Is racist white supremacy behind "Aryan" claims, a term Goebbels, Himmler, and Hitler appropriated from India and so abused that the term can probably never be redeemed?According to the blog Aryan Buddhism, "Theravada [the earliest existing form of Buddhism] is Materialism, not Buddhism." What then is Buddhism? It is what the blog calls "Aryan Buddhism."
Therefore, the early Buddhists compiled the Abhidharma texts that speak in absolute and ultimate terms. There is no self. What is there then? Ultimately speaking there are particles (kalapas, the characteristics of form) and mind (cittas, consciousness moments).
Five Aggregates
Another approach is to explain "being" as Five Aggregates of Clinging: There is form (body, kalapas), feeling (sensation), perception (recognition), volition (mental formations, the most important of which is intention), and consciousness (cittas and cetasikas, mental factors). What we refer to as myself, yourself, an essential entity undergoing rebirth is not real in the ultimate sense [it certainly is in the conventional sense] is always in terms of the aggregates of existence. We speak of "my body, my feelings...my awareness." But if we were to look closely -- with a mind purified by "right concentration" (which the Buddha defines as a mind capable of entering the first four absorptions, jhanas, at will) -- we would not find an autonomous, independent self.
Dependent Origination
We would find the other approach to explain being, namely, Dependent Origination. Our sense of self, these physical and mental aggregates (materiality and mentality) are dependent. They all arise depending on conditions. This is directly observable, directly knowable, directly open to verification. Of course, verification to our scientific culture means empirical-impersonal "data." What Buddhism, particularly the ancient meditative traditions of Theravada Buddhism, is concerned with is personal empirical "experience."
There is no dogma, nothing to take on blind faith. But that does not keep the blog from lambasting the great American scholar-monk, Bhikkhu Bodhi. Liberation is an experience. Unfortunately, for many Buddhism has become a religion to identify with rather than what the Buddha set out -- a path to practice. There is a verifiable-faith (saddha), confidence or conviction, in those who have seen this Dharma, namely the Buddha and the enlightened or aryan ("noble," "accomplished," "attained") Sangha.
It should be noted that Bhikkhu Bodhi rarely speculates in his translations. What he commonly does is reference and bring forward Buddhist commentarial literature, most of which has not been translated widely disseminated. If there is an implication and it is noted as such, one would do well to look at the source material, the ancient commentaries, rather than at the modern messenger.
In this way, one is easily able to follow the thread teased out over centuries. Commentarial work is not fiat (as in currency, military) -- the whimsical dictate of some authority or a specious theory constructed by an idiosyncratic commentator.
It follows a principle laid down by the Buddha, reconciling the texts regarded as authentic scripture handed down by oral tradition. That principle is laid out as a means of testing claims: Does it accord with the rest of the teaching? Question it, examine it, investigate it. Do not simply accept it on authority or dismiss it out of hand.
Conventional vs. Ultimate Truth
Conventionally, there IS a "self." We must improve ourselves, develop ourselves, examine ourselves, behave ourselves, help ourselves, and help others to become free of suffering and experience nirvana. But what is the nature of this "self"?
Ultimately speaking, it is empty. That is to say, it is not what it seems. What does it seem? It seems permanent. It seems capable of satisfaction. It seems personal.
And that verification is wholesome, liberating, and leads to enlightenment. The wrong view held by Vedic Brahmanism (and essentially every other religion/spiritual philosophy in the world) is that there is an eternal "soul" or that one is merely material and exists now to be annihilated at death. Both are mistaken views.
Yes, BOTH are mistaken views. Buddhism is the Middle Path that avoids these two extremes. These views are not mistaken because the Buddha spent so much time and exerted so much effort to establish people in the right view of selflessness (anatta).
They are mistaken and anyone who attains even the first stage of enlightenment (stream entry) is perfectly convinced of that, has verified it, has experienced it. Life and our existence is not what it seems! The whole of Theravada Buddhism promotes this understanding -- but only if one can take the first baby step in distinguishing two forms of speaking, conventional truth and ultimate truth.
Physics and Psychology Examples
The distinction is easy today. Most educated people will have heard of Newton and Newtonian physics as distinct from Quantum physics. Newtons laws -- which may or may not be true but are taken as such and used as the basis for ordinary or classical mechanics. These are the "physical laws" of how physical things operate at the level of things. So from a Newtonian view a solid table is a solid.
But, ultimately, from a Quantum perspective, that "solid" is mostly empty space. A solid table is not a solid. Contradiction! Contradiction? There is no contradiction at all. It certainly appears solid, but by definition and experiment, it is revealed to have far more space than solidity, the space being the gap between atomic particles and subatomic particles. Newtonian axioms do not apply, the math does not work, at the atomic level. When things are that small, at the level of quanta, a whole new physics, a whole new math is needed to describe and predict movement.
To give a psychological example, we may be asked to explain our motives. And we may say what we honestly think is motivating us. But an experiment reveals that we are mistaken; we are, in fact, being motivated by something else. For instance, why is a commercial effective? Why do we choose to buy something being advertised? We choose it because it is a value, we have rationally examined it as necessary or useful for us, and that decision is in line with our ethical standards, rights? Not a chance. If this were the case, commercials to be effective would talk about the ingredients and remain logical.
- In contradiction to the suttic doctrine of Buddhism, Theravada negates a substratum of autonomy [‘natho’ KN 2.380] apart from corporeal, psycho-physical existence as per its own Abhidhamma which contradicts: [SN 2.17] “Nonbeing (asat, natthiti [views of either sabbamnatthi ‘the all is ultimately not’ (atomism), and sabbam puthuttan ‘the all is merely composite (atoms) [SN 2.77],” both are heresies of Annihilationism. By positing only ephemeral matter without an animating autonomous but inchoate (unmediated) foundation (citta/mind), emancipation/illumination becomes empirical, external, and worldly; therein positing a humanistic dogma where merit making and superficial piety are the highest obtainable absolute.
Therefore, the early Buddhists compiled the Abhidharma texts that speak in absolute and ultimate terms. There is no self. What is there then? Ultimately speaking there are particles (kalapas, the characteristics of form) and mind (cittas, consciousness moments).
Five Aggregates
Another approach is to explain "being" as Five Aggregates of Clinging: There is form (body, kalapas), feeling (sensation), perception (recognition), volition (mental formations, the most important of which is intention), and consciousness (cittas and cetasikas, mental factors). What we refer to as myself, yourself, an essential entity undergoing rebirth is not real in the ultimate sense [it certainly is in the conventional sense] is always in terms of the aggregates of existence. We speak of "my body, my feelings...my awareness." But if we were to look closely -- with a mind purified by "right concentration" (which the Buddha defines as a mind capable of entering the first four absorptions, jhanas, at will) -- we would not find an autonomous, independent self.
Dependent Origination
We would find the other approach to explain being, namely, Dependent Origination. Our sense of self, these physical and mental aggregates (materiality and mentality) are dependent. They all arise depending on conditions. This is directly observable, directly knowable, directly open to verification. Of course, verification to our scientific culture means empirical-impersonal "data." What Buddhism, particularly the ancient meditative traditions of Theravada Buddhism, is concerned with is personal empirical "experience."
There is no dogma, nothing to take on blind faith. But that does not keep the blog from lambasting the great American scholar-monk, Bhikkhu Bodhi. Liberation is an experience. Unfortunately, for many Buddhism has become a religion to identify with rather than what the Buddha set out -- a path to practice. There is a verifiable-faith (saddha), confidence or conviction, in those who have seen this Dharma, namely the Buddha and the enlightened or aryan ("noble," "accomplished," "attained") Sangha.
- Bhikkhu Bodhi (Theravada’s mouthpiece) makes implication (unfounded) that there are “mundane aggregates” as opposed to ‘supermundane’ aggregates in addition to a non-Suttic dogmatic claim that “…there is implication that there are aggregates which are anasava (taintless)”; this however is not supported by any means scripturally [SN 3.48 Footnote #65 by Bhikkhu Bodhi; Wisdom Publ. p. 1060].
It should be noted that Bhikkhu Bodhi rarely speculates in his translations. What he commonly does is reference and bring forward Buddhist commentarial literature, most of which has not been translated widely disseminated. If there is an implication and it is noted as such, one would do well to look at the source material, the ancient commentaries, rather than at the modern messenger.
In this way, one is easily able to follow the thread teased out over centuries. Commentarial work is not fiat (as in currency, military) -- the whimsical dictate of some authority or a specious theory constructed by an idiosyncratic commentator.
It follows a principle laid down by the Buddha, reconciling the texts regarded as authentic scripture handed down by oral tradition. That principle is laid out as a means of testing claims: Does it accord with the rest of the teaching? Question it, examine it, investigate it. Do not simply accept it on authority or dismiss it out of hand.
- Gold Scales: Four versions of the Kalama sutra
- Discourse of the Teaching Bequeated by the Buddha
- Shorter Discourse on the Lion's Roar (MN 63) The Buddha declares that only through practicing in accord with the Dharma can enlightenment be realized. This teaching is distinguished from those of other religions and philosophies through its unique rejection of all doctrines of self.
- The only thing within sutta which is said to be “taintless” (anasava) and “without clinging” (anupadaya) is the mind (citta): [DN 2.35, MN 1.501, MN 3.20, SN 3.45, SN 4.48, SN 5.24, AN 1.240, AN 2.155, AN 3.354, AN 4.126, SN 5.233, etc.]. [AN 1.198] “The non-clinging mind (citta) which is liberated.” [MN 3.72] “And what is the Aryan taintless supranormal path? The Aryan-mind (citta), the Aryan path endowed with the taintless mind (citta).” Engaging in a Self-negation paradox and both admitting to emancipation (vimutta) but not that which obtains it, either in quantification or qualification, Theravada contradicts every tenet of Buddhism itself as found in sutta
Conventional vs. Ultimate Truth
Conventionally, there IS a "self." We must improve ourselves, develop ourselves, examine ourselves, behave ourselves, help ourselves, and help others to become free of suffering and experience nirvana. But what is the nature of this "self"?
Ultimately speaking, it is empty. That is to say, it is not what it seems. What does it seem? It seems permanent. It seems capable of satisfaction. It seems personal.
- But systematic meditative examination (supported by absorption) and guided by mindfulness (particularly Dependent Origination exercises) reveals that this "self" we take for granted and consider unquestionable is in fact radically impermanent (passing away at every moment both physically and mentally and in terms of the rise and fall of breath so "spiritually" but it is re-arising, not identical to what it was before, but more or less the same so that there is enough continuity to cause us to thoughtlessly and painfully cling to it components).
- It is distressing.
- It is impersonal -- merely a collection of aggregates dependently originated from causes that can be traced back.The causes are impersonal; the resultants are impersonal; only are assumptions and language treat it as utterly personal, the most personal thing in the world, and not components but a compact of some kind, a soul).
And that verification is wholesome, liberating, and leads to enlightenment. The wrong view held by Vedic Brahmanism (and essentially every other religion/spiritual philosophy in the world) is that there is an eternal "soul" or that one is merely material and exists now to be annihilated at death. Both are mistaken views.
Yes, BOTH are mistaken views. Buddhism is the Middle Path that avoids these two extremes. These views are not mistaken because the Buddha spent so much time and exerted so much effort to establish people in the right view of selflessness (anatta).
They are mistaken and anyone who attains even the first stage of enlightenment (stream entry) is perfectly convinced of that, has verified it, has experienced it. Life and our existence is not what it seems! The whole of Theravada Buddhism promotes this understanding -- but only if one can take the first baby step in distinguishing two forms of speaking, conventional truth and ultimate truth.
Physics and Psychology Examples
The distinction is easy today. Most educated people will have heard of Newton and Newtonian physics as distinct from Quantum physics. Newtons laws -- which may or may not be true but are taken as such and used as the basis for ordinary or classical mechanics. These are the "physical laws" of how physical things operate at the level of things. So from a Newtonian view a solid table is a solid.
But, ultimately, from a Quantum perspective, that "solid" is mostly empty space. A solid table is not a solid. Contradiction! Contradiction? There is no contradiction at all. It certainly appears solid, but by definition and experiment, it is revealed to have far more space than solidity, the space being the gap between atomic particles and subatomic particles. Newtonian axioms do not apply, the math does not work, at the atomic level. When things are that small, at the level of quanta, a whole new physics, a whole new math is needed to describe and predict movement.
To give a psychological example, we may be asked to explain our motives. And we may say what we honestly think is motivating us. But an experiment reveals that we are mistaken; we are, in fact, being motivated by something else. For instance, why is a commercial effective? Why do we choose to buy something being advertised? We choose it because it is a value, we have rationally examined it as necessary or useful for us, and that decision is in line with our ethical standards, rights? Not a chance. If this were the case, commercials to be effective would talk about the ingredients and remain logical.
- European and Neo-Nazi racism revile Buddhism
- The Myth of the Scandinavian Model
- Parents' Group trashes "Toddlers & Tiaras"
- Poll: Most Sex-Scandal Tolerant Nation
- How We're Exposed to [Mutagenic] Radiation Every Day
- Napalm Death covers Dead Kennedy's Nazi Punks F--- Off
- Buddhist historian Rick Fields "F--- You Cancer" poetry
- [Racist diatribe:] The lies of Gookism. aka Theravada. How an immortality-seeking metaphysics of Vedanta turned into Soullessism (i.e., Humanism)
No comments:
Post a Comment