Re: Social Action
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 12:10 pm
Plunging the depths of the arahant's soul is no easy matter.
Which soul would that be?...
A Buddhist discussion forum on the Dhamma of Theravāda Buddhism
https://www.dhammawheel.com/
Plunging the depths of the arahant's soul is no easy matter.
I single it out just because of this teaching. Many teachings have posed the body as simply a tool, or a ship we pilot. Buddhism holds that we have had and perhaps will have many bodies. So the body is like today's clothing. That seems to indicate to me that outside of the golden chance to practice the dhamma there is nothing inherently valuable about our bodies. I am not saying I have the answer, but it just seemed to me that the attitude that this life is not it may effect how people minister to their neighbor. I am not saying the Buddha advocated that, but that it may be a common item of collateral damage from the doctrine of rebirth, and the natural tendency of people to let past karma do all the work which their present karma should be doing. I am just a little bit confused that there isn't a great reputation amongst Buddhists for ministering to their neighbor in a bodily way, or instructing others about the evils of killing children in the womb. Even if we divorce this from doctrine, everyone can see that no dhamma practice starts until the basic needs of the body are met. Somebody has to grow the food, somebody has to fill the bowl. Traditionally Christian culture did this as an actually part of its path to heaven, for those people called to public work. Buddhism adapted to allow someone to seek out a favorable rebirth, but that's not really essential to Buddhism.manasikara wrote: Contemplans, according the the suttas, none of the five khandhas are self - not form, feeling, perception, formations or consciousness! Why single out the body alone?
But just because it is not self, doesn't mean we shouldn't treat it with care, love and respect. Yes, the body is not our possession; it belongs to Nature and will return there. But shouldn't we treat Nature with respect?
with metta.
The arahant's soul.appicchato wrote:Plunging the depths of the arahant's soul is no easy matter.
Which soul would that be?...
Actually quite the contrary, beside setting up practicing models to achieve favorable rebirths and the ultimate goal of Nibbana, the Buddha went in great length to instruct the people how to practice for their own benefits and other people's benefit right in the here and now. (ref: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nara.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ). And as a direct benefit of the doctrine of rebirth, a person is fully aware that s/he is solely responsible for his/her own actions and that no higher power would be able to erase all his sins in one stroke. This is the most effective source of motivation and it could only strenghthen one's resolve to act, think, and speak responsibly right in the here and now knowing fully well that s/he is the sole heir to his/her own actions..Contemplans wrote:
I am not saying I have the answer, but it just seemed to me that the attitude that this life is not it may effect how people minister to their neighbor. I am not saying the Buddha advocated that, but that it may be a common item of collateral damage from the doctrine of rebirth, and the natural tendency of people to let past karma do all the work which their present karma should be doing.
Here is a quote from it (but there is much more to see):Ministering to the Sick and the Terminally Ill
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... bl132.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Caring for others - and yes that includes the bodies of others - is important on the Buddhist Path.The Buddha has enumerated the qualities that should be present in a good nurse. He should be competent to administer the medicine, he should know what is agreeable to the patient and what is not. He should keep away what is disagreeable and give only what is agreeable to the patient. He should be benevolent and kind-hearted, he should perform his duties out of a sense of service and not just for the sake of remuneration (mettacitto gilanam upatthati no amisantaro). He should not feel repulsion towards saliva, phlegm, urine, stools, sores, etc. He should be capable of exhorting and stimulating the patient with noble ideas, with Dhamma talk (A.iii,144).
Or they could say mañana if they didn't fear eternal separation from love, burning in hell. Even the worst punishments envisioned in Buddhism are temporary, and, of course, depersonalized. I can trust that most Buddhists here, if not all, do not recall their previous ventures in hell, nor the sufferings they've undergone. I certainly don't. Both say you chose your present and future, but one says your actions have absolute values, and the other says your actions have relative values. Just to give you my viewpoint. A fervent Christian views their relationship with others as a relationship with Christ, God Himself. So someone who believes they are called to service to their neighbor, will go out and feed that person, and like actions. All of these actions have eternal value, that is, they form a part of your life's work, which is a one time moral act. It isn't a side-project which may even be an obstacle. See Dorothy Day as a modern vision of this type of love. The fervent Buddhist may indeed choose to serve the poor, but that is not their main thrust, and most probably would see it as something keeping them away from meditation time, which is the main vehicle to reach the goal. There is a conflict there, and since we have many lives, even if we are convinced of the preciousness of this human life, one of the things can be placed on the back-burner. So with this viewpoint, I see at least one reason why social action can be put off. I am also willing to admit that Christian's can become so involved in social action that they neglect the inner life, and become like social activists. I accept that every human venture has temptations.santa100 wrote: Actually quite the contrary, beside setting up practicing models to achieve favorable rebirths and the ultimate goal of Nibbana, the Buddha went in great length to instruct the people how to practice for their own benefits and other people's benefit right in the here and now. (ref: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nara.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ). And as a direct benefit of the doctrine of rebirth, a person is fully aware that s/he is solely responsible for his/her own actions and that no higher power would be able to erase all his sins in one stroke. This is the most effective source of motivation and it could only strenghthen one's resolve to act, think, and speak responsibly right in the here and now knowing fully well that s/he is the sole heir to his/her own actions..
I understand it is an abstract and advanced teaching. I am not averse to the not-self teaching. I am averse to the no-soul teaching which seems to vie for attention in place of anatta. Catholics teach that the soul is pure form, that is, completely spiritual and in its essence outside of worldly understanding. But we also value analogic knowledge as a way to understand it in some way, so we can know that it exists and some of its qualities through our bodies in the way of analogy. Catholics don't even hold that the body and soul are two, but simply different principles of a single being (the determining and the determiner principles, or rather, the potential and the active principles). To say that some things are not the self, or not ultimately the self, is one thing. To say that we create selves is also okay. It is also within that tradition to say the soul is ineffable and basically to not reason about it (but we wouldn't deny it). It is another leap to say that nothing nowhere is the soul as many Buddhists seem to hold, and which seems to me to not be an orthodox Buddhist teaching. At the end of the day, experiential knowledge is greater than speculative reasoning. I do agree with that.manasikara wrote: Regarding the idea that this body is a 'vehicle': this is leaning more towards Hinduism, who hold that there is a transmigrating 'soul or self' discarding old bodies, and accepting new ones (like clothing). As far as I know, this is not the right way to look at it, from a Buddhist perspective. But the Doctrine of the self-less-ness of the five khandhas is not easy to grasp without meditation; I heard Ajahn Chah say that 'if you only intellectualize about it, your head will explode'. So we can talk about it until we are all blue in the face, but you will be no closer to seeing it unless you contemplate it with a calmed mind. Personally, it took me years to stop being averse to it; then I began to investigate it, intellectually and via meditation, and this is an ongoing process. But as you will see above if you click on the link, the fact that the body also isn't self (along with feeling, perception, etc), in no way releases us from our duty to care for other beings. When we see suffering, we should act to relieve it whenever possible.
Any Buddhist with decent amount of wisdom knows that saying mañana would be the last thing they'd want to do. Ask if anyone who'd want to be burned in Hell whether that's for a day, a week, a month, a year, or forever, and you'd get the same answer.Contemplans wrote:
Or they could say mañana if they didn't fear eternal separation from love, burning in hell.
Why should there be a conflict between serving the poor and meditation? Your awareness of impermanence isn't cut off while serving the poor. And you're most certainly still breathing while serving the poor. Well, that's vipassana and anapanasati meditation right there while serving the poor!The fervent Buddhist may indeed choose to serve the poor, but that is not their main thrust, and most probably would see it as something keeping them away from meditation time, which is the main vehicle to reach the goal. There is a conflict there, and since we have many lives, even if we are convinced of the preciousness of this human life, one of the things can be placed on the back-burner. So with this viewpoint, I see at least one reason why social action can be put off.
Hi contemplans,contemplans wrote:To say that some things are not the self, or not ultimately the self, is one thing. To say that we create selves is also okay.... It is another leap to say that nothing nowhere is the soul as many Buddhists seem to hold, and which seems to me to not be an orthodox Buddhist teaching. At the end of the day, experiential knowledge is greater than speculative reasoning. I do agree with that.
Surely 'the arahant's soul' is a phrase no-one can use?contemplans wrote:The arahant's soul.appicchato wrote:Plunging the depths of the arahant's soul is no easy matter.
Which soul would that be?...
I would assume so also. The Buddha seemed to not favor much at all analogical knowledge, that is, knowledge about ineffable things in terms of things we sense. Or, rather, speaking about ineffable things with reference to the five aggregates. Indirect speculative knowledge. So, for instance, God is eternal. But we don't experience eternity, so how can we say this? You either accept this knowledge, reject it outright (agnostics), or some resolve this by being "quiet", i.e., not saying anything either way. The Buddha kept quiet on most occasions (but not all), because he saw it as taking away from the fulfillment of the path (i.e., unskillful). Others think that analogical knowledge is helpful as a MEANS. Catholics hold that language is a useful means to truth, but not the END. When I say I believe in a soul, I believe it through my experience, but I know those are mental fabrications and pale understandings of truth. One can only tap into that reality through direct experience and knowledge. Catholics say God and soul and goodness etc. is all in that mystical direct experience. The Buddha said it is Nibbana, but he said very very little about that state. In fact what he says accords with Catholic mystical experience (or vice versa as the case may be). Peace, foremost ease/happiness, unborn, unbecome, unmade, unfabricated. So as a believing Catholic, I use this analogic working knowledge to come to direct experience. Some Catholic saints said that all analogic knowledge is bunk (Catherine of Genoa, for instance), so don't think that every Catholic must mentally fabricate about the self. But the Church teaches that indeed we have a soul, and that soul is what is called our "substantial form", that is, the principle that makes us different from merely being a collection of atoms, and by which we eat, grow, and procreate (which rocks and other inanimate things don't do). Eating, growing, and procreating is not the end at all, but we acknowledge that we are not the same as inanimate matter. The existence of the souls Catholics consider just as self-evident as rocks not getting up and talking to us. But beyond the teaching that we are all unique souls, theorizing about the soul is each person's prerogative. I hope that clarifies my views and my look on anatta. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof. For me, I side with those who say it is about the creations in our minds, not the creations outside of them.Monks, whatever contemplatives or priests who assume in various ways when assuming a atta, all assume the five clinging-aggregates, or a certain one of them. -- SN III 46
In other words the assumption of an atta, an unchanging and unconditioned being, a "soul" that we truly are, is one based upon misapprehension and delusion.
Not a great crime, Buckwheat, but context does make a difference. In daily life, rough enough is good enough (as our Aussie idiom goes). In a more technical conversation, such as this, loose use of language can cause difficulties which are better avoided - and it is often as misleading to the writer as to the reader.Buckwheat wrote:To make a rule that we can not use the word "soul" doesn't seem too far from saying we can't use the words "I/me/my/myself/mine". Just because they are not strictly in line with the teaching doesn't mean they don't represent a mental fabrication that makes for easier conversation. I don't believe in an Arahants Soul, but I know what the person is talking about when they say arahants soul. Is that such a crime?
Despite being an atheist turned Buddhist, the power of American culture has me occasionally referencing God. It's not because I believe in God, it's just a very convenient term for the amazing mystery that is life.
And that is not a problem. As I already quoted:contemplans wrote:Concerning, Samyutta Nikaya III 144 ...
This is stated in the context of the five aggregates, and sankhara (mental fabrications).
It would seem that reality is that if one does not look closely at the text in question, it is sort of is saying what contemplans wants it to say: “It you look closely he [the Buddha] isn't saying anything about the soul's existence or non-existence in se, but mental fabrication about the self.”Attabhava can be self-existence (or as Bhikkhu Bodhi puts it "individual existence"), but in this context it would probably be better rendered self-becoming, or as Thanissaro Bhikkhu puts it, "personal identity". It you look closely he isn't saying anything about the soul's existence or non-existence in se, but mental fabrication about the self. All the mental fabrications we have about ourselves are indeed impermanent, unstable, and subject to change. I agree. I, however, do not agree that belief in a self in se is an obstacle. The Buddha doesn't entertain this notion, I think, but I think this follows his policy of remaining quiet about things which are beyond. If there is indeed a true self, it would be over there.
True self? Over where? What would the true self do? How could it do anything? Can it feel? Can it see? Can it change? The point is, according to the Buddha, there is no true about which the Buddha needs to be silent.“The Buddha doesn't entertain this notion, I think, but I think this follows his policy of remaining quiet about things which are beyond. If there is indeed a true self, it would be over there.”
Interestingly, the Buddha is not talking about “Indirect speculative knowledge” in SN III 144. He is, rather, talking about direct experience of an unchanging self-essence and is telling us such a thing is not to be found.The Buddha seemed to not favor much at all analogical knowledge, that is, knowledge about ineffable things in terms of things we sense. Or, rather, speaking about ineffable things with reference to the five aggregates. Indirect speculative knowledge.
Accept this knowledge? Knowledge? Knowledge of what? Belief, certainly, but knowledge?So, for instance, God is eternal. But we don't experience eternity, so how can we say this? You either accept this knowledge, reject it outright (agnostics), or some resolve this by being "quiet", i.e., not saying anything either way.
And the Buddha would say that what you are believing in is grounded in the khandhas. Show me otherwise.When I say I believe in a soul, I believe it through my experience, but I know those are mental fabrications and pale understandings of truth.
Actually, the Buddha said quite a bit about nibbana and I see absolutely no basis for your implied equation of nibbana with the conditioned beliefs in a soul and a god.One can only tap into that reality through direct experience and knowledge. Catholics say God and soul and goodness etc. is all in that mystical direct experience. The Buddha said it is Nibbana, but he said very very little about that state.
Assuming by unborn, unbecome, unmade, unfabricated you mean ajatam, abhutam, akatam, asankhatam, but these things have not a thing to do with any sort of god concept however rarified or abstract.In fact what he says accords with Catholic mystical experience (or vice versa as the case may be). Peace, foremost ease/happiness, unborn, unbecome, unmade, unfabricated.
No god here, no absolute thing, just transformation and freedom from.This said by the Blessed One, the Worthy One, was heard by me in this way: "Monks, there is freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning. For, monks if there were not this freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning, then escape from that which is birth, becoming, making, conditioning, would not be known here. But, monks, because there is freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning, therefore the escape from that which is birth, becoming, making, conditioning is known."
[Here the Buddha, The Blessed One, offers his own verse
commentary on his statement.]
This meaning the Blessed One spoke, it is spoken here in this way:
That which is born, become, arisen, made, conditioned,
And thus unstable, put together of decay and death,
The seat of disease, brittle,
Caused and craving food,
That is not fit to find pleasure in.
Being freed of this, calmed beyond conjecture, stable,
Freed from birth, freed from arising, freed from sorrow,
Freed from passions, the elements of suffering stopped,
The conditioning [of greed, hatred and delusion]appeased,
This is ease [bliss]. -- Iti 37-8.