THE ONLY TRUE RELIGION DEBATE
-
Originally posted by 2009novice:
Can I borrow social science definition of religion?Clifford James Geertz, an American anthropologist who has defined religion in a more universal way. He proposes (1) a system of symbols which act to (2) establish powerful, pervasive and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic (Kunin, Miles-Watson, 2006, p.180).
But... I still don't understand why "lie" is link to religion...
Thank you for sharing the 'scientific' definition of religion. Is this what most people understood religion to be? Would Buddhism falls into this definition?
I was using lie in the same way as truth was used (earlier). Is there a link? Is there a link between truth and religion [from the definition you borrowed?]
-
i just thought that the 4NT,
The First Noble Truth is the effect of suffering.
The Second Noble Truth is the cause of suffering.
The Third Noble Truth is the effect of the end of suffering.
The Fourth Noble Truth is the cause of the end of suffering.This is one of many impressive thought. It deals directly and instaneously in the cause and effect of reincarnation, rebirth of realization and ultimate acutalization of buddha-self. The first & second truth from Buddha for living beings is to discover the non-lovingkindness nature that they do not possess. Whereas, the Forth noble truth is for living beings to realize its inherent loving-kindness. And finally, just steadfastly dwell on loving-kindness, regardless the degree of your realisation and actualization.
This is also very scientific and philosophical on the well beings for all.May you all have a pleasant and enlightening experience- Namo Buddha Amitabha _/|\_Namaste to all
-
While loving-kindness is an important virtue and a sign of progress in one's practice, to emphasize loving-kindness over wisdom would be a mistake. Loving-kindness alone is a mundane virtue that leads to rebirth in the samsaric heaven, deva, or Brahma realms. Without wisdom it does not lead to liberation.
As Loppon Namdrol states:
Whoever is attached to a result for this life, is not a Dharma person. The purpose of Dharma is liberation, not feeling better in this life.
The purpose of Dharma is not the cultivation of mundane compassion, and so on.
The purpose of Dharma is to control afflictions, then overcome them, and finally, to attain a state of total omniscience and freedom.
-
Originally posted by I No Stupid:
I understand why many regarded Buddhism as not a ‘philosophy to begin with’. Allow me to reiterate again: Buddhism began as a philosophy when I looked at its origin. How Buddhism evolved and the subsequent developments, interpretations and degeneration is another matter. If I take a hard look at Buddhism today, I would certainly call it a religion because of its many beliefs, rituals, mysticism, fairy tales, esotericism, reverence, worship, offering, and even mysteries.
Prince Siddhartha was certainly delving on down-to-earth issues and not on some spirituality or higher knowledge or high-end ‘aero’ plane or esoteric experience. That down-to-earth issues are also something present today and which many of us would philosophise about – why there is aging, sickness and death? As a matter of fact, our daily to and fro is all about endeavours to overcome or mitigate these three aspects on top of many other social ills, problems and challenges. If I can put Buddhism into a nutshell and strip it off its other shelves, it is about how to live the clean and good life. In this respect, it is not different from many other philosophies and teachings of many great sages, including my late grandmother!
While I do agree that theory without practice is of little use and emphasis should be on practice rather than just knowledge and no application, I cannot see why this emphasis should disqualify Buddhism as a ‘philosophy to begin with’. Let say you are not a Buddhist by inheritance (hand-down faith) or blind faith (those who embraced Buddhism by just following) and you do not know its teachings, practices, and so forth but you want to be a ‘Buddhist’. Would you just walk into a Buddhist temple and say I want to be a Buddhist, take Refuge and viola! you’re a Buddhist? If so, what motivates you? Is it the knowledge, the practices or the experience? You have none of these. Or is it the external regalia, flags, chants, gongs, suttas, monks, nuns, golden temples, tooth relics? Or do you look at its philosophy - the founder's thoughts?
Not the founder's thoughts, but the founder's experiential insight, not just for you think about, but for you to actually *End suffering*.
Lets say... you have an illness. A method is proven to work to heal/remove the illness. You go to that doctor, you take the medicine, consume according to instructions, and your illness is cured.
This is like Buddhism. The four noble truths isn't just some thoughts... it's actually what the Buddha realized and observed through his own experience, the problem that plagues mankind (suffering), its cause, and its remedy.
Philosophy is just one small component of Buddhism... just like philosophy (?) is not the main component of medicine, or science, or chemistry. For example, medicine has its own purpose, and the 'philosophy of medicine' if such things exist is not the main purpose of medicine which is to treat illnesses - people didn't invent medicine to make a philosophy out of it.
Just like you can't say medicine, biology, physics, chemistry, art, maths, began as a philosophy. It's what people observe, tested, experienced, and then applied...
Therefore see Buddhism as having a very specific purpose - to teach sentient beings their own condition and the remedy to their condition.
One main reason why Buddhism is not a philosophy in its essence, is because the truth of Buddhism does not derive from conceptual inference, but direct experience.
-
"You have not define true religion, and again you put words into my mouth "You seemed to be implying religions are wrong""
When you said:"Today, Buddhism is a religion - that is most unfortunate!" or "When Buddhism became a religion, it suffers the same fate as other ‘religions’"
The implication is shallow crystal clear or you forgotten what you posted? Taking senilty as seniority? People showed the standard definition of religion, and from your reply, I presume you have your own subjective definition. You have not prove your claim or attempted to define. The same burden of proof...
People has provided a standard definition of religion, would you accept? Or do you think the definition can be subjective?
"Is this to impress me? Or to support your inability to understand my posting?"
Why do you feel so self important? I really think Aik TC is wise. Period.
From my previous reply to you, it is clear as sky that you don't understand what you post. Just what is so difficult to honestly answer the questions... It makes you look even more foolish than it already was if you keep evading simple questions. Not smarter ...
-
I am surprised that no one commented, replied or disputed my post of 15 Jul 7:13AM.
I mentioned why many regarded Buddhism as not a ‘philosophy to begin with’. I also said "Buddhism began as a philosophy when I looked at its origin."
Please read carefull every word in the above statements as well as the entire post. Tell me which part you disagree and why?
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"You have not define true religion, and again you put words into my mouth "You seemed to be implying religions are wrong""
When you said:"Today, Buddhism is a religion - that is most unfortunate!" or "When Buddhism became a religion, it suffers the same fate as other ‘religions’"
The implication is shallow crystal clear or you forgotten what you posted? Taking senilty as seniority? People showed the standard definition of religion, and from your reply, I presume you have your own subjective definition. You have not prove your claim or attempted to define. The same burden of proof...
People has provided a standard definition of religion, would you accept? Or do you think the definition can be subjective?
"Is this to impress me? Or to support your inability to understand my posting?"
Why do you feel so self important? I really think Aik TC is wise. Period.
From my previous reply to you, it is clear as sky that you don't understand what you post. Just what is so difficult to honestly answer the questions... It makes you look even more foolish than it already was if you keep evading simple questions. Not smarter ...
//The implication is shallow crystal clear or you forgotten what you posted? //
[Indeed, you are still putting words in my mouth. Where in my post did I say religions are wrong? Is 'unfortunate' the same as 'wrong'? Is 'suffers the same fate as other religions' the same as 'wrong'. Tell me which dictionary are you using or is the 'implication' something you conjured?]
//People has provided a standard definition of religion, would you accept? Or do you think the definition can be subjective?//
[Who are the people who have provided definition of religion? There is one and I thanked him/her. Please name the others.]
I asked you: "Is this to impress me? Or to support your inability to understand my posting?"
And your answer: Why do you feel so self important?
[My dear friend, first you avoided my question, then you try to impute something!]
//From my previous reply to you, it is clear as sky that you don't understand what you post. Just what is so difficult to honestly answer the questions... It makes you look even more foolish than it already was if you keep evading simple questions. Not smarter ...//
[hahaha, I have the same feeling about you but you have expressed it for me, thank you.]
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Not the founder's thoughts, but the founder's experiential insight, not just for you think about, but for you to actually *End suffering*.
Lets say... you have an illness. A method is proven to work to heal/remove the illness. You go to that doctor, you take the medicine, consume according to instructions, and your illness is cured.
This is like Buddhism. The four noble truths isn't just some thoughts... it's actually what the Buddha realized and observed through his own experience, the problem that plagues mankind (suffering), its cause, and its remedy.
Philosophy is just one small component of Buddhism... just like philosophy (?) is not the main component of medicine, or science, or chemistry. For example, medicine has its own purpose, and the 'philosophy of medicine' if such things exist is not the main purpose of medicine which is to treat illnesses - people didn't invent medicine to make a philosophy out of it.
Just like you can't say medicine, biology, physics, chemistry, art, maths, began as a philosophy. It's what people observe, tested, experienced, and then applied...
Therefore see Buddhism as having a very specific purpose - to teach sentient beings their own condition and the remedy to their condition.
One main reason why Buddhism is not a philosophy in its essence, is because the truth of Buddhism does not derive from conceptual inference, but direct experience.
//Not the founder's thoughts, but the founder's experiential insight, not just for you think about, but for you to actually *End suffering*.//
[Siddhartha had observed many things and experienced ‘hardship’ or ‘deprivation’ thru extreme self-mortification during his 6 wandering years. And surely, he has aged; occasionally fallen sick but he didn’t experience death!
For Buddha to arrive at the 1st Noble Truth, it could be by his own experience or by observing other people’s experience. How are the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Noble Truths arrived at by experience??]
// One main reason why Buddhism is not a philosophy in its essence, is because the truth of Buddhism does not derive from conceptual inference, but direct experience.//
[What is the truth of Buddhism? Did the Buddha actually use the term ‘Noble Truth’?]
[Since you assert that Buddhism is not a philosophy, do you say it is a religion?]
-
Originally posted by I No Stupid:
//Not the founder's thoughts, but the founder's experiential insight, not just for you think about, but for you to actually *End suffering*.//
[Siddhartha had observed many things and experienced ‘hardship’ or ‘deprivation’ thru extreme self-mortification during his 6 wandering years. And surely, he has aged; occasionally fallen sick but he didn’t experience death!
For Buddha to arrive at the 1st Noble Truth, it could be by his own experience or by observing other people’s experience. How are the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Noble Truths arrived at by experience??]
// One main reason why Buddhism is not a philosophy in its essence, is because the truth of Buddhism does not derive from conceptual inference, but direct experience.//
[What is the truth of Buddhism? Did the Buddha actually use the term ‘Noble Truth’?]
[Since you assert that Buddhism is not a philosophy, do you say it is a religion?]
For Buddha to arrive at the 1st Noble Truth, it could be by his own experience or by observing other people’s experience. How are the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Noble Truths arrived at by experience??
By gaining experiential insight into the workings of suffering in direct experience, and experiential insight into impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and no-self of our experience... by practicine the eight fold path, by cultivating mindfulness, discernment, samadhi... this is able to lead to the end of suffering.
Since you assert that Buddhism is not a philosophy, do you say it is a religion?
Let me ask you: medicine and biology is not a philosophy, do you say it is a religion? If you say medicine is philosophy, you're missing the point of medicine. If you say medicine is religion, you're missing the point of medicine. That is not the purpose.
Of course medicine and biology is neither a philosophy or a religion. They have very specific purposes, they treat specific conditions and help humanity in their ways.
Buddhism is such a thing... it is neither philosophy nor religion, it has a specific purpose which is to teach us the human condition and the way to end the human condition of suffering.
-
The Eight-Fold Path is the fourth of the Four Noble Truths - the first of the Buddha's teachings. All the teachings flow from this foundation.
The Four Noble Truths are
1. The Noble Truth of the reality of Dukkha as part of conditioned existence. Dukkha is a multi-faceted word. Its literal meaning is "that which is difficult to bear". It can mean suffering, stress, pain, anguish, affliction or unsatisfactoriness. Each of the English words is either too strong or too weak in their meaning to be a universally successful translation. Dukkha can be gross or very subtle. From extreme physical and mental pain and torment to subtle inner conflicts and existential malaise.
2. The Noble Truth that Dukkha has a causal arising. This cause is defined as grasping and clinging or aversion. On one hand it is trying to control anything and everything by grabbing onto or trying to pin them down, On the other hand it is control by pushing away or pushing down and running away or flinching away from things. It is the process of identification through which we try to make internal and external things and experiences into "me and mine" or wholly '"other" than Me. This flies in the face of the three signs of existence - Anicca, Dukkha. Anatta - Impermanence. Stress or Suffering and No-Self. Because all conditioned existence is impermanent it gives rise to Dukkha, and this means that in conditioned existence there is no unchanging and permanent Self. There is nothing to grasp onto and also in reality, nothing or no 'one' to do the grasping! We grab onto or try to push away ever changing dynamic processes. These attempts to control, limit us to little definitions of who we are.
3. The Noble Truth of the end of Dukkha, which is Nirvana or Nibbana. Beyond grasping and control and conditional existence is Nirvana. "The mind like fire unbound." The realisation of Nirvana is supreme Bodhi or Awakening. It is waking up to the true nature of reality. It is waking up to our true nature. Buddha Nature. The Pali Canon of Theravada, the foundational Buddhist teachings, says little about Nirvana, using terms like the Unconditioned the Deathless, and the Unborn. Mahayana teachings speak more about the qualities of Nirvana and use terms like, True Nature, Original Mind, Infinite light and Infinite life. Beyond space and time. Nirvana defies definition.
Nirvana literally means "unbound' as in "Mind like fire unbound". This beautiful image is of a flame burning by itself. Just the flame, not something burning and giving off a flame. Picture a flame burning on a wick or stick, it seems to hover around or just above the thing burning. The flame seems to be independent of the thing burning but it clings to the stick and is bound to it. This sense of the flame being unbound has often been misunderstood to mean the flame is extinguished or blown out. This is completely opposite to the meaning of the symbol. The flame "burns" and gives light but is no longer bound to any combustible material. The flame is not blown out - the clinging and the clung to is extinguished. The flame of our true nature, which is awakening, burns independently. Ultimately Nirvana is beyond conception and intellectual understanding. Full understanding only comes through direct experience of this "state' which is beyond the limitations and definitions of space and time.
4. The Noble Truth of the Path that leads to Awakening. The path is a paradox. It is a conditioned thing that is said to help you to the unconditioned. Awakening is not "made" by anything: it is not a product of anything including the Buddha's teachings. Awakening, your true nature is already always present. We are just not awake to this reality. Clinging to limitation, and attempts to control the ceaseless flow of phenomena and process obscures our true nature.
The path is a process to help you remove or move beyond the conditioned responses that obscure your true nature. In this sense the Path is ultimately about unlearning rather than learning - another paradox. We learn so we can unlearn and uncover. The Buddha called his teaching a Raft. To cross a turbulent river we may need to build a raft. When built, we single-mindedly and with great energy make our way across. Once across we don't need to cart the raft around with us. In other words don't cling to anything including the teachings. However, make sure you use them before you let them go. It's no use knowing everything about the raft and not getting on. The teachings are tools not dogma. The teachings are Upaya, which means skillful means or expedient method. It is fingers pointing at the moon - don't confuse the finger for the moon.
The Path
1. * Samma-Ditthi — Complete or Perfect Vision, also translated as right view or understanding. Vision of the nature of reality and the path of transformation.
2. Samma-Sankappa — Perfected Emotion or Aspiration, also translated as right thought or attitude. Liberating emotional intelligence in your life and acting from love and compassion. An informed heart and feeling mind that are free to practice letting go.
3. Samma-Vaca — Perfected or whole Speech. Also called right speech. Clear, truthful, uplifting and non-harmful communication.
4. Samma-Kammanta — Integral Action. Also called right action. An ethical foundation for life based on the principle of non-exploitation of oneself and others. The five precepts.
5. Samma-Ajiva — Proper Livelihood. Also called right livelihood. This is a livelihood based on correct action the ethical principal of non-exploitation. The basis of an Ideal society.
6. Samma-Vayama — Complete or Full Effort, Energy or Vitality. Also called right effort or diligence. Consciously directing our life energy to the transformative path of creative and healing action that fosters wholeness. Conscious evolution.
7. Samma-Sati — Complete or Thorough Awareness. Also called "right mindfulness". Developing awareness, "if you hold yourself dear watch yourself well". Levels of Awareness and mindfulness - of things, oneself, feelings, thought, people and Reality.
8. Samma-Samadhi — Full, Integral or Holistic Samadhi. This is often translated as concentration, meditation, absorption or one-pointedness of mind. None of these translations is adequate. Samadhi literally means to be fixed, absorbed in or established at one point, thus the first level of meaning is concentration when the mind is fixed on a single object. The second level of meaning goes further and represents the establishment, not just of the mind, but also of the whole being in various levels or modes of consciousness and awareness. This is Samadhi in the sense of enlightenment or Buddhahood.
* The word Samma means 'proper', 'whole', 'thorough', 'integral', 'complete', and 'perfect' - related to English 'summit' - It does not necessarily mean 'right', as opposed to 'wrong'. However it is often translated as "right" which can send a less than accurate message. For instance the opposite of 'Right Awareness' is not necessarily 'Wrong Awareness'. It may simply be incomplete. Use of the word 'right' may make for a neat or consistent list of qualities in translations. The down side is that it can give the impression that the Path is a narrow and moralistic approach to the spiritual life. I use variant interpretations so you consider the depth of meanings. What do these things mean in your life right now?
- John Allan
-
Originally posted by I No Stupid:
Thank you for sharing the 'scientific' definition of religion. Is this what most people understood religion to be? Would Buddhism falls into this definition?
I was using lie in the same way as truth was used (earlier). Is there a link? Is there a link between truth and religion [from the definition you borrowed?]
I am using from social science definition because it can be applied generally, universally. To make things easy to categorize, buddhism will fall under this category. Easy to relate to people or identify with.But AEN has already got better explanation. I think most people (non-buddhists) would have difficulty understanding it. Social science perspective is more neutral. You can stick to your view whatever. It's your choice.
-
"I am surprised that no one commented, replied or disputed my post of 15 Jul 7:13AM."
Perhaps the general consensus is that its not worth to reply, contrary to what you wanna believe. Or you need more patience.
"Indeed, you are still putting words in my mouth. Where in my post did I say religions are wrong? Is 'unfortunate' the same as 'wrong'? Is 'suffers the same fate as other religions' the same as 'wrong'. Tell me which dictionary are you using or is the 'implication' something you conjured?"
Ad hominem spotted again... The way you are denying (which by itself is not inherently wrong) shows that you are contradicting yourself... See, you also said: "However, it is in danger of becoming a religion too." If its not wrong, whats is the danger of becoming a religion?
Learn this word: Imply. Marvel at its simplicity, where no self respecting dictionary would get it wrong... How did you learn your English? Oh wait, you didn't. Better yet, get a better updated dictionary. Learn from your mistakes.
"Who are the people who have provided definition of religion? There is one and I thanked him/her. Please name the others."
You named him/her... Yet can you accept that as standard? I believe not...
"hahaha, I have the same feeling about you but you have expressed it for me, thank you."
I see you used laughter to cover your embarrassment. Oh, please stop being a hypocrite by saying thanks when you don't mean it. It makes your standing here worse. I reiterate again, my compliment to Aik TC is honest and sincere. I guess you are just... envious.
You know, it'd be easier if you just back up your claim that Buddhism started as a philosophy, and how it became a religion. It'd be good to start to define philosophy and religion in your views so that you won't feel so... insecure when I direct questions at you.
"Don't you think it would be more believable than virgin brith if there were eleven people witness jesus descended from heaven? I know the answer I'm going to get is god is beyond human's comprehension. I did ask this question before and that was the answer I got."
Sorry for the late response Dawn1st, I missed your post somehow... My opinion? All three anecotes are not exactly believable as they are both "information" passed down many hands... Saying god is beyond human comprehension is as good as saying " I don't know, I'll use the alpha omega god as an excuse to fill the gaps and avoid answer such arkward questions." XD
-
I am a free thinker now. Taking a break from religions.
-
Originally posted by Almond Cookies:
I am a free thinker now.
Taking a break from religions.
That was... fast... Gnostic or agnostic? Theist or atheist?
-
Originally posted by Almond Cookies:
I am a free thinker now.
Taking a break from religions.
Practice The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle.
That is not a religion.
-
Nope. The book power of now got meditation practises. Meditation is religious.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
That was... fast... Gnostic or agnostic? Theist or atheist?
I was confused by 2 religions. -
Originally posted by Almond Cookies:
Nope. The book power of now got meditation practises. Meditation is religious.
No, meditation is spiritual, not religious. Eckhart Tolle is not religious.
-
Originally posted by Almond Cookies:
I was confused by 2 religions.When you have true insight, you will forever be beyond confusion and doubts as to what the truth is. You will go beyond blind belief, you will go beyond words and concepts.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
No, meditation is spiritual, not religious. Eckhart Tolle is not religious.
Spiritual... some form of mysticism thus religious... -
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
Spiritual... some form of mysticism thus religious...It depends what you mean by mysticism. What I said has nothing to do with religiousity.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
It depends what you mean by mysticism. What I said has nothing to do with religiousity.
Perhaps you are right since I'm no practitioner. It could be like the difference of dreamland and awareness with us two at each side.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
Perhaps you are right since I'm no practitioner. It could be like the difference of dreamland and awareness with us two at each side.
The basic fact of awareness is already fully present and complete.
Contemplate on this:
There are many things that I can doubt, but I cannot doubt my own consciousness in this moment. My consciousness IS, and even if I tried to doubt it, it would be my consciousness doubting. I can imagine that my senses are being presented with a fake reality – say, a completely virtual reality or digital reality, which looks real but is merely a series of extremely realist images. But even then, I cannot doubt the consciousness that is doing the watching…
The very undeniability of my present awareness, the undeniability of my consciousness, immediately delivers to me a certainty of existence in this moment, a certainty of Being in the now-ness of this moment. I cannot doubt consciousness and Being in this moment, for it is the ground of all knowing, all seeing, all existing…
Who am I? Ask that question over and over again, deeply. Who am I? What is it in me that is conscious of everything?
If you think that you know Spirit, or if you think you don’t, Spirit is actually that which is thinking both of those thoughts. So you can doubt the objects of consciousness, but you can never believably doubt the doubter, never really doubt the Witness of the entire display. Therefore, rest in the Witness, whether it is thinking that it knows God or not, and that witnessing, that undeniable immediacy of now-consciousness, is itself God, Spirit, Buddha-mind. The certainty lies in the pure self-felt Consciousness to which objects appear, not in the objects themselves. You will never, never, never see God, because God is the Seer, not any finite, mortal, bounded object that can be seen…
This pure I AM state is not hard to achieve but impossible to escape, because it is ever present and can never really be doubted. You can never run from Spirit, because Spirit is the Runner. To put it very bluntly, Spirit is not hard to find but impossible to avoid: it is that which is looking at this page right now. Can’t you feel That One? Why on earth do you keep looking for God when God is actually the Looker?
Simply ask, Who am I? Who am I? Who am I?
I am aware of my feelings, so I am not my feelings – Who am I? I am aware of my thoughts, so I am not my thoughts – Who am I? Clouds float by in the sky, thoughts float by in the mind, feelings float by in the body – and I am none of those because I can Witness them all.
Moreover, I can doubt that clouds exist, I can doubt that feelings exist, I can doubt that objects of thought exist – but I cannot doubt that the Witness exists in this moment, because the Witness would still be there to witness the doubt.
I am not objects in nature, not feelings in the body, not thoughts in the mind, for I can Witness them all. I am that Witness – a vast, spacious, empty, clear, pure, transparent Openness that impartially notices all that arises, as a mirror spontaneously reflects all its objects…
You can already feel some of this Great Liberation in that, as you rest in the ease of witnessing this moment, you already feel that you are free from the suffocating constriction of mere objects, mere feelings, mere thoughts – they all come and go, but you are that vast, free, empty, open Witness of them all, untouched by their torments and tortures.
This is actually the profound discovery of… the pure divine Self, the formless Witness, causal nothingness, the vast Emptiness in which the entire world arises, stays a bit, and passes. And you are That. You are not the body, not the ego, not nature, not thoughts, not this, not that – you are a vast Emptiness, Freedom, Release, and Liberation.
With this discovery… you are halfway home. You have disidentified from any and all finite objects; you rest as infinite Consciousness. You are free, open, empty, clear, radiant, released, liberated, exalted, drenched in a blissful emptiness that exists prior to space, prior to time, prior to tears and terror, prior to pain and mortality and suffering and death. You have found the great Unborn, the vast Abyss, the unqualifiable Ground of all that is, and all that was, and all that ever shall be.
But why is that only halfway home? Because as you rest in the infinite ease of consciousness, spontaneously aware of all that is arising, there will soon enough come the great catastrophe of Freedom and Fullness: the Witness itself will disappear entirely, and instead of witnessing the sky, you are the sky; instead of touching the earth, you are the earth; instead of hearing the thunder, you are the thunder. You and the entire Kosmos because One Taste – you can drink the Pacific Ocean in a single gulp, hold Mt. Everest in the palm of your hand; supernovas swirl in your heart and the solar system replaces your head…
You are One Taste, the empty mirror that is one with any and all objects that arise in its embrace, a mindlessly vast translucent expanse: infinite, eternal, radiant beyond release. And you… are… That…
So the primary Cartesian dualism – which is simply the dualism between… in here and out there, subject and object, the empty Witness and all things witnessed – is finally undone and overcome in nondual One Taste. Once you actually and fully contact the Witness, then – and only then – can it be transcended into radical Nonduality, and halfway home becomes fully home, here in the ever-present wonder of what is…
And so how do you know that you have finally and really overcome the Cartesian dualism? Very simple: if you really overcome the Cartesian dualism, then you no longer feel that you are on this side of your face looking at the world out there. There is only the world, and you are all of that; you actually feel that you are one with everything that is arising moment to moment. You are not merely on this side of your face looking out there. “In here” and “out there” have become One Taste with a shuddering obviousness and certainty so profound it feels like a five-ton rock just dropped on your head. It is, shall we say, a feeling hard to miss.
At that point, which is actually your ever-present condition, there is no exclusive identity with this particular organism, no constriction of consciousness to the head, a constriction that makes it seem that “you” are in the head looking at the rest of the world out there; there is no binding of attention to the personal bodymind: instead, consciousness is one with all that is arising – a vast, open, transparent, radiant, infinitely Free and infinitely Full expanse that embraces the entire Kosmos, so that every single subject and every single object are erotically united in the Great Embrace of One Taste. You disappear from merely being behind your eyes, and you become the All, you directly and actually feel that your basic identity is everything that is arising moment to moment (just as previously you felt that your identity was with this finite, partial, separate, mortal coil of flesh you call a body). Inside and outside have become One Taste. I tell you, it can happen just like that!
(Source: Boomeritis, Sidebar E: “The Genius Descartes Gets a Postmodern Drubbing: Integral Historiography in a Postmodern Age”. More to be found in The Simple Feeling of Being, a collection of Ken Wilber’s inspirational, mystical and instructional passages drawn from his publications, based on his experiences.) -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
For Buddha to arrive at the 1st Noble Truth, it could be by his own experience or by observing other people’s experience. How are the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Noble Truths arrived at by experience??
By gaining experiential insight into the workings of suffering in direct experience, and experiential insight into impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and no-self of our experience... by practicine the eight fold path, by cultivating mindfulness, discernment, samadhi... this is able to lead to the end of suffering.
Since you assert that Buddhism is not a philosophy, do you say it is a religion?
Let me ask you: medicine and biology is not a philosophy, do you say it is a religion? If you say medicine is philosophy, you're missing the point of medicine. If you say medicine is religion, you're missing the point of medicine. That is not the purpose.
Of course medicine and biology is neither a philosophy or a religion. They have very specific purposes, they treat specific conditions and help humanity in their ways.
Buddhism is such a thing... it is neither philosophy nor religion, it has a specific purpose which is to teach us the human condition and the way to end the human condition of suffering.
How are the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Noble Truths arrived at by experience??
You would do better and more credible if you can just give direct answer instead of going round the bodhi tree.
Since you assert that Buddhism is not a philosophy, do you say it is a religion?
Now, you say Buddhism is neither philosophy nor religion. You are pretty muddle up! I can tell you that medicine is neither philosophy nor religion. So, is Buddhism medicine?
-
Originally posted by 2009novice:
I am using from social science definition because it can be applied generally, universally. To make things easy to categorize, buddhism will fall under this category. Easy to relate to people or identify with.But AEN has already got better explanation. I think most people (non-buddhists) would have difficulty understanding it. Social science perspective is more neutral. You can stick to your view whatever. It's your choice.
The definition you have taken maybe just one social scientist's definition of religion. Are you sure it is universally agreed by ALL social scientists? You did not answer my question on whether this is the definition most people would see religion as. Nowhere in the definition does it include morality. How do you reconcile this with what most religions would include?
AEN has not defined religion. I would like to know what explanation.
I can see that no one here will change his/her view posted here. Therefore, don't you think it is wasting words to tell people they can stick to their views?