Xref: utzoo talk.religion.misc:34104 soc.religion.eastern:387 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!data.nas.nasa.gov!news From: pur-ee!muttiah@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: Buddhism and the reality of the phenomenal world (was Re: bloody Buddhists!) Message-ID: <1990Dec31.071949.18417@nas.nasa.gov> Date: 31 Dec 90 07:19:49 GMT References: <1990Dec22.061258.3644@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network Lines: 109 Approved: prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov In article david@star2.cm.utexas.edu (David Sigeti) writes: >In article <1990Dec22.061258.3644@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> >muttiah@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes: > Another question that just croped is (and this is what I was trying > to hit at) how one "knows" that one has reached nirvana or > buddhahood or whatever ? Is it by general agreement and consent by > other fellow meditators ? >Traditionally, one presents one's realization to a recognized >Buddhist teacher, someone who has received "dharma transmission" >in some line of teachers that is believed to go back to the >Buddha, and accepts her judgement. Sometimes, a teacher may >withhold judgement because she feels that she needs to get a >better idea of the student's level of realization. Or she may be >concerned that, even though the student has had a genuine and >deep realization, he may be in danger of getting some inflated >sense of his own importance and abilities. This really does >happen and a lot of the stories of Zen masters treating their >students to all sorts of abuse involve exactly this problem (on >the students' part). I have some difficulties with this, since in my opinion everyone experieces the universe and life in his or her own unique way. And it seems to me that in this tradition of consent that you intimate about one is merely giving into consent as agreed upon by others. It's much like people accepting some of the fundamental axioms of mathematics: it's a maneuver for consensus formation i.e., everyone tries to play by the same rules. >I suspect that people who decide entirely on their own that they >are "enlightened" are in severe danger of falling into this >problem in some of its most hideous forms. I think that this is >probably particularly likely to be true when the person has very >little zazen behind them. The discipline of meditation really >can help one to see into the traps of egotism. Again, if every person experiences the universe uniquely, I don't see why this egotism scenario should show up at all. >Three or four years ago, I might simply have answered, "No. The >method is not faulty; it is just that, by careful observation, >one has seen that a certain impression that one had had was >mistaken." I still think that this is true on a certain ordinary >level. In one sense, one has just made a simple observation >about the operation of one's own mind. As I said earlier, >David Hume became one of the most important figures in >Enlightenment (European, not Buddhist) philosophy on the basis of >this simple observation. I also should say that this simple The interesting thing that Hume observed was that we don't have impressions of _causality_ as we do say events. Is this supposed to be a limitation on our perceptions ? May be so, but that is why we have inferencing capabilities (via our intelligence). >my practice -- I think that the effort that I had to make in >meditation was critical to the fact that the observation was >actually helpful to me. Nevertheless, this kind of observation >seems to sum up a lot of what I got out of Zen meditation in the >earlier years of my practice. I still don't quite get it David. You say you realized that you weren't what you once were. Let's probe a little further and find out what there is in "realization" vs saying something. For instance, I can just say verbally, "I realize that I'm not Ranjan." How does one know what *exactly* is meant by this. So far all I can see is merely denial. I don't see any sort of conclusion that can be drawn from all of this. I'm more familiar with the denial tactics used for reducio ad absurdum. But you seemed to imply in one the posts that this wasn't what you were after. >mind being observed is precisely the mind doing the observing. >This, of course, is a problem of self-reference (as you have >intuited) but on the level of direct observation, rather than on >the level of intellection or conceptualization (as in >mathematics). See, I'm confused already! >-- the mind observing the mind observing the mind observing the >mind(...). The image that comes to me when I think of this >process is of a pair of nearly parallel mirrors (as you often >find in dressing rooms in clothing stores) and the series of >images of oneself and the room that seems to stretch off into >infinity. May be so. But one has to be clear about one is trying to prove or disprove. >This strikes me as an excellent basis for approaching life, or >for starting Zen practice. Certainly, Zen should never be a drug >that we use to avoid seeing the pain and suffering of life. The >only admonition that I would add is that, just as the pain and >suffering is not yours alone, even so your "taking charge of >whatever it is that you decide to do," and your "making things as >self evident to yourself as possible," should not be for yourself >alone. If one experiences the universe and life uniquely then I don't understand why one would want to consult anyone other than for consensus formation. I try to akin this to driving a vehicle. Only you alone at the wheel control which way the car turns. Of course, there are these various "rules" (i.e., laws of nature) that one has to follow in driving around. The car in my opinion has only a single seat for the driver. >Several times each day, Zen monks take the "Four >Bodhisattvas' Vows". The first one is > > "Although the beings are numberless, I vow to save them all." What are the other three ?