monism: oneness

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
budo
Posts: 726
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:16 am
Location: The world

Re: monism: oneness

Post by budo » Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:46 pm

A lot of "modern" Buddhism is not Buddhism, I would even say the majority of Buddhism isn't Buddhism, Late Mahayana completely redefines a lot of Early Buddhism terms like Sunnata. If you want to see some of the worst buddhism just check out Pragmatic Dharma/Dhamma communities, it's just a melting pot of new age views with no one really knowing what they're talking about, they call it "Pragmatic Buddhism" but it may as well be Taoism mixed with Hinduism mixed with psychedelic drugs or whatever excuse these people want to feed their addictions and lifestyles. To them an Arahant can enjoy a Starbucks latte macciato while listening to music.

form
Posts: 773
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 3:23 am

Re: monism: oneness

Post by form » Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:39 am

The oneness i refer to is unity with the divine. For example meditate until one is reunion with the universe, or one realise tao. The second one is more tricky as it is hard to define tao. Buddhism is about non attachment, no view, no concieving etc, given the training methods and progress descriptions in MN, it seems unlikely certain hybrid Buddhism are Buddhism.

User avatar
Manopubbangama
Posts: 437
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:17 pm

Re: monism: oneness

Post by Manopubbangama » Fri Jan 11, 2019 12:32 pm

bodom wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:39 pm
Staying at Savatthi. Then a brahman cosmologist [1]went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Now, then, Master Gotama, does everything [2] exist?"

"'Everything exists' is the senior form of cosmology, brahman."

"Then, Master Gotama, does everything not exist?"

"'Everything does not exist' is the second form of cosmology, brahman."

"Then is everything a Oneness?"

"'Everything is a Oneness' is the third form of cosmology, brahman."

"Then is everything a Manyness?"

"'Everything is a Manyness' is the fourth form of cosmology, brahman. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. F+rom the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."

"Magnificent, Master Gotama! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has Master Gotama — through many lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear. I go to Master Gotama for refuge, to the Dhamma, and to the Sangha of monks. May Master Gotama remember me as a lay follower who has gone to him for refuge, from this day forward, for life."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

:namaste:
:goodpost: Thanks, Bodom. This is very concise and conclusive regarding the issue.

budo wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:46 pm
A lot of "modern" Buddhism is not Buddhism, I would even say the majority of Buddhism isn't Buddhism, Late Mahayana completely redefines a lot of Early Buddhism terms like Sunnata. If you want to see some of the worst buddhism just check out Pragmatic Dharma/Dhamma communities, it's just a melting pot of new age views with no one really knowing what they're talking about, they call it "Pragmatic Buddhism" but it may as well be Taoism mixed with Hinduism mixed with psychedelic drugs or whatever excuse these people want to feed their addictions and lifestyles. To them an Arahant can enjoy a Starbucks latte macciato while listening to music.
This sounds like 99.9% of "Western" Buddhism, including a huge amount on this board.

Also to add: the entitled feeling that tradition itself and all of the countless generations of wise, dedicated bikkhus can be flushed down the toilet for us to freely reinterpret "dhamma" to mean anything we want, and why? Because I have an internet connection, goshdarnit, and that makes us advanced, therefore its okay to be a salad-bar-buddhist and take what I want from it to toss it into my salad of spiritual potpourri.

Theravada is the tipitika and the tipitika is theravada, its not "dhammic socialism" or other one-with-the-universe nonsense.

Its not ayahuasca, its not peyote, and its definitely not "Zen."
Last edited by Manopubbangama on Fri Jan 11, 2019 12:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If you meet a Buddha on the road; note it, and continue to focus on the breath.
"Buddha on the road"
"Buddha on the road"

https://www.dhammaboard.co

User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 766
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: monism: oneness

Post by seeker242 » Fri Jan 11, 2019 12:52 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:12 am

MN 121[/i]
Thus, it appears "oneness" ("ekattaṃ") in MN 121 is equated with the "signless" ("animitto "). It appears to be a state or illusion of "non-duality" created from non-thinking or non-labelling or non-conceptualising; similar to what Mahayana teaches.

Where as "emptiness" & "Nibbana" are the ending of "self-views".
If there is non-labelling or non-conceptualising then how can self-view continue to persist, when self view is itself a conceptualization? :shrug:

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4780
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: monism: oneness

Post by Sam Vara » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:46 pm

form wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:39 am
The oneness i refer to is unity with the divine. For example meditate until one is reunion with the universe, or one realise tao. The second one is more tricky as it is hard to define tao. Buddhism is about non attachment, no view, no concieving etc, given the training methods and progress descriptions in MN, it seems unlikely certain hybrid Buddhism are Buddhism.
Yes, personally, I think that MN1 and SN12.48 (as quoted by Bodom above) pretty much rule that out.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 3571
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: monism: oneness

Post by DooDoot » Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:25 am

seeker242 wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 12:52 pm
If there is non-labelling or non-conceptualising then how can self-view continue to persist, when self view is itself a conceptualization?
How? Because its seems non-labelling/non-conceptualising can only be temporary and because anatta has probably not been fully realised and because the tendency (anusaya) has probably not been uprooted. Therefore, self-view could re-arise.

form
Posts: 773
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 3:23 am

Re: monism: oneness

Post by form » Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:49 am

:oops:
DooDoot wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:25 am
seeker242 wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 12:52 pm
If there is non-labelling or non-conceptualising then how can self-view continue to persist, when self view is itself a conceptualization?
How? Because its seems non-labelling/non-conceptualising can only be temporary and because anatta has probably not been fully realised and because the tendency (anusaya) has probably not been uprooted. Therefore, self-view could re-arise.
Can i say... in other words, that is why you are still here. :mrgreen:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests