Alright hit this Buddhist with your best shot!

Buddha Dharma said:

I'll mention about Pugdalavada and the Atman because I think some of you could really appreciate it- that because this is one of the extinct early schools I like, I've experimented with some of their views. Whenever I envisioned myself as an unstained mysterious self, universal and free from the illusions produced by the faculties- I entered one of the deepest meditative trances I ever have. I couldn't see straight at first afterward.

Click to expand...

How do you generally meditate?

Buddha Dharma said:

I'll answer respectful questions about myself and my Buddhist practice

Click to expand...

Which delusion do you find is the hardest to overcome? What is your favorite and least favorite delusion?

sayak83 said:

How do you generally meditate?

Click to expand...

Typically, I sit and direct my thoughts to a single point at first like the breath, so as to slow down any racing emotions and sensations. After this, I observe the thoughts arise and fall, and don't control them. That's basic Buddhist meditation. Letting the thoughts just arise and fall. In my school, it's actually not suggested one do insight meditation (Vipasanna) without a teacher to lead. Sometimes, insight does come spontaneously though. I admit to my little pet heresies of playing with ideas and techniques of schools like the Pugdalavadans, he he

dfnj said:

Which delusion do you find is the hardest to overcome? What is your favorite and least favorite delusion?

Click to expand...

I actually find gluttony hard to overcome, but is that what you're asking about? Gluttony is one I really struggle with and my practice has helped in getting control of my eating, but I slip sometimes. Buddhism teaches this isn't one's fault when they do because habits are patterns built since birth sometimes. They can be hard to break. My favorite delusion? Oh boy- heh

I enjoy pleasure obviously, but again. Buddhism warns about making pleasure one's aim. Pleasant sensations come and go, and that's alright.

Oh yeah, @Milton Platt I remembered something that touches to what you were asking about emperical evidence. I think you'll find it interesting. Because speaking of heretical schools, we read that there were early schools favorable to an epistemology like Carvaka's or Epicureanism's- thinking that mind impressions are objective and in sync with true understanding because we don't dictate the experience of contact with an object. This is a lot like Merleau-Ponty's phenomenology as well. Some early schools probably would have favored an emperical method. I think this is almost certainly due to Carvakan influence though, as the Buddha was not a materialist by any stretch. Carvaka/Lokayata still had a considerable presence in India when Buddhism and Jainism appeared. It was the spread of Buddhism and Jainism that brought about the decline and ultimate extinction of this ancient materialist philosophy.

In the Tibetan tradition, Milarepa is celebrated. Various other Buddhist figures are honored in different traditions. Do you have anyone whose life is a model for you in how to practice Buddhism in today's world?

sunrise123 said:

In the Tibetan tradition, Milarepa is celebrated. Various other Buddhist figures are honored in different traditions. Do you have anyone whose life is a model for you in how to practice Buddhism in today's world?

Click to expand...

I do like Thich Naht Hanh, as far as modern figures. I like Shunryu Suzuki, even though he's passed on. Traditional figures I like are Vimalakirti that I recall immediately, and since my roomie is Vajrayana, we include Milarepa in our common liturgy. I myself think Milarepa is proof positive that no one is irredeemable, and the Dharma can change anyone.

I tend not to venerate Saicho, my school's founder, because he personally requested that a Buddha-image not be made of him.

Buddha Dharma said:

Oh yeah, @Milton Platt I remembered something that touches to what you were asking about emperical evidence. I think you'll find it interesting. Because speaking of heretical schools, we read that there were early schools favorable to an epistemology like Carvaka's or Epicureanism's- thinking that mind impressions are objective and in sync with true understanding because we don't dictate the experience of contact with an object. This is a lot like Merleau-Ponty's phenomenology as well. Some early schools probably would have favored an emperical method. I think this is almost certainly due to Carvakan influence though, as the Buddha was not a materialist by any stretch. Carvaka/Lokayata still had a considerable presence in India when Buddhism and Jainism appeared. It was the spread of Buddhism and Jainism that brought about the decline and ultimate extinction of this ancient materialist philosophy.

Click to expand...

Speaking of materialists, you might find this video interesting:


Of course, most people just believe in a materialistic clockwork Universe regardless of the evidence to the contrary.

Buddha Dharma said:

I do like Thich Naht Hanh, as far as modern figures. I like Shunryu Suzuki, even though he's passed on. Traditional figures I like are Vimalakirti that I recall immediately, and since my roomie is Vajrayana, we include Milarepa in our common liturgy. I myself think Milarepa is proof positive that no one is irredeemable, and the Dharma can change anyone.

Click to expand...

I also really appreciate the story of Milarepa.

Do you have any thoughts about the Zen teacher, Philip Kapleau? I visited his Zen center in Rochester in the late 1960's, perhaps 1968, and was impressed by how he had adapted Zen to the west. I also found nourishment in "Three PIllars of Zen"

sunrise123 said:

I also really appreciate the story of Milarepa.

Do you have any thoughts about the Zen teacher, Philip Kapleau? I visited his Zen center in Rochester in the late 1960's, perhaps 1968, and was impressed by how he had adapted Zen to the west. I also found nourishment in "Three PIllars of Zen"

Click to expand...

Have heard of, but not read.

You might like this story about an unawakened Bodhisattva.
www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/C%20-%20Zen/Stories/The%20Cucumber%20Sage/The%20Cucumber%20Sage.htm

Buddha Dharma said:

Oh yeah, @Milton Platt I remembered something that touches to what you were asking about emperical evidence. I think you'll find it interesting. Because speaking of heretical schools, we read that there were early schools favorable to an epistemology like Carvaka's or Epicureanism's- thinking that mind impressions are objective and in sync with true understanding because we don't dictate the experience of contact with an object. This is a lot like Merleau-Ponty's phenomenology as well. Some early schools probably would have favored an emperical method. I think this is almost certainly due to Carvakan influence though, as the Buddha was not a materialist by any stretch. Carvaka/Lokayata still had a considerable presence in India when Buddhism and Jainism appeared. It was the spread of Buddhism and Jainism that brought about the decline and ultimate extinction of this ancient materialist philosophy.

Click to expand...

I was speaking of scientific evidence, actually.

Milton Platt said:

I was speaking of scientific evidence, actually.

Click to expand...

The problem with scientific evidence is the scientist creates a device using mass and energy to measure mass and energy. The measurement result is exactly what you would expect the measurement device to record. Have we really said anything about nature other than it confirms the measurement device is working? We use mathematics to represents nature's behaviors but all we know is "how" nature behaves. Scientific evidence is inherently closed minded. Science never tells us why the laws of physics are the way they are. Science never tells us why nature behaves at all. At the smallest point of measurement, what is IT that decides what is to be realized. We live in a very strange Universe that is not material in nature.

dfnj said:

The problem with scientific evidence is the scientist creates a device using mass and energy to measure mass and energy. The measurement result is exactly what you would expect the measurement device to record. Have we really said anything about nature other than it confirms the measurement device is working? We use mathematics to represents nature's behaviors but all we know is "how" nature behaves. Scientific evidence is inherently closed minded. Science never tells us why the laws of physics are the way they are. Science never tells us why nature behaves at all. At the smallest point of measurement, what is IT that decides what is to be realized. We live in a very strange Universe that is not material in nature.

Click to expand...

If the universe is not material in nature then scientific instruments are also not material in nature and what they detect are also not material in nature, but have Buddha-nature as well.

I don't personally assume that all admissible evidence is scientific in nature, or that science is some kind of infallible oracle, as it were

Buddha Dharma said:

I don't personally assume that all admissible evidence is scientific in nature, or that science is some kind of infallible oracle, as it were

Click to expand...

Yes I agree.

Terese said:

Are you familiar with the Hindu concept of Atma? If so, what do you think are the differences between the atma and buddha nature?

Click to expand...

@Terese I'm now in a little bit of a better state to give you a more complete answer, or so I feel. I don't think the Buddha would have 'fundamentally disagreed' with Shankara's Atman. He disagreed with the old Vedic understanding as far as I can see, because it made the ego eternal. Whereas there has been higher thought in Indian thinking from the beginning based on my knowledge of history- that the ego cannot be eternal because it can be deconstructed and attributed to sense states.

Buddhists early on like the Pugdalavadans (I already mentioned them) did think Buddhism might not be incompatible with a fine-tuned approach to a kind of 'Atman'.

Those Buddhists put forth alternate theories, as I've seen scholars of Indian philosophy call them. Ideas of a real self or real nature that is entirely unfathomable by the senses. The Pugdala was one such, which wasn't very different than Shankara's Atman- except the Pugdalavadans thought you were still only seeing a kind of shadow image when you could talk about the 'Atman' in any way. The Skandhas were distorting the real nature in order to grasp it, and this distorted perception is what the Pugdala is. Seeing the real self through the Skandhas, but the Pugdalavadans would say this only confirms a ground of being, and not anything further.

Citta in Mahayana is also described as one of these 'alternate theories'- when it means the essential heart.The crux of a Dharmic concept, and how it ties with the Buddha-nature, as an expression of it of sorts. There are other uses for Citta I don't know as much about.

I think the one area the Buddha may have possibly disagreed with the Atman of Advaita, is- don't Advaitists think the base sense of being a self is somehow tied in with the Atman, or am I mistaken? The Buddha would say we shouldn't go that far, and as I just mentioned- even the Pugdalavadans stopped short of it. At best, the Buddha might think we're going into dangerous territory there.

As far as I can tell though, the Buddha only taught Anatta because people were perpetuating the ego, and calling it a soul. This is possible to infer from the Buddha's explanation of 'Anatta' in the Samyutta Nikaya. He says that forms, perceptions, and so forth are 'not-self'- and this is all he means when he says Anatta. "Only this Radha: forms are not self, etc..."

Anatta doesn't necessarily mean there isn't a ground of reality.

As a Mahayanist I usually support this further with the Heart Sutra. This idea of a true/real nature of Dharmas. The Heart Sutra says: "the characteristics of the voidness of all Dharmas is that they are not born and not destroyed, etc..."

Do you believe there is hope for the Abrahamic religions? Will they survive this century?

Sha'irullah said:

Do you believe there is hope for the Abrahamic religions? Will they survive this century?

Click to expand...

As long as Mankind survives so will all the Abrahamic Religions.
Many people are guided by fear and hope and as long as there is suffering people will seek a Higher power to save them.

people seek a Higher power because they need a quick fix, they will not work on themselves to alleviate the suffering as its easier to just believe a higher power will do it for you as long as you follow a few simple rules.

Fear will always exist so Religions will always exist, as they say the Devil is tge best friend Religions have had.