boneyard bill

St. Robert writes:

One acknowledges the existence of a personified God while the other does not. I think Buddhists would contend that Nirvana is extremely personal. Also Mahayana Buddhists contend that ultimate truth is citta, roughly translated as "mind." So between God as a "person" and God as a "mind." I don't think there's a huge gulf.

[ May 12, 2002: Message edited by: boneyard bill ]</p>

boneyard bill

Victorialis writes:

We all function from the ego and this self-concept seems to be the organizing principle of our lives. It seems to us to be a unity. But in fact, it is not. Typically, our self-concept is really a bundle of contradictions, confusions, ramblings, indecisions, and disorganizations. When lose this "self," you replace it with nothing, with emptiness. What can be more unified that emptiness? Indeed, how can anything be a complete unity if it has distinguishing attributes?

IMHO the loss of self means a washing away of one's sins in Christianity and in Buddhism it is the dissolution of one's karma (or conditioning).

The "true" self, if that is an appropriate expression, is now emptied of its old limiting habits, opinions, prejudices and inhibitions. This is the "liberation" from the ego. It doesn't bring confusion, it brings clarity.


[QUOTE] boneyardbill says, "It all centers around the Buddhist claim that the ego is an abstraction, an illusion. And because of this faulty identification with a mere self-concept, we are alienated from our true nature and misunderstand the nature of existence as well."

Maybe ego does operate entirely as an abstraction: a concept for which there is no specific evidence, other than (1) broad popular agreement, with nothing to challenge it empirically -- and (2) subjective experience, which is not evidence to anyone but the illusory self. The self could actually amount to no more than participation mystique; a big set of self-reinforcing conjoined subjectives; a mere custom, rumour, habit or superstition.

With this self-concept as a (shared) primary illusion, perception of the nature of existence would, of course, be skewed from the outset, and shared perceptions would never rise above a rather low threshold of reliability; error would multiply. That means perception of everything is skewed (including one's understanding of Buddhism), until one gets one's orientation straightened out.

So: Assuming that reason is still to be used by Buddhists, how does a Buddhist use reason and empirical knowledge, without self-reference? What does the reasoning and knowing?

Let me be more specific: When you understand your true-nature at last (and surely that's a logical place to start), wouldn't this understanding/realisation be comparative? If it's a given that everything perceived before was substantially incorrect, what validating power can the comparison have? If none, then how does one know...?

That I've misunderstood the nature of existence is easy to imagine. What's hard to imagine is the resolution of that state along these particular lines.


------------------------------------------------

I've included nearly the entire post because I think it sums up the argument rather nicely. That's certainly what I understand Buddhism to be saying.

But now the question is, what does the reasoning and knowing? There doesn't have to be a "self" that "does" the reasoning and knowing. There is just reasoning and knowing itself. In other words the self IS reasoning and knowing. There is no distinction between these processes and self that IS COMPOSED of rather that HAS these experience.

Of course, there is no need to validate the statement that "this experience exists." It is true by definition. That's not the same thing as saying "I am having this experience." In the second case there is a self that experiences but also interprets the experience in the light of past experience (karma).

[ May 12, 2002: Message edited by: boneyard bill ]</p>

boneyard bill

Great questions folks. There's an old saying that if you want to learn something you have to teach it. I'm learning a lot.

victorialis

boneyardbill writes:

That's a highly accessible explanation. If I've understood correctly, it pinpoints what is, in effect, no more than a simple difference between two habits of mind.

Clear as a bell, when it's put this way. Now I understand what SteveK meant earlier. This resolves the conflict I was seeing between Buddhist ontology and goal-oriented behavior.

There's really no conflict present; there is no obligation to, or privileging of, passivity; there's only the process of removing, and keeping removed, a persistent perceptual obstacle. The obstacle seems to be constantly reestablished experientially, until you root it all the way out.

In a clearly stratified or closed society, the individual has fewer choices. Under such conditions these ideas would be much easier to grasp.

[ May 12, 2002: Message edited by: victorialis ]</p>

St. Robert

The death-to-self aspect of Christianity is not intended to deny one's existence as in Buddhism.

Each person is viewed as having eternal value by Jesus.

I leave you guys with one of my favorite bible verses: Philipians 1:21. Jesus bless you.

"For me, to live is Christ, to die is gain."

[ May 12, 2002: Message edited by: St. Robert ]</p>

boneyard bill

Victorialis writes:

Exactly. It seems to be an inherit characteristic of the human mind that we reify the changing processes of the world. This has practical value. But when we apply it to our own self-perception, it can lead to problems.

Yes. And in Western society in particular we are also still under the influence of Descartes. Descartes first enunciated the idea of the autonomous self so we pick it up automatically from our culture and that makes it especially hard to relate to the world any other way.

boneyard bill

St. Robert writes:

Buddhism isn't about denying one's existence. It's only about understanding the true nature of existence.

Does this mean you won't be posting here anymore?
I hope not. I thought the comparisons and contrasts with Christianity were quite helpful. The quote is quite appropriate. It points out one of the similarities.

victorialis

A lack of personal consistency does tend to arouse suspicion in others. So for us as social beings, the autonomous-self idea and its integrity (which implies permanence) is tied to morality, and woven throughout the whole social fabric -- whether or not the autonomous-self model is actually accurate, or practiceable.

So, in a way, we are socially constrained to continue participating in what Buddhism sees as illusory thinking (or at least look as if we are participating).

The irony is: only by having a self-concept that separates one from the crowd -- reifies the individual (I think, therefore I am) -- can a person begin to recognize the illusion involved. In other words, I have to be unconformed and distinct and think for myself, in order to approach an understanding what is going on "out there."

Doing this, it's easy to avoid noticing the possibility that "my" unconformed thinking is not really separate from the larger process of life. Here's why: "my" thinking is a derivative product of ideas and experiences, but if I share these ideas, they are taken as an opinion which is "mine": I represent that opinion, whatever it is. I'm responsible for it. Either it's what I think, or it ain't.

A reliance on "either-or" thinking is often regarded as necessary to a standard of probity. But some paradoxes which are not resolvable through "either-or" thinking are responsive to "and" thinking. "And" thinking lends itself to a broader understanding.

Nevertheless, we mistrust "and" thinking. As responsible people, we are uncomfortable applying it interpersonally in situations where something valuable is at stake. "And" thinking seems evasive -- so large-scale as to be meaningless -- especially among autonomous selves who all want justice and equality.

Under a western system of law, "and" thinking satisfies nobody. There has to be one clear winner in every important contest -- a winner who won by rules everybody recognizes and agrees upon, even if the rules are arbitrary and make little sense to some.

In the realm of social justice, I see a lot more "and" thinking here in the UK and in Europe than I ever saw in the US. In fact, "social justice" is a term I simply did not hear at all, for decades on end, in the US. Whether or not the results of "and" thinking as applied to social justice here have been satisfactory, is a wide-open question -- which lately has led to some unrest on the Continent.

I don't see the political correctness/diversity movement in the US doing much better, either. Both look like (maybe inevitable and necessary) aggravations of the problem. It gets worse before it gets better -- and it may not ever get better in our lifetime.

So whatever opinion I settle upon with regard to my own self-concept and the true nature of existence, I'll still have to integrate "my" understanding into my interaction with that world which is (not really) outside me. Merely to resolve my own inner conflict will not be enough.

There will be other autonomous selves to encounter, and to deal with fairly.

[ May 13, 2002: Message edited by: victorialis ]</p>

boneyard bill

Victorialis writes:

Yes. And I think our autonomous self morality is no where more apparent than in our emphasis on individual rights. All of our political debates these days center around the question of rights. This is true on the right as well as on the left. There may be disagreement on what the rights are, but everyone agrees that we have them.

And yet, these rights are merely abstract claims. Is it really possible to speak of rights outside of some social context? I think it was Hugo who said that the rich man and the pauper were equally forbidden from sleeping under the bridge at night. But, of course, this law only presents a problem for the pauper.

But these days, especially in America, everyone is concerned about asserting their "rights." That such assertions can create all kinds of problems that our not-terribly-competent political system really can't deal with doesn't stop people from asserting their claims.

boneyard bill

Victorialis writes:

Yes. And if we can believe the basic biography of Siddhartha that seems to have been his starting point and why "suffering" is such a central part of Buddhist thought. He seems to have undergone that deep spiritual depression. A "Dark Night of the Soul" that led him to leave his family and friends and confront this great problem that he faced.