If people want to help each other study for TheFinal.
Where did the MooseGo?
So, what do people want to talk about?
I am taking a phil of art class and it got me thinking...what whould a buddhist think about art (music, poetry etc.)? would they agree with Plato in thinking that is a waste of time leading people away from the Truth or reality? can a buddhist even have an opinion about something when there is no self to make the opinion or be affected by others opinons? does a buddhist feel he is able to form opinions (about art and other things) if he has no self? what do you guys think? (emily)
I think that it might depend on the art. I kep thinkin of the vast amount of art that is in the temples now. I don't think I've ever sen pictures of a Buddhist temple that wasn't covered in art - sculpture, icons, etc.- so I can't imagine there being something in Buddhism that is inherently against all art.
just because there is no self dosnt mean that there is no individual.ive been knda confused latly cause i think were jumping to far to say that the individual is the self when maybe their seperate things. we are as we are and for the most part no two things or people are the same, self or no self. a rock or a rose dont have a self but they still present themselves at two diffrent things. we as people are, with or without a self, highly complex and from a pure biological sense are in no way the same. if the aggregates of how we view the world are what create this notion of self, then even if the self itself is a falisy, the perceptions we have of the world around us are still diffrent based upon the stimuli that shaped them. in taking that into consideration then opions are defined by the manner which we view things, an artist may create with a certain image in mind, and though it should be possible for people to see what they ment in it, its also going to be viewed with the contexts of how they view the world. so even if art was no longer a demonstration on the part of the artist's self it could still serve a funstion as to shed light to others on how they perceive the world. So in that it wouldnt be a waste of peoples time to enjoy it, becuase it would allow people to see how each other views the world and would do more to link similiarites than anything else.
I agree. The one thing that I feel keeps getting people stuck and unable to get past this idea of self is that by eliminating the self we eliminate who we are. But by eliminating the self I am not really eliminating something from me only the idea of something that nevver really existed. So how can something you never had affect you so much once you lose it? As far as I'm concerned it cant. I am who I am. By no longer thinking I have a self changes nothing in me. For their was no self to be lost. I am still an individual I can still have opinions. But it is more about not letting those opinions control my emotions and therfore my life. To achieve Nirvana one must seperate themselves from pleasure and pain. That however does not mean seperating who you are from "yourself" for lack of a better word.(Shannon Brown)
P.S. I still can't figure out how to edit with my nameinstead of some number
This was part of the discussion of my group: does the elimination of a self also eliminate the part of art, music, film and so forth that we associate with being an extension or representation of the artist's self? Logically, it would seem the answer is yes (look at some modern art...i mean colored circles and lines? where's the 'art' in that?!) but your point is a good one, because even if we blame art on the collection of a couple aggregates working together under the guise of a self, I've never seen a self-less piece of art. I think the opinions of a Buddhis would come out of the aggregates, but i'm not sure he would be able to identify his opinion as strictly his own. The point of not having a soul seems to be associated with the lack of permanence in the world. In this defintion, I could agree with an artist not having a permanent soul, since an artist's work tends to change over the course of their career. however, does the lack of a soul in the creator necessarily also make the art soulless?
on a different note, did anybody else see this article in the Times? http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-monk23feb23,0,4692429.story?track=tothtml Buddhism and individual rights collide!
One wierd thing about the wiki is that it is easy to cause unexpected shifts in formatting. For example, if you use a colon, it puts what follows in a yellow box. Up above, it looks like those two hyphens create a crossout to the next hyphen in selfless. When you see something weird like that, go to the Edit page, see if you can figure out what caused it, and fix it.
ok one thing i dont get is why something that is permanent cannot be ever-changing? does a changing personality or 'soul' mean lack of permanence? and why? we all change all the time - which i guess is the point of us all lacking permanence, because we change, but i dont get why an artist would be impermanent just because his style is changing. Also, its wierd to think that soemthing with out a soul or permanence could create something as permanent as a painting or piece of music. . .
I agree, the universe that Buddhism seems to think has no beginning and no end is ever changing. I think that Buddha opperates on the idea that death is the end of changing so if a thing ever starts changing, it starts the cycle all over again.
oh ya another thing... has anyone seen Equalibrium with Christian Bale?
In regards to the question about art and Buddhism, I think the problem is not only the elemination of self but also of passion. Art is not simply a thought based exercise in concepts and skills; it is grounded in a passionate connection to sensation and life. The beauty of art is that it embraces suffering and joy as equals. For example, an element of tragety is very important to many literary works and is disscussed in terms of beauty. An artist can't be seperated from sensations, desires, suffering, ect. because those are the artist subjects. Art would run the risk of being boring and disconnected if it was created with Buddhist standards. A lot of the stories told in Buddhism feel artistical empty because they end with people becoming Buddhist monks and not much else is explored. Although, it is important to consider that perhaps art is unsignificant in a Buddhist centered world. Just as Rahula describes Buddhist ceremonies and traditions as being for people with a lower ablitiy to understand the eight-fold path, perhaps art is just a fix or crutch for people with low attatchments to the world. It all depends on the goals of a thought construct. (Danielle Orner)
So I don't know if anybody else got the e-mail from Paul, but let's just say I just need to put in my two cents. I was writing last night in the library, about how because of the aggregates, or mostly because of the list of aggregates we've come up with, that there was no self because of these "things". Rahula said that there was nothing behind these aggregates. But for some reason that just seems hard to wrap around. What I'm trying to say is that if there's nothing behind them, then why do we naturally have this feeling that there is...? What is the feeling of Nirvana? Is it just a place taht you can go to realize again and again that there is no sense of self? Also, if there is no sense, or if everything is jsut a sense, is anything real besides our bodies? Or is anything real? It seems like I'm missing something, but I don't know what it is. It just seems like there has to be some man behind the green curtains pulling the "aggregate" strings for a reason or not at all. But still it seems there must be that man to comprehend everything the aggregates are producing. What are we running on if there weren't these "things". (Sam).
Maybe it has something to do with biology and and the universe 'wanting' the human population to continue on (until it realizes the turth, that is) so the aggregates create the idea of this 'self' and the urge to continue on.
Here is a thought I brought up to Professor Kjellberg last week. I have been taught in the past that Buddhists believe in reincarnation. However, if we don't have a self, what exactly is it that is born again? Paul tried to explain what he thought, and we basically came up with the idea that everything we do (every choice that we make) has a ripple affect, and not only within our own lives, but it can also affect the lives of others. These ripple effects will then change the cousre of our own lives and the lives of others, and depending on our actions to bring about these ripples will determine how the ripples affect us in the future. Any other thoughts? <Misty>
I have been wrestling with the problem of whether or not Buddhism is a religion or philosophy. It is widely perceived to be a religion by most westerners and non-Buddhists. Yet, the Buddha stated that he is not a God and did not wish to be worshiped in any way. He said that all humans are capable of the same things that he was able to do. At the same time, Buddhism has a set of rules and customs and is similar to many other religions in that it has monks, nuns, temples etc. People devote their entire lives to it. The same level of devotion is not visible today in relation to other philosophers/philosophies such as Nietzsche, Kant, and Descartes. If Buddhism is considered a philosophy and not a religion, then it could easily be argued that it had the most universal appeal and influence of all philosophies. Yet, the same is also true if you consider it to be a religion. In my opinion, Buddhism is a little of both. It is a philosophy in the sense that it strives to find the truth about our world and to help people, and it is a religion in that it goes beyond worldly things and into the realm of the unknown, such as the afterlife. (Greg)
But aren't all religions a type of philosophy? Separate philosophies may not necessarily have the following that the worlds mainstream religions do, but I think they are very close. And I think tha people do devote their lives to philosophies, they just don't necessarily know that they are doing it, because people don't pay as much attention to separate philsophies as much as they do separate religions.
I think of Buddhism as a religion because it essentially is a set of rules that gets you to a certain place, and in this case is "Nirvana," compared to Christianity the "place" is heaven. The book we've been reading reminds me of the New Testament saying that "the Buddha sat under a tree, eat some apples and gained enlightenment," there's that bit that always seems to be missing/made-up/fictional, very much like Christianity. I look at it as all religions at there basics say to be a good person to yourself and as well to others. (Jon S.)
I agree with the pervious comment because there is the story that the Buddha was born through the side of his mother, or something like that. I also agree that the basis of all religions is to be a good moral person.
But nirvana isn't a place, it's a realization. And Heaven is a place where everything is good forever. In Christianity there is life after death but in Buddhism, once Nirvana is realized there is no more existence.
I'm not sure there needs to be a difference between religion and philosophy. I have always thought of religion as simply a set of values, morals, that a group of people collectively believe in, in order to pursue a better life (or afterlife). Why does that need to be in opposition with philosophy? To steal something I heard Professor Switzer say once, philosophy isn't just an intellectual enterprise. Regarding the comment on Nirvana being "a certain place," Rahula said that it was more of a realization, come across by wisdom. So as opposted to heaven, the example given, it would be most obviously different in that one can still be alive while having achieved/realized Nirvana, whereas one cannot be in the Christian heaven while still walking around on Earth. Unless you're like in some bad movie with Keanu Reeves or Mandy Moore or something, which would still be fictional. (linzi)
Hi. So for anyone who has read the de Bary, what is with the paragraph on page 44 that starts with "A master should serve his slaves..." i guess its good that 'masters' are expected to treat slaves with a certain respect, but i am also assuming that this would not be able to be applied to modern times (like some stories in the bible). Are monks (or whoever is being talked to through this quote) supposed to have slaves? i dont get why how to treat slaves/masters would even be included in buddhist doctrines. what does that passage have to do with anything, and who is it supposed to be addressed to? (emily)
i understand why it says that faith diminishes things once it is seen. it says that all other religions rely on people having a "blind" faith. but i dont see what is actually any different in how he says that buddhist see things about buddhism or how it is different from faith. i dont think that a person can know that the buddha reached enlightment. and if you dont know if he did you cant be sure about the advice that he gave people. people of many religions say that they for example "saw the light". the only thing that i can think of is that a person can feel whether or not they are happier than they were before (seeing here is meant in a broad way. and since the ultimate goal of buddhism is be happy and without suffering you can then tell if the buddhist teachings are working. (Adrian)
Hey guys. So just to keep up with the blogging, I just wanted to suggest a study session some time soon. Maybe monday, or tuesday. Let me know if anybody's down, in the library most definetly. Talk to you soon. (Sam)
There has been a lot of discussion over the question of whether Buddhism is a philosophy or a religion. Let me throw in my two cents.
My first cent is that I think the difficulty stems not from confusion about Buddhism but over our modern category of “religion.” In a general sense, we think of anything that involves monks and nuns, robes, rituals, etc., as a religion. In this sense, Buddhism is religion. (So does graduation, but that’s a different story. Harry Potter too.) In the modern West (particularly since the philosopher David Hume, who you can read in Phil 315), religion has also come to be defined as involving faith (famously described as a “leap” by Soren Kierkegaard, who you can read in 317). Prior to that, most people thought religion and science would converge. When it began to seem (to some people, at least) like that wasn’t going to happen, they redefined religion as not only allowing for but actually requiring faith in something that can’t be seen.
That leads to my second cent. Rahula presents Buddhism as being more like a science in the sense of not requiring any leap. The essential truths of Buddhism, he argues (p. 9) are things you can “come and see” for yourself (as Adam so eloquently explains in his paper). You may not agree with this. But I think we should hold him to it, for experimental purposes, at least, and make him prove it. Let’s try not taking anything on faith because Rahula says, or Buddha says, or—worst of all—because I say. Let’s insist on seeing for ourselves. What do you guys see?
So Anatman = no self. Nirvana = the mind realizing that there is no self. Check (I think.) But then, Rahula says that craving (bad thing) finds delight in "thirst for non-existence (self-annhiliation)" (29). So...what does self-annhiliation mean? Is it simply suicide? If not, what does this mean for Buddhists? Is it possible to follow Buddhist doctrine without craving nirvana?
So I don't know if I'm spelling her name right, but Yifa was very cool. It was extremely interesting to have her come and talk to all of us. It made me think about alot of different stuff that I wanted to ask her but knew we didn't have the time. Did the Buddha think that we, our concious I guess, is here for a reason? Is it possible that in my last life I was a hummingbird or do I have to continue from something that has the same concious level as me? If concious is universal and individual can I see what the guy next to me sees? What do Buddhists think about people who die for like 30 seconds but then are brought back to life? Hopefully I can get some answers...Talk to you guys later. (Sam)
Actually I have similar questions... If we all agree that we have no selves, then why do we all see things differently? Why do I look at everything from exactly one point of view - MINE? I mean I can understand other people's perspectives, but not really see and exeprience what they see and experience. Doesn't that mean that there is no such thing as a universal consciousness, but just an individual one?
THeres been a question ive been hung up on in regards to religion and permanence. If a principle concept is non-permaqnce, then even if the individual does deny self and therefore denies permancece. If the belifs supported by the faith move through time, then cant they be considered permanent and therefore isnt that somethin of a hypocrisy? i dont know i may be making o sense but just wondering what others were thinking.
The comment about science and religion converging is something that is very interesting to me as I see a huge amount of similiarities between Buddhism and quantum physics, and not just in terms of paradigmatic shifts from mass thought. Faith in something that can't be seen is a huge category. Do we have a faith in gravity? How about a faith in the natural laws of the world determining what can and can't happen? What about reality? That's a particular thing that nobody has been able to define with any certainty and as a result, we can't really see it (or believe in it) without some sort of faith. Even within the self-evident nature of Buddhism, just being based in reality requires a certain amount of faith on our parts. (Katie)
If you sign up for the 'A' team, even if you read that part of the page, are you really being a self-starter/showing initiative anymore? Or are you just being dutiful? There seemed to me to be something inherently wrong with that whole concept. Basically, I guess I'm saying that I will blog all over the place, but I don't see why we should have to sign up for anything. I figure that I signed up for the class and that should be enough. It's just seems that by telling us in order to get an 'A' we have to do more than just what we are told, we are being told what we need to do to get an 'A', which is against the purpose of the whole argument. Maybe I'm just academically suicidal.
I don't know who posted this last comment but whoever he (or she) was he just translated my own thoughts into words. I don't see how one can be an A student if he needs to be told how to be an A student. There is obviously a contradiction here because the way I see it an A student does things because he has some inherent motivation and interest in doing things, not simply because "It's good to have an A!". Moreover, usually the ones who struggle most to get an A, no matter what, are the ones that don't really deserve an A since most of the time there is no passion and real interest behind their work, but merealy a desire to demonstrate "betterness" in everything. And if believeing in that makes me "academically suicidal", I'd rather be "academically suicidal"... (Dessie)
This question is going to seem madly ridiculous to many, and I am not saying that i agree with what I am going to ask. Do you guys think that if Buddhists want to attain Nirvanna, and that if they want others to attain it, and if Nirvanna is the cessation of samsara and of rebirth, what would happen if every single person in the world were to attain it? Yeah there would probably be no more suffering, but would humans eventually cease to exist? Because if everyone were to get rid of all desires, including sexual desire, wouldn't that lead to the end of procreation? Again, this might seem rediculous to many, including myself, but it kind of just crossed my mind. What do you guys think?....(LUIS)
I was just wandering, if what Nagarjuna says, that essentially everything is emty of existence and void of ultimate reality, is true, then it means that Buddha never achieved nirvana either simply because nirvana does not even exist. It seems to me that Nagarjuna almost admits through his teaching that the teaching itself is not at all real and therefore not true. In a way it is like the soap. You use it to wash away the dirt but along with the dirt you also wash away the soap and then you end up perfectly clean but soon forget both the dirt and the soap...What I mean is that his teaching doesn't have to be necessarily true and real in order to be very useful...but still, it is not true and real! (Dessie)
I liked your metaphor of the soap and dirt. Yet, what I don't understand is the difference between Nirvana and 'ordinary' life if nothing essentially exists. In regards to the above comments about the A-Team, there is a difference between being a motivated, seeking person and being an A student. There are different goals and values involved in each identification. No one can try to reward you or bribe you into being the former because knowledge and understanding is the reward. Therefore, A's should be given to the students who do the work required of them to the best of the ability given the time for the project and study. By puting all these other requirements on a grade, you are trying to make it reflect more than it is intended to reflect.<Danielle Orner>
"love is a wonderful thing, as long as you are not attached to the person. Everything that causes a suffering for you is attachment, clinging, dependent arising of non-reality, not love. Love is this, what is unchanging in the midst of all this arising events. Just don't react on everything that comes, and goes, that changes. Only this, which doesn't change, is real, is real love. Then you will be in peace again. In meditation and in partnership. That's it."
I've been thinking a lot lately about love and therefore wandering what would Buddhism says about love. The quote above is perhaps what most Buddhists think about it. However, the quote below is what I would reply.
"Love without attachment is like sex for money".
What do you guys think about that?
I think you are right that you can't really have love without attachment, otherwise monks wouldn't be celibate - love perpetuates the myth of Self. But that is where (I think) compassion come in, in that you can still care for everyone (because you care for yourself) while not becoming Self-ish.
1) Universal love :
As a mother even at risk of her own life protects her only son, so let a man cultivate goodwill without measure among all beings. Let him suffuse the whole world with thoughts of love, unmixed with any sense of difference or opposed interests. - Shakyamuni Buddha
Perfect action means action that comes from pure love, in which there is no sense of individuality and no self-interest whatsoever. There's no pride, there's no greed, there's no egotism, there's no self-consciousness. And it is also the expression of pure love that has no sense of itself as being separate. But this action does occur. All the realized souls express this.
2) Friendship:
One day Ananda, who had been thinking deeply about things for a while, turned to the Buddha and exclaimed: "Lord, I've been thinking- spiritual friendship is at least half of the spiritual life!"
The Buddha replied: "Say not so, Ananda, say not so. Spiritual friendship is the whole of the spiritual life!" - Shakyamuni Buddha
... But most important to understand is: Once you thnink of someone as "friend", "partner", "spiritual friend" etc. you are labeling him/her, and that is nothing but a mind-construction. In reality, this person is nothing of the above. In reality, you don't know even who you are yourself, thinking you are this and that person, doing this and that.
Once we create a mental atmosphere of "Here is me. There are others." we are very far away from any reality. In reality all are one. There is only one love, not two or three of them. Any numbers we use, in any context, are discriminations. There is only ONE of everything that is.
In response to Luis's "madly ridiculous" question a few paragraphs back, which is one I have wondered about myself, I can imagine a couple of responses:
1) Not gonna happen. Even if you managed to get rid of desires, just like weeds in your lawn, they would eventually sprout again the same way they did in the first place.
2) Think of it like doctors. You might ask, "What will happen when they eradicate all disease? Wouldn't that destroy the planet if no one ever died?" It's an interesting theoretical question. But it's not going to happen any time soon and so is not worth worrying about.
3) Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing, anyway. We should at least be open to that possibility.
Paul
A couple of things I have been pondering. I have been thinking about Danielle's question in the last period about compassion. The way I understood it, she was asking how a Bodhisattva, having already attained Enlightenment, given up the self, etc., was capable of feeling compassion, since there should no longer be any being left to feel compassion. I do not think that we stop having the capacity for those feelings once we have attained Enlightenment. Compassion, Empathy, Happiness, and the like are all just descriptive qualities that are not necessarily indicative of a "self". Recognizing that there is no self does not then mean that you are no longer capable of feelings, you are just no longer bound to them. Something that struck me about Boddhisatvas was that they are Enlightened but have not yet realized Nirvana. They still exist, however dangerous a word that it to use. I think in many ways they have reached the closest thing to true existence that a differentiated being can hope to attain, having gained the insight to see the world for what it truly is, but avoiding the cessation and total diffusion that comes with Nirvana. They are still agents, not yet a part of the passiveness that is Nirvana. This makes them more capable of compassion than we are (compassion being based on wisdom, and Bodhisattvas having attained true Wisdom), and no longer subservient to the desires and feelings that often lead to suffering, i.e. greed, jealousy, lust. There status allows them to see the plight of all, with an understanding and compassion that we lesser beings are just not capable of.
That was already long enough, but bear with me, I have a couple of questions.
1. How important are actions in Buddhism? A lot of Buddhism appears to circle around detachment from this world and its temptations. It doesnt strike me as a very proactive system of thought. The monk in the first temple we visited seems a good case in point. As a good Buddhist, is cultivation of no-self and contemplation of Nirvana held in more esteem than helping others? I sometimes feel as though Buddhism offers a withdrawl from the world, but not an effective way of dealing with it.
2. What is it that orders us into the five skandas to begin with? Questions of perception aside, we all share the same basic illusion here, with the same general way of experiencing the world. How do we all succumb to trap of the illusion of self? What makes it so counter-intuitive to reject the self? I guess I am asking if there is some ordering force out there that is responsible for the development of "self" in all of us. (Gooch)
There seems to be a hierarchy of feelings in Buddhism: desire is bad, compassion is good. Yet, I am not fully clear on the criteria against which emotions are measured. Is it the fact that, in Buddhism, desire promotes suffering and compassion alleviates it? In that case, all of Buddhist thought revolves around the concept of suffering. I don't know why this bothers me. Perhaps it is because my western mind has been conditioned to think that all spirituality revolves around the concept of love. Any thoughts? (Danielle Orner)
It's not desire that is bad, it's the thought that anything is different from anything else - the desire for something else is us tricking ourselves into thinking that there could be anything different.
Buddhists would say that compassion is not a feeling or desire in the normal sense, but rather an expression of interconnection or "buddha-nature." This conflicts with our usual understanding according to which compassion is a feeling and hence personal. Go figure.
Since the Japanese schools do not appear under the heading for sutras and schools, I will put my comments about them here. I find it interesting that the Japanese schools attempt to address the questions of social practice and civilization. Perhaps this is because Japan was a newly developing society like de Bray suggests. Both the Saicho and Kukai schools placed an emphasis on secular education as well as religious teachings in order to provide service to the nation. Also, Kukai's school elevates the arts to a profound form of communication. There seems to be more "earthly" applications to this form of Buddhism and desire to improve this world as well as escape it. These schools take a step further into making Buddhism an applicable system of beliefs rather than an isolating code. There seems to be a progression away from the idea of individual salvation as the only goal of Buddhism. It becomes more community oriented and moves beyond the sanga into an almost university and public school system. It reminds me of the progression of Catholism into protestantism with more and more people being given acess to education and being expected to learn for themselves.
I forgot to say this on my course evaluation so I will write it here. Who knows if anyone will ever read it? I had a hard time with the Fung readings. They were more confusing and frustrating than helpful. Not to mention the fact that the way they were organized in the course reader made it a challange just to figure out which page you needed to read next. I much prefered the deBary readings and would have liked to focus on them without being distracted by the Fung. I also would have liked to have spent more time comparing schools. I felt like the course was torn between studying Buddhist philosophy and studying its historical developement. I prefered the claraity and simplicity of the first half of the course. <Danielle Orner>
Hi, I was studying for the final and on the vocab list, I'm not sure what "matching meanings" or "classification" of teachings were. Is this going to be a portion where we need to realte different schools of Buddhism? -Lauren Vargas
| ||||||||||||||||
|
