes me. I�ll have to mull it over.

No. It's not the same water at all. That's monism which is rejected by the buddha. All the components and compounded parts of the universe are in fact distinct as is plainly obvious. Instead think of the flower and think of how it came to be. It was grown from a seed. Where did the seed come from. Another flower but how did it get there? Maybe the wind, maybe a bird's rear end in a top hat. How did the bird get there? It came from an egg in a nest. This nest was in a tree. If it was not in a tree the bird would have been eaten by predators. Where did the tree come from? This particular tree, let's say was planted by a forest ranger. Where did the forest ranger come from? His parents having sex. Where did his parents having sex come from? Because they met at an Applebee's and they thought each other was hot and one asked the other out. Where did the Applebee's come from? And so on and so forth. If the applebee's was returned to its source. That it never interacted with anything else in the universe and simply stayed a platonically perfect applebee's with no dependence on anything else and nothing else depending on it then the flower would not exist because the parents wouldn't have met and then forest ranger would not be and then the tree would not have been planted and then the egg would have had no nest and then there would then be no bird's rear end in a top hat to poop out the seed that made the flower.

There are other things the flower depends on. And there are other birds and other trees but they all have similar stories and not a single one of them exists because of a perfect something in the platonic realm or an intrinsic nature. They exist because the rest of the universe exists too.

You wouldn't say that the heart is the same as the liver. If you go applying heart medicine for a liver problem because "they're all the same" you'd be kicked out of medical school. But if you don't have one you're not going to have the other.

# ? Nov 3, 2022 14:59

Cephas: May 11, 2009; Humanity's real enemy is me!
Hya hya foowah!

it might be worth comparing and contrasting buddhist ideas with other philosophical and religious ideas about the self. Buddhist "nonself" is anatman, which means without-atman. The word atman is the sanskrit word for "true self." In Hindu and vedic religions, the goal of one's spiritual journey is to awaken to one's true self, which is eternal and radiant. Imagine a piece of paper that has had so much charcoal rubbed on it that it appears completely black. You take an eraser to it and the charcoal begins to erase, revealing what's underneath it. Underneath the charcoal, there was a portrait of your truest self, drawn in permanent black ink. The ink cannot be erased.

Similarly, in Plato's worldview, all things in this world are shadows of their true ideal forms. So an earthly tree, for instance, is nothing but a shadow of the ideal of a tree. A chair is just the shadow of the ideal of a chair. The physical manifestation is inferior to the True Self.

By comparison, the Buddhist conception of "nonself" is like a coin with two sides. On one side, you have emptiness. On the other side, you have interdependence.

The idea of "self" is empty. There is no solid Cephas in the universe. What am I? I am the genes of my mother and father. I am the absorbed nutrients of the things I eat. I am the chemical processes that create a functioning mind. I am the thoughts and opinions that were made possible by the combination of my brain, my environment, and the people around me.

Suppose I get hit by a large brick to the head and it changes my cognitive functioning. Can you say that the me, post-accident, is not the "real" Cephas? How could that be? The me before the accident was just as determined by environmental factors and chance as the me after the accident. No--it would be merely attachment to the old version of myself that would make you say that "the me before the accident was the real me." There was nothing solid, nothing irreducible about that version of me. It was just as impermanent as anything, just as susceptible to change as anything.

On the other side of the coin, you have interdependence. I am Cephas precisely because I am made of the specific combinations of factors that lead to Cephas. The precise combination of chemicals, nutrients, people, memories, thoughts, experiences. At this moment. Every moment, every blink, every breath, is a single frame in a reel of film, and in each frame you are a unique form factor in the cosmos. Nothing is precisely like you at that moment, not even the you before or after that moment. And at each moment, just as you are, you are capable of reaching nirvana.

So there is no true self to pursue. Just as you are, impermanent and made of nothing but the particles around you, you already have the potential for awakening.

# ? Nov 3, 2022 15:08

Paramemetic: Sep 29, 2003; Area 51. You heard of it, right?; Fallen Rib

Cephas fuckin nailing the anatman, great descriptions, ty

# ? Nov 3, 2022 15:47

Pollyanna: Mar 5, 2005; Milk's on them.

What does �empty� mean?

Sorry for all the questions. Being wrong is how I learn.

# ? Nov 3, 2022 16:19

Paramemetic: Sep 29, 2003; Area 51. You heard of it, right?; Fallen Rib

Pollyanna posted:

What does �empty� mean?

Sorry for all the questions. Being wrong is how I learn.

Emptiness is form, and form is, you guessed it, emptiness!

# ? Nov 3, 2022 16:38

corn haver: Mar 28, 2020

Pollyanna posted:

What does �empty� mean?

Sorry for all the questions. Being wrong is how I learn.

It's a doctrine developed as an antidote to viewing objects (physical, mental, emotional) as having substantiality in the ordinary way of understanding it, until we can see them without deluding ourselves. We can view things as empty or absolutely real in specific contexts if it is helpful, once we understand what we're doing.

For example, one might break a toe, and go drat, that hurts a lot and hop around wincing. Or someone is yelling at you. To us, this is a big deal. We don't have perspective on how these things were formed from causes and conditions, the deeply fleeting nature of these phenomena, the suffering of someone who has caused something that we don't like to occur, how our dislike formed, or the faculties of the human brain which structure and interpret these phenomena, which are deeply fallible and cannot be relied on.

To a Buddha, these events appear to be no more significant than the grass blowing in the wind, even if our bodies are wracked with pain and our nervous system isn't working correctly because of it. Or we're crying with someone we care about because they hurt a lot, we want to be there for them, and we let our strong emotions come out to help them process things. But to a living being living in delusion, all these things must be addressed without questioning context, without understanding if it's truly helpful, hurtful, or just a habit or instinct to respond in that way.

So if we say that these phenomena are empty, that they simply do not exist in the way that we understand them, we can begin to disentangle the complex web of interactions that occur, and act in better ways that are more helpful to ourselves and others.

corn haver fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Nov 3, 2022

# ? Nov 3, 2022 17:00

Paramemetic: Sep 29, 2003; Area 51. You heard of it, right?; Fallen Rib

As a more serious answer than my previous reply, emptiness (sunyata, also "void-ness," "void-nature," "nothing," Tib. སྟོང་པ་ཉིད་ Wylie stong pa nyid) is like much of Buddhism something that has evolved somewhat in its understanding over time. It initially referred, in the Pali canon, to a meditative state, the nature of things, and I believe to a flavor of meditative attainment but I'm not a Pali guy. In Mahayana, how it is precisely understood depends on the philosopher.

The most, to me, direct understanding is Nagarjuna's reductivist demonstration in the Mulamadhyamakakarika, where he establishes that emptiness is the result of dependent origination. Going back to the related concept of anatman that Cephas elucidated so well, the idea is that all things exist only provisionally, dependent on other things. A chair cannot exist without being composed of legs and a seat, absent any of those things no chair exists anywhere. But legs of a chair only exist insomuch as there is a chair - absent a chair, there can be no chair legs. Thus, "chair" is empty, no chair can be found, but likewise, "chair legs" are empty, as no chair legs can be found. It's only through interdependent coarising that anything exists, and thus, because all things depend on all other things, nothing has a permanent, absolute, real nature. It is all empty, in that it is devoid of essence.

But a critical point is that emptiness is not something other than this world which we inhabit. There is no need to look for emptiness anywhere, because emptiness isn't some underlying state or thing or condition. Emptiness is the state in which all things exist, because no things exist inherently. Nagarjuna would argue this applies no matter how small we get - there is no "partless particle" because even a partless particle has dimensionality - directions - and relationships to other particles.

So to say something is empty in the Mahayana is essentially an affirmation of anatman, but this applies not just to beings but to all phenomena. A thought is empty because a thought arises only in the context of a thought-haver. If a bird chirps, the sound itself is empty because that sound exists only inasmuch as there is both a sound and a hearing of the sound. With no hearer, there can be no sound, because a sound that isn't heard isn't a phenomenon. All existence is interdependently coarisen and thus empty.

A lot of effort is put on the cultivation of a union wisdom and emptiness in Tibetan Buddhism, where the aim is a recognition that things are empty and devoid of nature but also, that it's not "unreal." We can refer to this samsaric existence as dreamlike and illusory, and it is, but no more or less so than other dreamlike states.

The Yogacarin tradition takes a related approach and in fact these schools more or less resolved, and I think I let a lot of Yogacarin into the description above, in that Yogacara makes its point that it is the existence of experiencer and experience that underlies emptiness. In Yogacara, all phenomena are said to arise from and exist within the eight consciousnesses, and those eight consciousnesses exist only insomuch as phenomena arise from and within them, through the fruiting of cause and effect. They reject the Madhyamaka view as nihilistic, though in truth these views synthesize quite nicely.

The Yogacarins hold that emptiness is the result of experiences being that of illusory concepts, ideas, rather than of a sort of Ding-an-Sich. There isn't actually anything experienced, merely thoughts arising within consciousness, and those thoughts don't reflect an underlying reality, instead they are only coherent because of shared karmas. If we both look at a table and see a flower, it's because we both have table-looking-flower-seeing karma, and not because there is a table or a flower. If you like the flower, and I don't like the flower, it's because of our separate karmas vis a vis flowers. In this way the flower and the table and etc. are all empty, devoid of inherent nature, because there is no flower or table in fact, merely the experience thereof. So that is how they would describe emptiness.

Apropos to the greater topic at hand, another approach is that of Buddha Nature. In this, there is said to be a Tathagathagarbha, or "Buddha Embryo," the Buddha Nature that exists as a seed within all sentient beings. This is not claiming an essential self, it's not claiming atman, because it's understood that this thing is outside the duality of existence or non-existence through itself being a substrate and not a phenomenon. It gets dicey.

The question is loaded in particular, and complicated especially in Tibetan, because you'll recall that word is སྟོང་པ་ཉིད, or "tong pa nyid," where "nyid" means "two." "Two emptinesses." This comes from Tibetan discourses which sought to establish shentong ("other emptiness") vs rangtong ("self emptiness"). Shentong, advanced by Dolpopa, argued that phenomena are devoid of nature but possessed of emptiness, which is a thing that underlies everything like a substrate (see above). This was rejected and argued against largely because it holds that there is an existing thing that is ultimately real (e.g. emptiness, Buddha-nature, the Dharmadhatu, whatever). Rangtong argues that emptiness is the substrate, but that emptiness is even empty of emptiness itself, without any essence. Essentially, emptiness is empty of emptiness also, whereas shentong argues that emptiness itself is inherently empty by nature.

These are the kinds of dumb arguments monks get into because they don't have real jobs.

Tibetan Buddhism holds to there being two realities, the relative and ultimate reality, and so ultimately (heh) this argument is about whether the ultimate reality (dharmadhatu - dimension of Dharma, truth dimension) has a nature that is emptiness, or whether this nature is empty in itself.

Much smarter people than myself largely resolve these kinds of questions by going "you'll figure it out when you're enlightened and then you won't care so how about do some meditation and look at this empty phenomenal world, that is the union of form and void."

So, to come back to my short pithy reply before,

Avalokitesvara posted:

"Form is empty, emptiness is form. Emptiness is not other than form. Form is not other than emptiness. In the same way feeling, discrimination, compositional factors, and consciousness are empty. Shariputra, like this all phenomena are empty, without characteristics, that is, they are not produced and do not cease; they have no defilement and no separation from defilement; they have no decrease and no increase.

�Therefore, Shariputra, in emptiness there is no form, no feeling, no discrimination, no compositional factors, no consciousness. There is no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind; no visible form, no sound, no smell, no taste, no object of touch, no mental phenomenon. There is no eye element and so forth up to no mind element, up to no element of mental consciousness. There is no ignorance and no cessation of ignorance and so forth up to no aging and death and no cessation of aging and death. Likewise, there is no suffering, no origin, no cessation, and no path; no exalted wisdom, no attainment, and also no nonattainment.

Edit: or just read corn haver's thing for a more practical answer.

Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Nov 3, 2022

# ? Nov 3, 2022 17:11

Pollyanna: Mar 5, 2005; Milk's on them.

Paramemetic posted:

Emptiness is form, and form is, you guessed it, emptiness!

Fair enough :v:

I will understand eventually.

More people have posted since - I�ll read through your posts too!

�

Allow me to bounce some thoughts off of you all. I am reading The Art of Communication, and in both that and the Heart of the Buddha�s Teaching, it speaks of food and nourishment. About how thoughts and statements are also a form of food, how food can both heal and poison us, and how we consume the food we produce as well as the food we receive.

I recognize this, I�m no stranger to self-defeating thoughts and insecurity. I also recognize that I consume the insecurity and doubt I produce directed toward myself, and that it leads to a reinforcing feedback loop that keeps that poison alive.

The solution seems obvious - stop eating the poison. In the specific case of insecurity and doubt, stop unquestioningly accepting thoughts that you are inferior, that you do not make something of value, and that you do not have the capacity to grow and learn.

Awareness is one thing, but I�m still unsure of how to actively apply this practice. When I think �I don�t know what I�m doing when I try and make music�, that is accompanied by silent insecurity and doubt. Mindfulness leads me to recognize that insecurity and doubt as poisonous food. Therefore, I need to not ingest those parts of the thought - but how?

My initial guess is to change the thought, maybe? When I hear it, reject it and replace it with healing food. �I don�t know what I�m doing when I try and make music, and that does not mean making music is pointless, that I am unable to learn how and get better at it, or that what I make does not hold any value�.

But that�s subject to doubt. I�ve been consuming that poison for so long that it can be hard to accept the antidote. i.e., believe myself when I say that.

I haven�t figured out what to do next yet. Surely I�m not the only person who looks to this for help with anxiety and other cognitive illnesses. Maybe I just need to sit with my feelings longer?

# ? Nov 3, 2022 17:33

Pollyanna: Mar 5, 2005; Milk's on them.

Paramemetic posted:

A chair cannot exist without being composed of legs and a seat, absent any of those things no chair exists anywhere. But legs of a chair only exist insomuch as there is a chair - absent a chair, there can be no chair legs. Thus, "chair" is empty, no chair can be found, but likewise, "chair legs" are empty, as no chair legs can be found. It's only through interdependent coarising that anything exists, and thus, because all things depend on all other things, nothing has a permanent, absolute, real nature. It is all empty, in that it is devoid of essence.

This reminds me of how in some programming languages, what is defined as a (let�s say) Chair very specifically refers to a collection of data. Meaning that a Chair is a composite existence made of many components:

code:

Chair
  Legs
  Seat
  Back
  Carpenter
  Buyer
  <and more>

And that each of these components is itself a composite, allll the way down:

code:

  Legs
    Wood
       Tree
       Saw
         Metal
  Seat
    Wood
    Fabric
    Cushion
      Sitting Pains
        Aches
          Biology
          Physics
  Back
    Wood
    Fabric

And is also a composite because of what it composes:

code:

Legs
  Chair Legs
    Chair

Chair Legs
  Legs
  Chair

The chair we are familiar with is infinitely more complex than this, obviously.

I do not yet understand how or if this relates to empty as we discuss here, but it is a touchstone I recognize.

# ? Nov 3, 2022 17:59

Paramemetic: Sep 29, 2003; Area 51. You heard of it, right?; Fallen Rib

So if you consider that the chair is the assemblage of those component parts, and then say you define those components as (parts of a chair), you're getting close. The chair doesn't exist without the parts, the parts don't exist without the chair. They all only exist in dependence on the others. Because they only exist when together, it doesn't exist inherently, which is the crux of the matter. It doesn't assert that nothing exists, that would be nihilism. Instead it's that nothing has inherent, essential, "true" existence.

https://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book/m%C5%ABlamadhyamakak%C4%81rik%C4%81

The mulamadhyamakakarika is available online with good commentary if you want to just read a guy be obnoxious as hell in arguing without making any affirmative statements, a thing for which his contemporaries really disliked him, but could not defeat him.

Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Nov 3, 2022

# ? Nov 3, 2022 18:10

BIG FLUFFY DOG: Feb 16, 2011; On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.

Pollyanna posted:

Fair enough I will understand eventually.

More people have posted since - I�ll read through your posts too!

�

Allow me to bounce some thoughts off of you all. I am reading The Art of Communication, and in both that and the Heart of the Buddha�s Teaching, it speaks of food and nourishment. About how thoughts and statements are also a form of food, how food can both heal and poison us, and how we consume the food we produce as well as the food we receive.

I recognize this, I�m no stranger to self-defeating thoughts and insecurity. I also recognize that I consume the insecurity and doubt I produce directed toward myself, and that it leads to a reinforcing feedback loop that keeps that poison alive.

The solution seems obvious - stop eating the poison. In the specific case of insecurity and doubt, stop unquestioningly accepting thoughts that you are inferior, that you do not make something of value, and that you do not have the capacity to grow and learn.

Awareness is one thing, but I�m still unsure of how to actively apply this practice. When I think �I don�t know what I�m doing when I try and make music�, that is accompanied by silent insecurity and doubt. Mindfulness leads me to recognize that insecurity and doubt as poisonous food. Therefore, I need to not ingest those parts of the thought - but how?

My initial guess is to change the thought, maybe? When I hear it, reject it and replace it with healing food. �I don�t know what I�m doing when I try and make music, and that does not mean making music is pointless, that I am unable to learn how and get better at it, or that what I make does not hold any value�.

But that�s subject to doubt. I�ve been consuming that poison for so long that it can be hard to accept the antidote. i.e., believe myself when I say that.

I haven�t figured out what to do next yet. Surely I�m not the only person who looks to this for help with anxiety and other cognitive illnesses. Maybe I just need to sit with my feelings longer?

Your brain is very stupid and cannot tel the difference between fake thoughts and real ones. You feel like the thoughts are fake because you aren�t used to them just like someone who thinks an exotic cuisine is disgusting because they aren�t used to it. Keep forcing yourself to think the good thoughts even though they feel fake and eventually they will become real.

# ? Nov 3, 2022 18:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 18:04

Pollyanna: Mar 5, 2005; Milk's on them.

Paramemetic posted:

So if you consider that the chair is the assemblage of those component parts, and then say you define those components as (parts of a chair), you're getting close. The chair doesn't exist without the parts, the parts don't exist without the chair. They all only exist in dependence on the others. Because they only exist when together, it doesn't exist inherently, which is the crux of the matter. It doesn't assert that nothing exists, that would be nihilism. Instead it's that nothing has inherent, essential, "true" existence.

https://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book/m%C5%ABlamadhyamakak%C4%81rik%C4%81

The mulamadhyamakakarika is available online with good commentary if you want to just read a guy be obnoxious as hell in arguing without making any affirmative statements, a thing for which his contemporaries really disliked him, but could not defeat him.

Everything flows, basically.

But yeah I definitely get why this is a rabbit hole. I�m interested in so much as I wish to Be Okay, and as part of everything else understanding this is a step on that path. Still, I can�t get lost in it.

One of the reasons I look to all this is because ultimately, I want understanding. I want to know how do I work, why do I think certain things, how do I get better at what I do, how do I stop feeling so bad, all that. I don�t know if it�s appropriate to come at this with those goals in mind, but hey, I�ve never said no to learning and thinking.

Maybe I�ll find what I�m looking for, maybe not. Might as well keep going.

# ? Nov 3, 2022 18:19

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Buddhism Thread: Bitch I just told you about kshitigarbha

«‹›51 »