Taoism , Buddhism and MA

In classical ancient thinking the "self" was named 'atman' . In a Buddhist sense it was named the 'anatman'.

People who smoke, take drugs or drink too much are probably experiencing it as the 'itman'. For software developers it is the 'bitman'; and there it is -> 'Batman'.

 

It is understandable that you feel this way.

Gerard, I'm not attempting to sway your beliefs because they seem to be fine for you and make you happy. But, as I understand it. In Buddhism, there is a differentiation between what is called "relative reality" and "absolute reality". or you could say "conventional reality" vs. absolute reality. Now what does that have to do with the doctrine of no-sould or no-self? Well, just as in science, there is a "relative" perception of laws or reality as in Newtonian physics to describe our universe; verses the more deeper level of understanding of our universe-as in quantum physics and superdimensional theories as well as other new discoveries made which were unheard off many years ago, so exist a deeper understanding of reality made evident by the Buddha.

What is the comparison that can be made? Here is a list of conventional vs. absolute reality issues:
1. conventionally, you and I exist. There is me, there is you. There is self and other. Or else society would cease to function. But this is due to perception, which is fundamentally inaccurate because of the fact that we only have six senses and everything we experience has to go through "buffer" zones like flesh and neurons etc... Likewise, conventionally, objects exist. Like chairs, People etc. And they seem solid and permanent, at least sometimes they do.

2. But absolutely, there is nothing that is really enduring in essence. Nothing absolutely solid. It was stated that all compounded phenomena are essentially empty! Now we can see this is true if we look to quantum physics which shows the seemingly solid particles which make up matter are mostly space, and within those spaces, are more space etc. This is only one aspect of the concept of Emptiness! There is a more profound one to come.

Now when it is said that compounded things are empty. You must ask "empty of what?" the answer is empty of Self. that is to say, there is not one single thing that can identify a compounded thing as it's essence. Also, it means that nothing is INHERENTLY SELF EXISTENT. Which means that no object can exist independently of other objects in the universe. Or else it would not be subject to the laws of the universe at all. It would not ever have been born, never change, never decay. (sounds like God? doesn't it?).

More in the next post...I'm out of time.

Viet

 

What is the "you" that you speak of?

Hi Hugh,

So I read your doubt about there not being a fundamental essence, a "you" as you put it. I would venture to defy any attempts by you or any other human being to find this essence. I have tried too, but I could not pin it down. In the beginning of my studies, I thought it was utterly rediculous that anyone would deny a soul, essence of living things. But then after all of my futile attempts to find the soul, I couldn't honestly be satisfied that it exists. So as much as I was afraid and disappointed as I was, I began to see that there is no "...solid, unchanging, permanent self..." . Once I realized this, it was like a huge weight was lifted off my body, I no longer had felt the pressure to live up to perceived self expectations, my aggression against others faded as I now identified with them as my self. How is it that I am using the words "I" and "myself" to describe the understanding of "selflessness?" As stated in my previous post, their is necessarily 2 levels of reality-relative and absolute.

But like Gerard stated, "how can one remember one's past lives if there is no self?..." The answer has already been stated, but many readers are so stuck with the egotistical view of a Soul, that they often overlook it. So I will state the answer here: The Buddha taught that there is no such thing as a SOLID, UNCHANGING, PERMANENT self, but that the self that people perceive to be permanent and unchanging is actually a CONSTANTLY CHANGING, EVOLVING PROCESS WHICH IS NATURALLY EFFECTED BY IMPERMANENCE. Just because it is impermanent, doesn't mean that it can't remember past things. On the contrary, this process which we perceive as self MUST be impermanent in order to facilitate memory. If it were permanent and unchangable, it would not be able to facilitate memories since acquiring new memories would compromise its state of immutability.

So you see, there is nothing negative about this view, it is actually right view in my opinion. Because it removes the one greatest obsticle to our happiness, the Egotistical notion of selfhood. It is because of this egotistical notion and perception that wars are fought. It is why we suffer immunerable pains in life, such as the difficulty of adolescence, trying to fit in because of we are afraid of what other's think about us etc... Then there's no need to mention the rabid spread of materialism throughout the world which in some cases is the cause of decline of some more traditional wholesome ideas like: respect for life, respect for elders, giving unconditionally, compassion rather than profit. Well, don't wanna preach so I'll stop. Anyways, the state of the world now and before can be seen as caused by selfishness, egoism. When you think of the other mental defilements which cause suffering, you can trace them back to Egotiscal Craving. Go ahead, try it. Anger, Confusion, Hate, Greed, Pride...they are all the progeny of Ego.

 

Matreyia, if the concept of soul is not binded to permanency, how do you explain the spiritual beings that qigong/meditators are in touch with when in trance. My master warned me about those who are not aware of the bigger picture. He told me to be skeptical about what they can say as they are still blind even after physical death.

Maybe those beings are just in another level of the multiple reality that all beings in the universe/anti-universe paradigma. Maybe they are stuck in another dimensional level.

The truth is that no one certainly knows where physical beings in the universe reality go after death, and how the rebirth process operates (if it really does).

Gerard.

 

The soul cannot be binded to permanancy sir...

Gerard, thanks for the questions. I think that we two are having a misunderstanding of terms or concepts don't you? In this case I would ask you to define to me in your terms what a soul is or is not. Then we may proceed according to your terms as to what may or may not be possible.

As for the fact or fiction of the rebirth process, well, at least for myself, I see it as a fact and not a myth or tale told to explain away things. How did I come to this conclusion? Well when I think about or examine many manner of things in this universe we live in, I see a specific identifiable pattern, I do not see some mysterious process. So what are these things that I relate to as examples of rebirth? First, before I list such things, please keep in mind that rebirth in the buddha's dispensation means the new cycle of life processes which takes place after the interruption of a previous life cycle. It does not mean the transmigration of a "soul" from one life to another. Now here is a small list of facts.

From macrocosmic to microcosmic, there exists a pattern-a cyclical pattern.

That is to say, galactic orbits exist, stellar orbits exist, planetary orbits exist, they just go round and round, some place of centrality relative to their location.

Then there are moons which circle around planets, all this cyclic motion creates seasons which are also cyclic.

Then there are days and nights, the in breathing and the exhale breathing.

Electrons orbit neutrons and protons, and so on with smaller subatomic particles.

So far we have some similar types of cycles as well as different types. Some deal with time and seasons, some deal with motion.

Concerning these cycles, one could say that a bright day now is the same as a bright day yesterday or yesteryear, but one could also say correctly that they are different. The same principle applies to the other cycles, ie: in breathing is alike and exhaling is alike, but also different. When the seasons come and go, we see leaves fall and some plants die, but they come back and grow into new plants like their parents. They are the same plants as their parents were, but of course we all know that they are also different than their parents. This is one way of seeing rebirth evidence in nature. It is simply the causal conditions for renewal of life or phenomena. Because our lives are conditional also, we also are dependent upon previous conditions in order to exist currently. In your current life, you cannot truly say that you are the same person as you were when your were a young boy or a baby. To say that is simply illogical, you are an evolving process, constantly changing, constantly dying and renewing on the cellular level. I would venture to say the all of the cells in your body currently are completely new and replaced your previous body a short while back during the year. This is an example of rebirth in your current life. You are a different person moment to moment, yet you perceive yourself to have a solid unchanging self. Ask yourself what the function of that unchanging core self is. Because if it truly exists, it would not be able to do anything since to do something to augment itself would negate the claim that the unchanging core is actually unchanging. Do you see what I am trying to get at?

Now let us discuss the fact of the law of thermodynamics, which states that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only change states. According to this law, we must be subject to rebirth because we are composed of matter - the body, and energy - the mind (neuroelectric impulse). If you think that rebirth is the transmigration of a permanent soul to another life, you will have a very difficult time proving this and trying to convince other people to agree. Because by saying that the soul is permanent and unchanging, you have imprisoned it to eternal damnation or salvation even before it takes a flesh form. For if a soul is permanent, then it will always remain damned if it were born damned. It could not do anything to change its current permanent state. But if you take out the permanence of the soul, take out the solidity and immutability of the soul, then you have a more convincing and logical arguement. Because in that case, you have hard scientific fact to back up your claim.

Why all this fuss about a theory of "no-self"? It is because of how much we love our bodies and minds. It is because of attachment to ourselves and our things that we crave permanence. But it is a farce. The sooner we see it for what it is, the sooner we can breath easy, because we will understand that nothing in the world is worth attaching ourselves to, in the end we will die, or that thing we love will change into something else, or our feelings about it will change. Therefore, to put stock into the illusion of permanent selfhood, or permanency itself is to give birth to our eventual suffering. And like I said before, "just because a person understands "no self" doesn't mean he/she will die or disappear." Many millenia ago, primitives thought thunder to be caused by god(s) because of its power. Now we understand the true dynamics of thunder, yet it still remains just as powerful as in the past. Whether we choose to believe or not believe in soul or no soul, the fact is we are still gonna be around.

Well, I hope this isn't too terribly convoluded, as I am not the clearest of writers. I welcome any questions or disagreements as long as they aren't aimed at provoking.

 

Matreyia, thanks for your lengthy posy but you still haven't answered my question:

How does Buddhism explain the existence of ghosts and other spiritual beings in the non-physical plane? Just read again my previous post.

Regards, Gerard.

 

I see problems with the logic of this argument, firstly if you accept the law of thermodynamics as you quoted it then we are made up of permanent elements, matter and energy. If they can never be created or destroyed then they are eternal hence you are suggesting we have an eternal element. Maybe not personality wise but our very atoms are incapable of being destroyed only changed. This would seem then to contradict the theory that we do not have a permanent element to us or as some people would suggest a soul... Or is it just the notion of a 'self' that you take issue with and you accept we have a permanent element within us? Incidentally how does Nirvana fit into the law of thermodynamics given that it is a permanent state? And what exactly is it that enters Nirvana? Oh and I think your confusing the mind with the brain, theres certainly no consensus in science on what the mind is... and its curious that you adopt a reductionist approach i.e. mind=neuroelectric impulse as this really doesnt fit with Buddhist descriptions of the mind. Just some random thoughts I had- feel free to point out if Im wrong

And I think the question Gerard is asking is that if there is no soul then what exactly is it transmigrates during reincarnation... if there is no soul what links the person who was reborn as a hungry ghost for example? And in case anyone was thinking of saying karma then I would put the question of what does the karma effect? If there is no soul then why is the person in any way linked with the hungry ghost? It'll be interesting to hear any replies- and I dont want a candle and a flame analogy Ive heard that before...

 

Excellent Points Gerard and Ckava!

Hey Guys,

I would like to apologize to Gerard for my lengthy posts. It’s hard to be short and clear when you are dealing with such a novice (myself) trying to explain something that’s complicated.

OK, Gerard, this probably ain’t gonna fly with you, but I have already stated that sentient beings are processes, not permanent things. We could look at them as rivers flowing from one place to another. Life and death processes are uninterrupted as the flow of a river. When the waters flow from one place to another and depending on what container or shape the water takes, it will be called the ocean, or a lake or pond etc. The six realms are just other destinations for our life processes. So you land in Heaven, big deal, we can call you a divine being. If you then say that the water is the essence of the river or the lake etc, then you still have to admit that such waters constantly change and move. If part of the water evaporates into the clouds and part flows into the sea, what happens now? Where would our soul/self be in this case? If it were in 2 places, then surely that would mean that it wasn’t solid and permanent. Sure the water is the constant in this analogy, but it could not be considered solid and unchanging. The water contributes to the “perception” of self, but it could not be the self.

Ckava, you are very astute to point out your observations about my previous reference to thermodynamics! So it is as you stated, we are made of seemingly permanent elements! A particle is a particle right? But I would venture to say that atoms also change states or due to certain conditions and factors. That is how one element may change into another, via temperature or chemical or electrical influence. But let us go to the subatomic level, the electrons, bosons, j particles themselves. Do you think that they are solid and unchanging too? If the were, then our universe would be a very different place. It is only through their ability to change direction, rotation, increase or decrease in energetic factors etc, that they can function as such particles. What about energy? Well, I also think that energy is also subject to change. I think the very nature of energy is change. Or else it would not be energy . How many ways of producing all the know n energy in the entire universe involves no change in temperature, motion etc? I can’t find one.

So you said, “If they can never be created or destroyed then they are eternal hence you are suggesting we have an eternal element. This would seem to contradict that we have an eternal element or as some people would suggest a soul…” The concept of a permanent solid, unchanging self or soul is what I disagree with. I would also disagree with any attempts to equate a self or soul with a fundamental particle such as a quark or electron etc. If anyone does identify the soul with such particles, then the question would be, well, which quark, or which boson, electron is the actual soul? Are they all souls in one body? BTW, the more resolution we possess, the less we see when we magnify into such particles with our instruments. So far with current technology, scientists theorize that matter is 99.9% empty (I don’t know the exact number).

Ckava, you are also astute in pointing out that science has not proved that the mind can be equated to the brain or just neuroelectrical impulses. As a matter of fact there has been documented cases of people in colleges with very little to no actual brain matter! (Just a side note). The fault is definitely mine, but I didn’t want to bring up another issue that I would have to try to justify, namely , the relationship of mind, brain, and electricity. BTW, I do not actually take the reductionist approach to that issue. Anyways, I used the mind/neuroelectricity comparison because I thought that it would be easier to understand if a person understood it in that way. Bad idea ehh?…

Concerning Nirvana, I being an unenlightened person could not possibly put into words what that is and since I never experienced it myself, that’s 2 against and 0 for me. Even the Buddha said that Nirvana can’t be satisfactorily explained via language. As you can imagine, there were lots of ****ed off monks and people who did understand the answers he gave. But if I had a gun to my head, I would probably say that : No – Thing enters Nirvana since supposedly it is not a place, nor time. Supposedly, it is not coming, not going, not up, not down in or out. It is supposedly the total extinction of suffering. Whatever that means.
So if you blew out a candle and I asked you where it went, the question would not apply.
Thus the question of where does not apply to Nirvana. (Sorry, another typical Buddhist candle analogy!)

Thanks for your thoughtful counterpoints. I appreciate the opportunity to expose flaws in my logic anytime! There is no question that there will be many. Best wishes.

 

Thanks for the considered replies Matreyia I'll have a proper think about them when I get time...

 

No Problem, check it out... a fascinating link...

A fun and fascinating account of the Buddhist saint Nagasena’s encounter with the Greek King Milinda of Bactria. The Greek king asks most of the questions that I asked when I first started studying about Buddhist thought. The very same questions which you are asking me. Although I am no where as lucid or eloquent in my answers.

Chapter 1 : The soul
Chapter 2 : Rebirth
Chapter 7 : Memory


url:

http://www.buddhanet.net/ebooks_s.htm

Scroll down until you see an e book called: “ The Debate of King Milinda” by Bhikkhu Pesala

Or you could just do a search on “King Milinda” I suppose.

 

um...first of all Kalari is not the only martial art in india
some are Gatka, Thang-ta, Vajramukti and Simhanta (tho vastly obscure, in fact i think it's only pracitsed in Tibet), Silambam(stick fighting, from Tamil Nadu)
These martial arts are highly secretive and india is a highly secularized country.Even a pose in yoga, (the Warrior POSE Virabhadrasana, (i'm assuming it's named so for a reason such as that warriors used that pose) is quite similar to the wide stances of Karate and TKD.( the front leg being bent and the back leg straight w/)
W/ the advent of caste system only a select few have the chance to learn it and in a 3rd world country such as india..most people are too busy trying to figure out how to get the day's bread instead of learning martial arts altho i don't want to say that it is obscure only because of that reason, rather that is a very big contributing factor.
It is also a very dangerous art because of the vital point system, altho that is rarely taught to most students. Also, we're a pretty proud people and we rarely teach outsiders, even in our own race. We're very particular regarding
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2622/salinksma.html
http://www.tibetankungfu.com/indian_kalari.htm
secondly most likely china and India had their own martial arts and with time through trading and political relations many systems may have been passed to and fro. tho the thought that we spread martial arts throughout asia is ego boosting, i'm not one to ignore hard facts which clearly show martial arts being practised long before the advent of Bhuddism in China. But they do also show that India has had a lot of influence on China. Even the name MAY BE from Sanskrit Cina and not from the name of the state of Ch'in," the first dynasty established by Shih Huang Ti in 221 B.C. But these are pure theories and again i don't to anger anyone.
As an asian i know we're very nationalistic and prideful and we tend to separate ourselves from our neighbours. Altho i am always pleaseantly surprised every time i come over new simliarties between our cultures, I rarely ever reveal these facts to my fellow asian friends, mostly because they scoff at them. So please no one take offense!

 

I found this image on a different forum. It apparently is from shaolin and is of Confucious, BUddha, and Lao Tsu

 

Martial Arts did, of course, exist in China long before Bodhidharma (sp) travelled to Henan. This is indisputable, as said because of historical texts, acheological findings etc mentioned above. However, at this time, the martial arts in China were in disarray. Every village would have its own "style" families would have their own "style". Families and villages would be destroyed, so the styles would be lost etc etc.
Bodhidharma (sp) comes along, and somehow manages to join the monks at Henan temple. China is a wild country around this time, bandits and such. Henan's monks, being peaceful people, are easy prey for the aggressors. By combining early forms of Yoga with martial arts, "Shaolin" Kung Fu was born. This was to become a centre point of the martial arts world in China. It was the first institution of Martial arts, which would serve as a stabaliser.
Yes, martial arts existed in China pre-Bodhidharma.
Yes, Bodhidharma instructed the Henan monks in a form of self defence.

Also, the traditional Indian Martial Art Gatka was known by Bodhidharma as I understand it.

 

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm (ancient mantra of universal scepticism)

Well, hello everybody. My first post here and I guess I'm going to split you fairly evenly into friends and foes with what I have to say.....
(I seem to have this effect in forums though it is certainly not my intention...)
Reading the first post in this thread I have to say from my view there is more that is innaccurate there than accurate. The later developments are interesting but there is also a high level of erroneous info there too. The real point with chinese and/or Indian history is there is no way of proving anything more than about three hundred years back and more recent is often just as hard! So what's the point?
My basic question is to look beyond 'facts' and ask what the actual point or agenda is here?
Hell, I'm just going to just put my t'uppence ha'penny on here and you can do what you like with it......!!

Ok. Chang San Feng is a highly mysterious figure who may not even have existed, likewise Lao Tzu. Chinese scholars often attributed writings to them to lend credence to their own theories. Tamo (bodhidharma) is more likely to have existed, but the stories about him vary immmensely.
The version I heard is that CSF founded Wudang modelled on the success of Shaolin but based on Taoist principles. Taijiquan itself is attributed to him, but most scholars now accept it started with the Chen family and is probably less than 500 years old. Personally I don't care about any of this. Taijiquan only matters when I am doing it - dead folks can practice in the spirit world. (I wonder if they moan about how hard it is there too...?)
The view of Buddhism expressed initially is a wildly innaccurate stereotype, but I think Maitreya is doing a good job of explaining that. I myself practice Nichiren Buddhism which is different again so too much on this will only add confusion. (I also practice Taoism and shamanism btw. I do not find any conflict in this.)
The view of Taoism is again a generalisation. It depends on what type of Taoism you practice. Another interesting thing is that yin and yang (taiji) predates both Taoism and Buddhism and is often embraced by many different teachings(eg confucianism). Many people seem to think of it as exclusively 'Taoist' but this is not so. Also in the West (and unfortunately often modern china too) people want to put everything into neat boxes. "This person is taoist" "this person is buddhist" it doesn't work that way. The Chinese traditionally practice a mixture of teachings with only clerics and monks being exclusive (and most of them aren't either!)
The practices of Taoism and Buddhism are completely separate from martial art - BUT martial arts are influenced and based on their principles. Most Taoists and Buddhists don't practice any martial art.
Historically, they have worked together more than they have opposed each other (sorry the movies are giving a fake impression - surely not!) Rivalry, maybe. The choices of Taoists and Buddhists when they enter conflict will depend on the personality and/or nature of the individual concerned. I took a vow of non-violence with my Teacher - but what if I was faced by a real opponent? Who knows?
I also wouldn't get too excited by the modern versions of wudang and shaolin monasteries. The originals were trashed during the 'cultural revolution'. The modern versions are more to do with tourism and politics than anything else :yeleyes: sorry folks. Buddhism and Taoism are tolerated under duress by the Communists and manipulated for political and financial ends. If you think the Government has relaxed about religious freedom look at the treatment of the Falun Gong sect in China.
Anyway, that'll do for starters. Give us a sec while I take cover....
My last point is this: we all like to be right, the antidote to this is to always remember.... "There are no facts, only stories"
Cheers
N

 

Very interesting Nigel

You're knowledge still amazes me. If I can ask, what is the difference between the different types of Buddhism and Daoism? Its all to complex for my mind... :cry:

 

Great post Taiji_Butterfly. Welcome to MAP!!

 

4 James n Nzric

Hi Nzric - Good to be here
James - Can you clarify the question for me a bit? It's probably going to be a longish answer whatever way I reply so I'd appreciate a bit of clarity!! lol
N

 

Lol, now your asking
I suppose, what is your particular form of Buddhism like? Whats the originals/history of it. WHats the belief structure etc?

 

Nichiren Buddhism

Hi James
OKay now you're asking.... Briefly it's based on the Lotus Sutra which dates back to Shakyamuni (the Buddha) approx 3000 years ago. It was devised in 13th century Japan and primarily consists of chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo to a mandala called the Gohonzon. The central idea is to reveal your Buddha Nature in the present moment and become happy in this lifetime rather than the distant future.
And it works!
Regarding different types of Tao practice they range from shamanism through polytheism, alchemy and sorcery to naturalism, ritual and religious mysticism...
The idea of 'Taoism' and being a 'Taoist' is actually a bit of an 'in joke' because there really can't be such a thing lol
No time to type more I have to go teach stuff!
See you 2morrow maybe....
N

 

I'll be there tomorrow. See you then