Ontological tension.

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
AdvaitaJ
Posts: 234
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:17 am
Location: Michigan, USA

Re: Ontological tension.

Post by AdvaitaJ »

Some of the issues raised have been of increasing interest in my practice lately. The analogy of the "100% positive eye witness" to a crime who is later proved to have been wrong comes to mind. The mind is powerful and I've often wondered if I'm training it to see what I've been instructed to expect. I've decided that, as in any good science experiment, repeatability is my best defense against self-delusory training.

With regards to the "tension" in the Buddha's teaching, there's certainly a vacuum there. I am of the opinion that part of the Buddha's realization is something he decided could not be communicated and must be experienced -- so he showed us the path and knew that when/if anyone got that far, they'd understand. Perhaps the Buddha, superb teacher that he was, simply could "not find the words". When reading other's description of advanced attainment (Sariputta, for example), I'm always checking to see if they offer a bit more description of the "fruit" than the Buddha did.

Regards: Jim
The birds have vanished down the sky. Now the last cloud drains away.
We sit together, the mountain and me, until only the mountain remains.
Li Bai
User avatar
m0rl0ck
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Ontological tension.

Post by m0rl0ck »

thereductor wrote:Moreover, this conflict has gotten me to think about which form of resolution we as practitioners are best served by: remain noncommittal, reject one half, or embrace all of it? How to reject one half without undermining confidence in the Buddha? And if one forces themselves to accept a teaching they don't really feel comfortable with, deep down inside, wouldn't that also undermine their confidence in the Buddha, albeit more subtly? Perhaps agnosticism is the safest bet? Perhaps a refusal to commit to either view is a sign of non-committal toward the practice too? :stirthepot:

Refusal to commit to views in such matters is the only way to go, it is the practice imo. After all isnt it about non-clinging? Views are just more attachments. The resolution is to practice and experience truth rather than to take up speculative views which are good for nothing but to reinforce the fetter of self identity and cause conflict.

EDIT: besides which views absolutely ruin your practice, if you are sitting there thinking about what you should or shouldnt believe, you are doing it wrong.
“The truth knocks on the door and you say, "Go away, I'm looking for the truth," and so it goes away. Puzzling.” ― Robert M. Pirsig
curiousgeorge
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:16 am

Re: Ontological tension.

Post by curiousgeorge »

5heaps wrote:
PeterB wrote:And you know that they are there ...how ?
having observed very small physical things + logic

something ultimate needs to be there (at the root of aggregations of grosser particles) or else action is not possible, for there would be nothing which is substantial.


But E=MC2 meaning that matter is energy - and there are some very weird things going on, such as *negative* mass electrons, etc. Meaning that sometimes the opposite of something is there. Not only nothing, but an un-nothing. The realness we experience in general doesn't have anything to do with things touching, but rather with the interaction of energy fields. (at least, like you said, this has been induced and deduced, and supported experimentally)

But as far as molecules go, they have photographs. A while back, IBM arranged molecules to spell "IBM" and photographed it. So we can see them and move them around individually.

You can look at something "directly" using an electron microscope. It is an amplification of our senses, So far as you trust the laws of the universe to be constant, then that should hold up to scrutiny. The alternative as I understand it would be some version of nihilism.
curiousgeorge
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:16 am

Re: Ontological tension.

Post by curiousgeorge »

Lightning wit strikes again:


There is always ontological tension when something is misunderstood!
rowyourboat
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Ontological tension.

Post by rowyourboat »

The Buddha taught people of different aptitudes/skills/faculties. Hence the teaching is sometimes different. Sometimes deeper. Hence the confusion, even though each level of description is correct, for us on the other side one side might seem more right than the other, depending on our tendencies (theorist, meditator, our view on ceasing to exist, not seeing total dukkha hence not seeing the total solution etc etc).

with metta

RYB
With Metta

Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
lojong1
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 2:59 am

Re: Ontological tension.

Post by lojong1 »

thereductor wrote:What I'm really interested in here is why it is that talk about rebirth is such a source of conflict; between those that favor more 'literal' views verses those that take it as metaphor (or between adherents, rejectors and agnostics). Moreover, this conflict has gotten me to think about which form of resolution we as practitioners are best served by: remain noncommittal, reject one half, or embrace all of it?
I feel left out, being part of a fourth minority group (neither adherent, rejector, nor agnostic) that asks: "'Rebirth'? WTF are you talking about? Which Pali word in which context?" (the semantopath?) This gives another form of resolution, which does not interfere a jot with one's saddhaa.
Post Reply