Home › Forum Online Discussion › Philosophy › The Four Denials of Buddhism – and an unspoken 5th?
- This topic has 43 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 2 months ago by Fajin.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 31, 2006 at 2:33 pm #17173Michael WinnKeymaster
A surprising number of Buddhists come to Dao Mtn, mostly to balance out their need for body cultivation.
One of them explained the Four Denials of Buddhism to me, ie. what Buddhism is Not:
1. Dualism – separation at any level
2. Monism – Big Deity sits on top.
3. Nihilism – Chaos rules
4. Eternalism – Fixed state or absolute can be attained
I think I buy all four of those as being inadequate or conceptually false descriptions of reality.
But my question , which this particular Buddhist could not answer, was whether there is a hidden 5th Denial:
5. Selfhood – Humans can attain a “True” or Authentic Self-Realization that survives death by merging into the creative process of the Life Force.
How about it, Buddhists, neo-Buddhists, or neo-buddo-taoists?
Is there a fifth denial? Does the nature of your understanding of Emptiness or Wuji or other cosmic ultimate preclude Selfhood that is other than illusory?
An open question, not presuming any answer. Good to state which tradition of Buddhism you adhere to.
michael
ps will get to “focus on breath” issue shortly.
August 31, 2006 at 6:34 pm #17174baguaParticipantHi Michael:
Lao Zi reveals a level of awareness that does not distinguish things, this is the same awareness level buddha presents. We accept life as it is; immortal or not-immortal is just another of the infinite dualistic and conceptual ideas that Lao Zi identifies as not the way of harmony.
Buddha and Lao Zi knew we are part of creation, inseparable from it and spoke of this inseparable unity.
bagua
September 1, 2006 at 7:16 am #17176Michael WinnKeymasterLao Tzu often uses the term “ling” or “soul” to describe the unfolding of the Tao, and also refers specifically to the po soul. So I am not clear as to what you are trying to generalize here.
Immortality does not imply “separation” or “duality” – it is part of the fabric of the Tao. Just as “individualized” phyusical human body-minds are essential to its process. You are avoiding the issue of Selfhood here, which does not imply separation or duality when seen in the context of Self being an evolutoinary process rather than a fixed item.
It appears you are somehow translating Tao as undifferentiated state rather than as a Way or Process that includes everything, including Selfhood.. I suspect this is a error, perhaps engendered by Chan use of Tao terminology in a different way that is goal or fixed state oriented. One of the Four Denials I believe would exclude making wuji into a fixed eternal state.. …
But you cannot use generalized translations of Lao Tzu by chan types (such as Cleary or Stephen Mitchell) to make thiese conclusions.
Get Jonathan Star’s word by word index of Lao Tzu to examine the common use of “soul” and “soul chi” in the Lao Tzu. Even the Redpine translation which I think you have includes a commentary on the Po soul useage in one chapter, an allusion to it traditionally being associated with negative personal desire. This undermines your contention that completion of the soul cannot be possible since Lao Tzu does not talk about it in that language of us having different souls.
I think the Selfhood question remains an open one, the key issue that cannot be avoided or glossed over as a linguisitic anomaly or a temporary burp in the wuji.
smiling to your Self,
michaelSeptember 1, 2006 at 8:35 am #17178NnonnthParticipantI’d been looking for that but didn’t know it existed.
Ursula Le Guin (famous f/sf author) produced a ‘translation’ of Tao Te Ching purely from some old word-for-word edition and comparisons with other translators. The result made it sound like she’d written it herself. This made me aware that with these old documents people can basically get them to mean whatever they want. Orthodoxy is the problem in any case. NN
September 1, 2006 at 10:33 am #17180FajinParticipantHi Michael,
I knew you had some more posts about Buddhism coming along so I decided to stay for now and the “focus on breath” issue too!
Look at this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism):
Nirvana is the extinguishment of all desire; it is the realisation that the Self does not exist, and that human desires are empty. An enlightened Buddhist is able to act in this world with complete detachment (without desire), and their actions have no karma. A Buddhist who has attained Nirvana has escaped the world of cause-and-effect (they are free from the cycle of birth and rebirth). Nirvana is neither positive nor negative. It is just the truth. The realisation of Nirvana is a happy experience (but not the sensation of joy). The happiness of Nirvana is the true joy of having realised the ultimate truth; the bliss of escaping the endless chain of cause-and-effect. Nirvana is fully realised at death, but can be experienced before death. There are four stages in the Buddhist life:
1. The Stream-Entrant (novice) only catches a glimpse of Nirvana in the teaching of the Buddha.
2. The Once-Returner is destined to be reborn into this physical world once more before experiencing full Nirvana.
3. The Never-Returner has an even deeper knowledge of Nirvana and is assured that they will not be reborn.
4. The Worthy-One (Arhat) is completely pure and free from desire. That person has experienced Nirvana and will know it fully at death, when all matter, sensations, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness will disappear forever.It’s really that simple.
Being free from the cycle of birth and death. The realization of that which is beyond birth and death. Don’t know why all the fuss!
Fajin
September 1, 2006 at 10:44 am #17182FajinParticipant“When I have taught non-Self, fools uphold the teaching that there is no Self. The wise know that such is conventional speech, and they are free from doubts.”
-Guatama Buddha
September 1, 2006 at 11:35 am #17184Michael WinnKeymasterThanks Fajin,
The passage you’ve posted pretty much sums up my understanding of the foundation of Buddhism, regardless of its many cultural forms, but I wanted it to come from a practicing Buddhist. It confirms that there is a Fifth Denial, the Denial of Selfhood.
Whenever I try to point this out to Bagua, that Buddhism is fundamentally an absolute state oriented metaphysic rather than process oriented, he fudges and claims for him that Chan is processual in nature, like Daoism. I can fully accept that modern western Buddhists want to modify the orignal Buddhist philosophy to bring it in line with their experience, no problem. But we need again to separate useful meditaiton techniques from foundational metaphysics.
What you’ve posted from Wikipedia is a process that TERMINATES human consciousness, i.e. the process itself is illusory and not permanent once Nirvana is attained. This impies a separation exists between the state of Change (Creation, Incarnation) and Nirvana.
>4. The Worthy-One (Arhat) is completely pure and free from desire. That person has experienced Nirvana and will know it fully at death, when all matter, sensations, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness will disappear forever.
There is a “fuss” because from my point of view this philosophy is fundamentally flawed and dualistic, the result probably of a desire to escape the problem of human suffering by leaving the Wheel of Incarnation rather than solving the problem of suffering within the context of human consciousness, either during physical life or afterwards in other dimensions (concept of immorality).
Ironically, even such a temporary Buddhist human process of achieving Nirvana implies a process of soul COMPLETION, even though it has an end state in which completion is final by eliminating the self.
At core, I feel any absolutist philosphy such as what you have posted leads to a denial and/or an underming of the evolutionary reality of Selfhood. Selfhood can be viewed on a evolutioniary spectrum from personal self (physical human) all the way up through levels of the collective Self (whether seen as Humanity, Earth, or Heaven).
Buddhism posits that Selfhood is the problem, the flaw, rather than the solution, and thus we need to be devolved out it.
Selfhood doesn’t deny the original mystery (call it what you want, wuji, hundun, Emptiness, but it is something other than Self or Humanity). This focus on eliminating Self is unique to Buddhism. Other primordial philosophies, such as you find in HInduism, do not believe in the elimination of Self – that was the very point of Buddhism’s radical departure from Hinduism.
Just for perspective, let me quote here a comment on “realizing the true nature of the Self, or real God, based on the Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi”:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Self
Q: How can we find the Self?
M: “There can be no real investigation into the Atman. The investigation can only be made into the non-self. It is only possible to eliminate the non-self. As the Self is always self-evident, it will shine of itself. “Knowing” means “Being.” It is not relative knowledge.
Progress can be spoken of in reference to things to be attained, whereas here it is the removal of ignorance, and not the acquisition of knowledge. ”
————————–
This is completely the opposite view of Buddhism, which gives primacy to Non-self over Self. Ramana’s approach is essentially that the underlying Original Self is Immortal, and cannot be destroyed, and that human awareness can only be expanded to include the nature of Original Being. That while the wuji (in my definition) or non-self, is critical to expanding our sense of Self, and gives us the freedom and boundary to understand Self, non-self is not something that Self can ultimately merge into. We can only expand our awareness of the “space” previously occupied by non-self. Don’t misinterpret the phrase “Return to Origin” as meaning end of consciousness – it means a human can simultaneously experience the full cycle of Life and Death. But only an immortal one Or God-self can have that perspective, not a Non-Self!
Beingness is the foundational definition of self, in the Taoist tradition it would be defined by the Three Ones that emerged from hundun, the Primordial. I have never seen any suggestion in my readings that suggest the Three Ones ‘die”.
The reason that the distinction about Selfhood vs. non-self is important, and not merely linguistic, is because I am aware of lawful streams of divine consciousness that ooppose the development of the Self and believe it was a mistake, even as they participate in supporting Creation (as they must, as part of the Creating Collective of Tao mind.
They want to DEVOLVE the self, rather than evolve it. This is the essence of the “War in Heaven”, whether to evolve or devolve the Free Will that results from Selfhood. The Buddhist position is a reflection of that position, it ultimately seeks an elimination of the Free Will choice to continue living after death and evolving and creating.
If you resonate with that devolution of free will, it has, in my opinion, probable consequences in the subtle planes that you may not be aware of. These may not be apparent until the moment of death, when you may find it difficult if not impossible to reverse a lifetime of belief and be unable to choose to continue evolving the Self, even though the option is presented. The lifeforce will always give you what you ask. But best to investigate deeply before you “vote” your Self out of existence.
That’s the fuss.
Smiling to your Self,
MichaelSeptember 1, 2006 at 12:40 pm #17186baguaParticipantYes, you are right Michael,
Buddhists deny the Self, the False Self! They know the creator and creation are one and this is their True Self. In the same we you and I have different bodies we have a unique self/body that is separate but we are part of the same universe.
Chan buddhists know life is change, if one tries to keep things fixed they “suffer”, this trying to stop change is the root of suffering. They accept change in the same way Lao Zi does, they are percieving the same reality. As the planets move in their patterns and each day brings a new night and night a day, only the deluted will try or think they can control these patterns of change, chan buddhists know this, both in theory and experience.
Its the ingrained patterns of emotions and intellect and the pressures and pulls of society and socialization that exerts the force to prevent us from living in a natural way, so we have practices to allow our natural expression to unfold, or as you like to call it, allow the process to unfold.
Lao Zi and Buddha speak from the space where the false veil is removed and their true nature exists (IMHO).
Smiling in the Tao,
bagua
September 1, 2006 at 12:43 pm #17188baguaParticipantMany Healing Tao practioners and instructors also study buddhism, quite a few are senior teachers, any thoughts as why Tao Alchemy is not fullfilling or complete enough for your fellow tao sisters and brothers?
bagua
September 1, 2006 at 12:45 pm #17190baguaParticipantThe fuss may come from an intellectual and emotional attached to a specfic method one is invested in, an intense attachement to a method and grapsing a theory that differentiates other methods. Just my feeling.
September 1, 2006 at 1:03 pm #17192FajinParticipantHi Michael,
Thank you for your response. Let’s penetrate deeper.
>>What you’ve posted from Wikipedia is a process that TERMINATES human consciousness, i.e. the process itself is illusory and not permanent once Nirvana is attained. This impies a separation exists between the state of Change (Creation, Incarnation) and Nirvana.<>There can be no real investigation into the Atman. The investigation can only be made into the non-self. It is only possible to eliminate the non-self. As the Self is always self-evident, it will shine of itself. “Knowing” means “Being.” It is not relative knowledge.<>But only an immortal one Or God-self can have that perspective, not a Non-Self!<>They want to DEVOLVE the self, rather than evolve it. This is the essence of the “War in Heaven”, whether to evolve or devolve the Free Will that results from Selfhood. The Buddhist position is a reflection of that position, it ultimately seeks an elimination of the Free Will choice to continue living after death and evolving and creating.<<
*How can you be less free after having transcended duality? Who is the one with the free will, the false you, or the true you?
Smiles,
FajinSeptember 1, 2006 at 4:26 pm #17194DogParticipantThere is an old story that the light was called in to the darkness by music to experience what it means to be the light.
“The Self
Q: How can we find the Self?
M: “There can be no real investigation into the Atman. The investigation can only be made into the non-self. It is only possible to eliminate the non-self. As the Self is always self-evident, it will shine of itself. “Knowing” means “Being.” It is not relative knowledge.
Progress can be spoken of in reference to things to be attained, whereas here it is the removal of ignorance, and not the acquisition of knowledge. ” ”
I did not get this until I started clearing away the fog around my heart.
September 1, 2006 at 10:31 pm #17196matblackParticipantMichael, thanx for quoting Ramana Marharshi, one of my favorites.
and then
>>non-self is not something that Self can ultimately merge into<<
sure, becuase to do so would seem to me to be an attempt at suicide on all levels.
*************
The reason that the distinction about Selfhood vs. non-self is important, and not merely linguistic, is because I am aware of lawful streams of divine consciousness that ooppose the development of the Self and believe it was a mistake, even as they participate in supporting Creation (as they must, as part of the Creating Collective of Tao mind.They want to DEVOLVE the self, rather than evolve it. This is the essence of the "War in Heaven", whether to evolve or devolve the Free Will that results from Selfhood. The Buddhist position is a reflection of that position, it ultimately seeks an elimination of the Free Will choice to continue living after death and evolving and creating.
If you resonate with that devolution of free will, it has, in my opinion, probable consequences in the subtle planes that you may not be aware of. These may not be apparent until the moment of death, when you may find it difficult if not impossible to reverse a lifetime of belief and be unable to choose to continue evolving the Self, even though the option is presented. The lifeforce will always give you what you ask. But best to investigate deeply before you "vote" your Self out of existence. ***********
VERY interesting.
I was tod a story by my master (who BTW practices buddhism and taoism) of a woman near where he is from in China.
She practiced EMPTINESS meditation to such an extent that she became empty and other beings/energies inhabited her body. She drifted away somewhere else and had to be retrieved by an advanced master.I think he told us this to emphasise the when the empty/still space arises during meditation, that we are to INHABIT that space with our intent. Thereby using the space for the emergence of our own authetic self.
hope i articulated that ok because I believe it is a very important point
THANX
m
September 2, 2006 at 6:34 am #17198wendyParticipant******She practiced EMPTINESS meditation to such an extent that she became empty and other beings/energies inhabited her body. She drifted away somewhere else and had to be retrieved by an advanced master.
I think he told us this to emphasise the when the empty/still space arises during meditation, that we are to INHABIT that space with our intent. Thereby using the space for the emergence of our own authetic self.******Thank you Mat, I came up with that on this forum several times but most of the time many things are just vaporised here.
I speak from personal experience, so again I emphasize the importance of a feeling of body/mind/emotional balance BEFORE even thinking of empty practice. Most men have a pretty good body awareness, while many women, don’t. There has to be a profound basic of self awareness and of self. Many women do not have that. You can harden yourself like digdug suggest resulting in a shield, I know several women who did this in order to survive including my own mother and my mother-in-law, because of that driving themselves to loneliness and deep sadness because the natural flow for a woman is to interact, when you close that down, you deny your natural food/energy.As we have a yin nature, we absorb, so it is most logic that we attract, we merge naturally. The problem arises when we no longer can make a distinction between I and the other, therefore we need to develop a strong self-awareness.
Jumping into emptiness without foundation means suicide of the self, yes…And I saw many severe cases where women were completely overtaken by ‘others’, some to a no-return point. One was entered by over 30 entities, it was impossible to know to which part of her you were talking to. She was a victim of severe child abuse, where she learned to blank out/empty herself, there was no self any longer, so ‘others’ took that space.
Another woman ‘gave’ herself to her guru, although I never saw a stronger and very spiritual woman, she had this deep need for affection and because of that he could ‘bond’ her to him, ever since her life was a mess and she is a complete nut. I had to throw her out of my practice because she consumed me in order to have lifeforce to sustain her life on earth…
This were severe cases but I know many women who have this kind of more subtle experiences or deep collective memory.How can you give up a self that is not even sincerely developed? It is offering yourself on a dining plate…
Personally I am still in a deep conflict with this, the time I went in empty practice I lost myself and was entered, the fear of this loss/entering was so huge I still feel it as a wound that is not completely healed yet.
That is the other side of empty practice.September 2, 2006 at 7:41 am #17200matblackParticipantthanx for the stories Wendy. i appreciate how you illustrated your points.
****I speak from personal experience, so again I emphasize the importance of a feeling of body/mind/emotional balance BEFORE even thinking of empty practice.*********How can you give up a self that is not even sincerely developed? It is offering yourself on a dining plate… ****
i totally agree.
yeah, my first meditation experience was terrifying.
i think this is certainally where the defintions of emptines or the intent of emptiness are important.
my current practice creates such a charge within my physical body that i can ‘feel’ my body more than ever. it begins by conciously flooding the marrow from the head to the toes. this way, the entire body is made concious.
what follows is a catalytic practice, the effect of which is described by my master as what happens when we place a magnet under a table of pins and the pins are brought into perfect order. so it begins with the physical.
i mean, the sense of aliveness is very strong within the body. i then state the intention to ‘integrate’ my spiritual/mental and physical bodies here and now so when the stillness occurs at the cessation of thought, i go within, within within………and although that ‘internal’ space can feel in some ways, as vast as the space ‘out there’ , it’s still within ‘me’.
at the so -called completion of my practice, (although there’s no real ‘finish’) i feel alive from head to toe, with clarity and a vast space within. and although the body’s energies have been made more subtle (at least it feels that way), i feel in some ways that i am more of an individual than before.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.