• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Secret Chief Buys A Book

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
Just to acknowledge...
I appreciate I can only be providing a scintilla of material from the book (probably best for copyright :eek: ) so I can but try to put across the essential point/s as I see them. And now someone has posted who has read the book already.....@metis :) ....
 

Martin

Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
What Ricard basically is alluding to is the Buddhist teaching that everything is transitory, "I" right now am not exactly the same as "I" that just finished this sentence. I've lost some cells and maybe even gained a couple [probably not in my brain though]. Thus, everything appears to be in flux, which is quite important for us to understand when we begin combining this with other things.

On top of this, we also really only scratch the surface with what we think we perceive, and even that may be misleading at times.

I think shunyata goes further than this. Not so much an "I" which continually changes, more like just continual change, with the "I" as an incorrect assumption or view.
But I'd agree that the point of shunyata is to challenge our perceptions in a fundamental way.
 
Last edited:

Martin

Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
I think you are right; I must be obsessed with dictionairies!



It does mean that; but it means more than that too - literally all phenomena, whatever you can name, not just physical. All things are described as empty; not in a "vacuum" sort of a way, but rather empty of "own-nature" (...because all things are constantly changing and interdependent).

If you don't mind me asking, what effect does this insight have on your everyday life? And how does it make you feel?
 
Last edited:

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
I think I'm going to disagree with this. He seems to be saying that the initial choice to strive for objectivity is an arbitrary one. Maybe I have this wrong. In any case, I would postulate that what we know is from experience. And it is through experience that we realize we human observers are imperfect and fallible. Subjectively we make errors. Recognizing we make errors, we objectively strive to mitigate those errors. It is not a subjectively arbitrary decision, it is a knowledge judgement.

I think it could be argued that a pursuit of objectivity is based on valuing objectivity; and there is no way to answer why we should value it. We can say things like "well, if you believe objectively true things, you're more likely to stay alive because you won't do irrational nonsense things like leaping in front of cars, believing it wouldn't harm you but instead make you stop being hungry." Or whatever.

But then there will always be a microcosm: say you're hungry. Well why value not being hungry?

"Because then you won't die."

Why value not dying?

It sounds silly, but we never reach an end here. At the end of the day we have to just accept that we happen to value particular things for whatever reason, and we didn't reason our way into those values.
 

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
If you don't mind me asking, what effect does this insight have on your everyday life? And how does it make you feel?
Ask away!
To state the obvious (I think) I can't say that there is a conscious holding of the idea during my everyday life. But I suppose it imbues my general outlook on my life and the world around me. Emptiness of a permanent enduring selfhood of all things affects my views in that it lessons the strength of the idea of attachments, because there is nothing to attach to. The more one thinks that there is, the more we are setting up dissatisfaction in our life because, it turns out, that what we cling to (and expect or want to remain the same) doesn't really exist in the way commonly understood. So it is at the very root of dissatisfaction (dukkha). Maybe this assists in me accepting the endless changes in my life and the world; maybe it promotes selfless behaviour in me? I wonder if it promotes greater spontaneity in me? (I just thought of that one!). So as to how it makes me "feel" maybe it makes me feel a bit freer?
 
Last edited:

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
And for me, this type of stance is very anthropocentric. We human beings are a quite late addition to the cosmos. There was a whole lot of changing going on before we were ever around to observe it.

Can you expand on this a little? The fact that change "predates" humans - I'm not quite getting how this relates to the notion put forward?

Certainly, what is meant by 'true self' needs fleshing out as well. I think that we all begin with a realization or acknowledgement that at least we, the 'I', exists.

I think the idea is that for practical purposes my "I" of today is essentially the same as the "I" of yesterday but the "I" of this 61 year old is an entirely different "I" to the 10 year old secret chief. It's hard to put into words, but I would say the idea of no-self neither promotes nihilism nor eternalism. (Unhelpfully the Theravada and Mahayana traditions have somewhat different understandings of the idea. Ricard's understanding and approach would be the latter, as would mine. Mine! I'm attached! Aggggghhhh).....
 

Martin

Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
Can you expand on this a little? The fact that change "predates" humans - I'm not quite getting how this relates to the notion put forward?



I think the idea is that for practical purposes my "I" of today is essentially the same as the "I" of yesterday but the "I" of this 61 year old is an entirely different "I" to the 10 year old secret chief. It's hard to put into words, but I would say the idea of no-self neither promotes nihilism nor eternalism. (Unhelpfully the Theravada and Mahayana traditions have somewhat different understandings of the idea. Ricard's understanding and approach would be the latter, as would mine. Mine! I'm attached! Aggggghhhh).....

IMO shunyata is really just a development of anatta, so Mahayana is saying much the same thing as Theravada. Though of course like "Mahayana", "Theravada" is actually a collection of schools, so there are different nuances in different sects.
 

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
IMO shunyata is really just a development of anatta, so Mahayana is saying much the same thing as Theravada. Though of course like "Mahayana", "Theravada" is actually a collection of schools, so there are different nuances in different sects.
Agreed. The five heaps are ultimately codependent and nonself.
 

Martin

Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
Can you expand on this a little? The fact that change "predates" humans - I'm not quite getting how this relates to the notion put forward?



I think the idea is that for practical purposes my "I" of today is essentially the same as the "I" of yesterday but the "I" of this 61 year old is an entirely different "I" to the 10 year old secret chief. It's hard to put into words, but I would say the idea of no-self neither promotes nihilism nor eternalism. (Unhelpfully the Theravada and Mahayana traditions have somewhat different understandings of the idea. Ricard's understanding and approach would be the latter, as would mine. Mine! I'm attached! Aggggghhhh).....

It's a fascinating question - is there anything unchanging that runs through a life? Despite a long exposure to Buddhist thinking, I suspect that there probably is. I get the logic of the Buddhist position, but I feel it's missing something important.
 

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
It's a fascinating question - is there anything unchanging that runs through a life? Despite a long exposure to Buddhist thinking, I suspect that there probably is. I get the logic of the Buddhist position, but I feel it's missing something important.
Well, the Buddhist position is subject to change :)
I've seen Zen described as the positionless position. The Buddha often remained silent so as to not fix a position, since so much is not binary.
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I think it could be argued that a pursuit of objectivity is based on valuing objectivity; and there is no way to answer why we should value it. We can say things like "well, if you believe objectively true things, you're more likely to stay alive because you won't do irrational nonsense things like leaping in front of cars, believing it wouldn't harm you but instead make you stop being hungry." Or whatever.
But then there will always be a microcosm: say you're hungry. Well why value not being hungry?
"Because then you won't die."
Why value not dying?
It sounds silly, but we never reach an end here. At the end of the day we have to just accept that we happen to value particular things for whatever reason, and we didn't reason our way into those values.

What does it mean to value something? First and foremost, value is dependent on, and specific to, an individual sentient being. Values are an expression of a specific being's complex cognitive state (or states, however you want to frame it). Reality exists independent from what any one sentient being thinks about it, and certainly independent from whether or not that particular sentient being exists. All this outside of what the sentient being thinks would be the “objectively true things” to which you refer.

I would argue that to ask if something is objectively true would not be asking a subjective question, but would be asking an objective question. Is this thing or condition a true and existent thing, regardless of what I feel and regardless of whether or not I am here to observe or think about it.

To your comment that there is no way to answer why we should value objectivity, or objective knowledge, you contradicted yourself by providing an example of why one might value objectivity - to not get hit by cars. And it is not infinitely recursive. We are pre-wired with an instinct to survive, to continue to exist. :)

As to your position that we don't reason our way into values, I would argue that how we acquire values is a multifactorial process. We are born with a set of pre-wired behavioral instincts that can be said to provide us with immediate, reflexive value responses. In addition, as we grow and develop, we add to our preset instructions the knowledge that we gain through our perception and experience. Our experience allows us to develop reasoned expectations about the world around us, and it is this reasoned understanding that informs our values, judgements, decisions. On top of these two influences on values, we have socialization and indoctrination provided by the environment and society in which we are born and live.

That we are aware of an external objective reality is a product of reasoned expectation based on experience, it is not something chosen or pursued. Whether we choose to ignore or deny part or all of that objective reality would be a subjective value choice. :)
 

Martin

Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
Well, the Buddhist position is subject to change :)
I've seen Zen described as the positionless position. The Buddha often remained silent so as to not fix a position, since so much is not binary.

I never really got Zen! Anyway, I practised satipatthana (mindfulness) for many years and experienced a tangible stillness beneath the movement of mind and senses. So I've been exploring that.
I love the sense of discovery.
 
Last edited:

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
The next chapter is called

Religion or Philosophy?

(in relation to the most appropriate term to describe Buddhism)


...I shall return in due course...:)
 

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
I was involved in a TNH sangha for many years, and led mindfulness days regularly. Not sure if thats "Zen" though?
I would say (I'm sure I'm teaching my grandmother to suck eggs here)...Zen Buddhism is Buddhism with a greater focus on meditation (and of a particular kind) and resulted from Buddhism's meeting with Daoism. Being mindful is a good way to go :)
 

Martin

Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
I would say (I'm sure I'm teaching my grandmother to suck eggs here)...Zen Buddhism is Buddhism with a greater focus on meditation (and of a particular kind) and resulted from Buddhism's meeting with Daoism. Being mindful is a good way to go :)

Dhyana became Chan, then became Zen? Something like that.
 
Top