You will encounter a lot of Buddhists out there who, if one were to say "reincarnation", they would immediately say,
"Yeah? Well, Buddhists don't believe in reincarnation. We believe in rebirth."
This happened recently with me, which prompted me to ask this question. What was it that separated reincarnation and rebirth?
"Well, reincarnation is what Hindus and Sikhs believe." Came the answer from the other Buddhist. We will call him Jacob. "They [Hindus and Sikhs] believe in a personal self that reincarnates. We do not." was his answer when I asked him to clarify what he thinks those who believe in reincarnation believe in.
I've heard the usual 'soul' business - but I am of the opinion that Buddha did not deny the soul's existence (6th March 2011 post), and that did not come up in this discussion.
"What self is this? You will find almost no Hindus or Sikhs out there who regard the skandhas (the base-senses usually mistake for a self by the majority) as the thing that reincarnates; you will find almost no Hindus nor Sikhs who believe that form, or sensation or one's perceptions are the ātman. These are not the ātman. You will find no Hindus nor Sikhs who believe that these are. You will find very very few who even believe that volition--mental formations and mental habits and opinions--are the self." I gave my view regarding this.
The most problematic one here is consciousness. "Hindus and Sikhs believe that consciousness is the self" is a common accusation thrown around by the nihilistic and concept-of-no-soul clinging Buddhists. The main problem is, there is a difference in consciousness concepts; often one will see "Big C" consciousness and "little c consciousness". Allow me to explain a little bit about them.
We all know what little c consciousness is; this can sometimes be called as self-consciousness. Little c consciousness is what we have on a non-supramundane level. One may encounter it by the Sanskrit or Pali terms of vijñāna and viññāṇa respectively; sometimes it can be called as life-force or discernment over consciousness. I think discernment gives the right impression about what is meant, in my opinion, by the Buddha. We can be awake, we can be asleep, we can be unconscious, and we can be in a deep, dreamless sleep--so how can that be the self -- it is argued? Well, that's a good question, but the little c consciousness is not something a large majority of other Dharmic belivers see as reincarnating. A few do, but not all.
Big C consciousness is something else entirely though. There is a concept known as 'turiya' in Hinduism, and in Buddhism its parallel is 'Mind', or 'total consciousness' in the Kunjed Gyalpo, (the Kulayarāja Tantra). It is described in the text as; 'Consciousness' means that self-arising wisdom, the true essence, dominates and clearly perceives all the phenomena of the animate and inanimate universe. This self-arising fundamental substance, not produced by causes and conditions, governs all things and gives life to all things'. This is, ironically, very similar to the Hindu concept of turiya from a Hindu Advaita (non-dual) perspective.
So within Hinduism and Sikhism, who teach 'reincarnation', but like in Buddhism, neither form, sensation, perception, volition or discernment are reincarnated. Buddhism says these are not the ātman; in effect, this is what the Hindus and Sikhs say as well. These are not reincarnated because they are only temporary things. It is something beyond these which is the continuum of our existence.
Buddhism says that the person who we are in the next lifetime is neither the same as, nor different to, who we were in this one. The other Dharmics would agree. So do I.
So, what, then is different between them? In my opinion, nothing. They all teach the same. It should be either a case that Hindus and Sikhs have their beliefs poised as rebirth as well as Buddhism, or Buddhism should accept that it is one of reincarnation.
There are, of course, other forms of reincarnation out there, like the Spiritist forms of reincarnation, and some (even more) fickle forms of New Age philosophy. If these were considered as reincarnation, and the Dharmic ones as rebirth, I would be totally okay with that.
Although, personally I prefer the term reincarnation to rebirth. If we think about it -- rebirth sounds like one is being born again in a very personal way, and reincarnation has a sort of 'taking existence again' sound to it - although that's just semantics.
Saturday, 16 April 2011
Wednesday, 6 April 2011
A musing: greed?
I have been to two funerals this year, both of grandmothers---my own maternal grandmother, and my wife's maternal grandmother. I was surprised to see how quickly the families became so greedy so quickly, and how people began fighting over money.
Even right now, some members of my family are still not speaking with one another because some members of the family asked for more money at the expense of others. A similar thing happened for my wife's family, too - literally less than one hour after her grandmother had transmigrated from this life were some of her children coming around to discuss who takes what according to the will, much to the annoyance of their father, who was sitting in the room at the time, and he had just lost his wife.
Now, by no means do I blame those members of the family who requested more money for I am not certain of their financial situations. Perhaps they required more money and they needed some to survive, or perhaps they were just being greedy and trying to get more money out of family. I can't say for sure, naturally. Either way, I try to be above the "blame game".
One thing I can say though, is I think they were all out of order. My own side, for the way they begun to talk negatively about the ones who wanted money. The other side, for requesting an unfair amount of money and becoming irritable when there was no way they would be able to take it.When discussion had finally set in, it was too late: the groups had gone behind one another's back until they could no longer do so. Snide comments were made, found out by others, and arguments ensured.
What is disappointing is how such bitter arguments with family ostracising one another for months, even years, can occur over something so simple and petty which could have been resolved peacefully and amicably if people had sat together and spoken of it calmly and politely and were not clinging to such greed. Money should never split a family, but it often seems to be a main culprit.
Should you be willing to give up some of your own money to someone who wanted more, or would you be willing to allow your father to give more of his own money that he received from his wife's death for peace?
I know that it would be greed for one not to be willing to part with one's money, and it would be charitable to give to those who need to - but how does one know when the one to whom they help are not being greedy, or even worse, as thieves? Should one be willing to art with their money with a smile on their face as they are robbed, or ultimately giving in to a loved one's greed? Or should one, because they are family whom you love, stop them?
What would you guys have done, if money was going to split a family like in the example I have given?
Even right now, some members of my family are still not speaking with one another because some members of the family asked for more money at the expense of others. A similar thing happened for my wife's family, too - literally less than one hour after her grandmother had transmigrated from this life were some of her children coming around to discuss who takes what according to the will, much to the annoyance of their father, who was sitting in the room at the time, and he had just lost his wife.
Now, by no means do I blame those members of the family who requested more money for I am not certain of their financial situations. Perhaps they required more money and they needed some to survive, or perhaps they were just being greedy and trying to get more money out of family. I can't say for sure, naturally. Either way, I try to be above the "blame game".
One thing I can say though, is I think they were all out of order. My own side, for the way they begun to talk negatively about the ones who wanted money. The other side, for requesting an unfair amount of money and becoming irritable when there was no way they would be able to take it.When discussion had finally set in, it was too late: the groups had gone behind one another's back until they could no longer do so. Snide comments were made, found out by others, and arguments ensured.
What is disappointing is how such bitter arguments with family ostracising one another for months, even years, can occur over something so simple and petty which could have been resolved peacefully and amicably if people had sat together and spoken of it calmly and politely and were not clinging to such greed. Money should never split a family, but it often seems to be a main culprit.
Should you be willing to give up some of your own money to someone who wanted more, or would you be willing to allow your father to give more of his own money that he received from his wife's death for peace?
I know that it would be greed for one not to be willing to part with one's money, and it would be charitable to give to those who need to - but how does one know when the one to whom they help are not being greedy, or even worse, as thieves? Should one be willing to art with their money with a smile on their face as they are robbed, or ultimately giving in to a loved one's greed? Or should one, because they are family whom you love, stop them?
What would you guys have done, if money was going to split a family like in the example I have given?
Thursday, 31 March 2011
Impermanence - What does it mean?
I'll leave this blog post short.
As is recorded in the Majjhima Nikāya regarding impermanence: "Whatever is subject to origination is subject to cessation."
- Siddhārtha Gautama Śākyamuni Buddha, Majjhima Nikāya 56.
Naturally, I agree with this. If it has to start, it will finish. Our perceptions rely on us, for example, having an eye and consciousness, and something to perceive, as is the way the "ordinary" saṃsāric world operates: rising and falling, this gives rise to that, which gives rise to the other.
I agree with them on this; to some extent anyway, that is. To be more specific, I side more with Dolpopa Sherab Gyeltsen and his idea of zhentong - "other emptiness" and relate that to impermanence, meaning that I see everything as impermanent that is saṃsāric, as opposed to the Nirvāṇic permanency, of which our essential Buddhic-natures are parts of.
Everything saṃsāric will not last - but there is a Nirvāṇic permanency within everything. That, dare I call it, is the Buddha-nature.
Monday, 21 March 2011
Emptiness, Part Two: My interpretation of Positive Emptiness
In my last post, I attempted to explain how śūnyatā works within Sikhism and how it correlates to the Absolute. In this post, I will attempt to relate how I see śūnyatā as a Positive Buddhist.
First, a bit of an etymology lesson. Sanskrit, śūnyatā. Śūnya - zero, nothing, tā - ness. śūnya comes from śvi, meaning hollow, or swollen.
With śūnyatā meaning "nothing-ness", however, it has a very nihilistic flavour. Although nihilistic forms of Buddhism have begun to take hold, Buddha does deny nihilism. He denies eternalism, too - but what concept of eternalism there was in the Buddha's time I will discuss in another post. The Buddha denied nihilism, saying he has never advocated the idea of a destruction of being as we can see in Samyutta Nikaya 4.400 - therefore, the idea of destruction of who we are would go against what the Buddha taught.
So what is this secretive, elusive emptiness? That which is everything? In my opinion, this can be found within the famous Prajñāpāramitā Hṛdaya, known in English as the Heart Sutra. Usually the Heart Sutra is used to show everything is empty, yet usually it's ignored that it also says emptiness is form. It also states within the Prajñāpāramitā Hṛdaya that within emptiness there is no defilement, no non-defilement, no seeing or non-seeing, and so on.
Emptiness is that there is nothing skandhic--that is--from a stance of body and mental aggregrates. There is nothing in the mundane that exists on its own and has its own self, yet at the same time when it comes to that which is Nirvāṇic, Emptiness is not nothingness, but it is emptiness of defilement and impermanence: that which rises is empty of its own existence, but the thing which does not arise, does not fall, does not decay is empty of defilement and suffering.
As a Sikh friend of mine would sum it up: There is nothing that exists that is you. It is all God: what is impermanent is ultimately illusionary and not who you are, nor does it exist on its own, and that which is ultimately a part of God. That is your true-Self.
I echo his view: I think there are two forms of emptiness, as mentioned by Dolpopa Sherab Gyeltsen, promoter of the Jonang sect of Buddhism: a skandhic, mundane emptiness (Tibetan, rangtong): that nothing has its own self , and an other-emptiness (Tibetan, zhentong) or a Nirvāṇic emptiness: everything has an innate true-Self, and is empty of all imperfections, finiteness, and all that one can deem false or anātman.
This, dare I say, is our "Buddha-nature", our true-Self, part of the Adibuddha, who as claimed in the Kulayalaraja Tantra, is the core and seed of all that exists.
First, a bit of an etymology lesson. Sanskrit, śūnyatā. Śūnya - zero, nothing, tā - ness. śūnya comes from śvi, meaning hollow, or swollen.
With śūnyatā meaning "nothing-ness", however, it has a very nihilistic flavour. Although nihilistic forms of Buddhism have begun to take hold, Buddha does deny nihilism. He denies eternalism, too - but what concept of eternalism there was in the Buddha's time I will discuss in another post. The Buddha denied nihilism, saying he has never advocated the idea of a destruction of being as we can see in Samyutta Nikaya 4.400 - therefore, the idea of destruction of who we are would go against what the Buddha taught.
So what is this secretive, elusive emptiness? That which is everything? In my opinion, this can be found within the famous Prajñāpāramitā Hṛdaya, known in English as the Heart Sutra. Usually the Heart Sutra is used to show everything is empty, yet usually it's ignored that it also says emptiness is form. It also states within the Prajñāpāramitā Hṛdaya that within emptiness there is no defilement, no non-defilement, no seeing or non-seeing, and so on.
Emptiness is that there is nothing skandhic--that is--from a stance of body and mental aggregrates. There is nothing in the mundane that exists on its own and has its own self, yet at the same time when it comes to that which is Nirvāṇic, Emptiness is not nothingness, but it is emptiness of defilement and impermanence: that which rises is empty of its own existence, but the thing which does not arise, does not fall, does not decay is empty of defilement and suffering.
As a Sikh friend of mine would sum it up: There is nothing that exists that is you. It is all God: what is impermanent is ultimately illusionary and not who you are, nor does it exist on its own, and that which is ultimately a part of God. That is your true-Self.
I echo his view: I think there are two forms of emptiness, as mentioned by Dolpopa Sherab Gyeltsen, promoter of the Jonang sect of Buddhism: a skandhic, mundane emptiness (Tibetan, rangtong): that nothing has its own self , and an other-emptiness (Tibetan, zhentong) or a Nirvāṇic emptiness: everything has an innate true-Self, and is empty of all imperfections, finiteness, and all that one can deem false or anātman.
This, dare I say, is our "Buddha-nature", our true-Self, part of the Adibuddha, who as claimed in the Kulayalaraja Tantra, is the core and seed of all that exists.
Wednesday, 16 March 2011
Emptiness, Part One: Emptiness in other Dharmic religions
Emptiness, also called voidness; Sanskrit, Śūnyatā. Most who know a little about Buddhism know that it is a very important teaching. Some may know it exists in Taoism. Yet, did you know it exists in Sikhism?
How can two religions - one seen as “nontheistic”, one as theistic, hold a same core belief? It may be helpful to know how, exactly, emptiness is viewed in Sikhism before I discuss how I view emptiness in Buddhism. This post is dedicated to Sikhism’s view of emptiness so that I may write about my interpretation of emptiness within Buddhism.
Within Sikhism, emptiness [Gurmukhi ਸੁੰਨ, “sunn”] is found within the Śrī Gurū Granth Sāhib, the holy book of the Sikhs. It appears about 82 times within the text, the majority of which are used to describe the Lord, known in Sikhism as Wahegurū; literally, “Wonderous Teacher”.
An example of the would be as the following:
So, as we can see, it is entirely possible that within a religion “sunn” or “śūnyatā” does not necessarily mean “emptiness” in the Western sense of lacking, but also “the Absolute”; it is a term used in describing Wahegurū, the Sikh God.
Sikhism holds that when one is awoken by the teachings, one attains unity with the Void - and this is even possible while alive:
Then why is this deity called as “Void”? The reason is simply that this Void is void of any dualities or imperfections: it is Pure, beyond the mundane world that we are bound to on the course of reincarnation. Whoever attains union with that Void--that is--God in the Sikh sense, they go beyond all forms of duality. When one has attained union with God and their body expires, they will never be born into the finite and fleeting realms again.
How does all this fit in with how I see emptiness within Buddhism? Well, that’s for the next post.
How can two religions - one seen as “nontheistic”, one as theistic, hold a same core belief? It may be helpful to know how, exactly, emptiness is viewed in Sikhism before I discuss how I view emptiness in Buddhism. This post is dedicated to Sikhism’s view of emptiness so that I may write about my interpretation of emptiness within Buddhism.
Within Sikhism, emptiness [Gurmukhi ਸੁੰਨ, “sunn”] is found within the Śrī Gurū Granth Sāhib, the holy book of the Sikhs. It appears about 82 times within the text, the majority of which are used to describe the Lord, known in Sikhism as Wahegurū; literally, “Wonderous Teacher”.
An example of the would be as the following:
ਅੰਤਰਿ ਸੁੰਨੰ ਬਾਹਰਿ ਸੁੰਨੰ ਤ੍ਰਿਭਵਣ ਸੁੰਨ ਮਸੁੰਨੰ ॥
The absolute Lord is deep within; the absolute Lord is outside us as well. The absolute Lord totally fills the three worlds.
ਚਉਥੇ ਸੁੰਨੈ ਜੋ ਨਰੁ ਜਾਣੈ ਤਾ ਕਉ ਪਾਪੁ ਨ ਪੁੰਨੰ ॥
One who knows the Lord in the fourth state, is not subject to virtue or vice.
ਘਟਿ ਘਟਿ ਸੁੰਨ ਕਾ ਜਾਣੈ ਭੇਉ ॥
One who knows the mystery of God the Absolute, who pervades each and every heart,
ਆਦਿ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਨਿਰੰਜਨ ਦੇਉ ॥
knows the Primal Being, the Immaculate Divine Lord.
- Śrī Gurū Granth Sāhib, page 857. Dr. Sant Singh Khalsā English translation. Emphasis added for illustrative purposes only. Source: http://www.srigranth.org
Sikhism holds that when one is awoken by the teachings, one attains unity with the Void - and this is even possible while alive:
ਜੀਵਤ ਸੁੰਨਿ ਸਮਾਨਿਆ ਗੁਰ ਸਾਖੀ ਜਾਗੀ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
In my very life, I am absorbed in the Profound Lord, the Guru's instruction has awakened me. Pause.
- Śrī Gurū Granth Sāhib, page 943. Bhāī Manmohan Singh English translation. Emphasis added for illustrative purposes only. Source: http://www.srigranth.org
So within this we see a striking similarity to Buddhist nirvāṇa [“blowing out” the candle] and parinirvāṇa [“final blowing out” of the candle] already. This may be seen as such because Sikhism and Buddhism are seen as theistic and “nontheistic” religions respectively. Sikhism holds that one cannot know the nature of the Unknowable-Natured One.
Then why is this deity called as “Void”? The reason is simply that this Void is void of any dualities or imperfections: it is Pure, beyond the mundane world that we are bound to on the course of reincarnation. Whoever attains union with that Void--that is--God in the Sikh sense, they go beyond all forms of duality. When one has attained union with God and their body expires, they will never be born into the finite and fleeting realms again.
How does all this fit in with how I see emptiness within Buddhism? Well, that’s for the next post.
Monday, 14 March 2011
Can non-violence become violence?
Buddhism, like Jainism and Hinduism, emphasise non-violence (Sanskrit ahiṃsā) as a fundamental tenant of the Dharma. Non-violence is, of course, a great thing in itself as we should all try our best to avoid harming others - yet can it be used to extremes, and become a form of violence in itself?
The most obvious example is:
Someone breaks into your house and attempts to kill you for whatever reason; maybe that they didn't expect anyone to catch them in the act, but nevertheless, they're coming at you with a knife. Your spouse and children are asleep upstairs, and you don't think if they kill you, they will just walk out but they will go for them. You have two choices: fight for your survival, even if meant killing the person, or die and risk your family dying, and this could happen again to another person.
Which is more violent?
My opinion, not fighting is more violent than fighting when it allows injustice and cruelty to continue. Sometimes fighting is necessary--in self defence, of course. I'm not suggesting you go out there and beat the shit out of some elderly person, with a cry of "Not fighting is more violent than fighting!"--that would be violent.
Most of us agree that we should do what we can to defend ourselves and our families if we have an attacker coming after us, yet there are some people who think that an "enlightened person" would not do that, that an enlightened person would not use force to defend themselves or their loved ones.
Of course, not everything is as threatening as this.
Yet is it still violence to walk past as an old woman gets attacked by someone for her money? What about violence to yourself, such as practising extreme forms of asceticism like keeping one's arms in the air so you end up becoming dependent on others to do your basic necessities, or starving yourself for months at a time? What about swerving out of the way for butterflies whilst driving, consequently endangering others? Are these violence to oneself?
I think they are all forms of violence. Violence does not always have to equal you hitting, stabbing, or punching something. This is direct violence, but I feel as though there is another level to violence--indirect violence: harming by not doing. It is not as bad as deliberately going out of one's way to harm someone, but I feel that there would most likely be negative consequences for not stopping what one can.
Non-violence, in my opinion is to not harm the innocent but also to preserve peace even if it means kicking the violent person's ass, of course, avoiding conscious excess: if you can stop the guy by shouting, then you don't need to hit him. If during a struggle you kill the attacker, is that wrong? I do not believe that to be the case; what would be wrong is not attempting to stop the violence.
The violent should not be protected by the rule of non-violence.
It was, after all, their choice to commit the crime.
The most obvious example is:
Someone breaks into your house and attempts to kill you for whatever reason; maybe that they didn't expect anyone to catch them in the act, but nevertheless, they're coming at you with a knife. Your spouse and children are asleep upstairs, and you don't think if they kill you, they will just walk out but they will go for them. You have two choices: fight for your survival, even if meant killing the person, or die and risk your family dying, and this could happen again to another person.
Which is more violent?
My opinion, not fighting is more violent than fighting when it allows injustice and cruelty to continue. Sometimes fighting is necessary--in self defence, of course. I'm not suggesting you go out there and beat the shit out of some elderly person, with a cry of "Not fighting is more violent than fighting!"--that would be violent.
Most of us agree that we should do what we can to defend ourselves and our families if we have an attacker coming after us, yet there are some people who think that an "enlightened person" would not do that, that an enlightened person would not use force to defend themselves or their loved ones.
Of course, not everything is as threatening as this.
Yet is it still violence to walk past as an old woman gets attacked by someone for her money? What about violence to yourself, such as practising extreme forms of asceticism like keeping one's arms in the air so you end up becoming dependent on others to do your basic necessities, or starving yourself for months at a time? What about swerving out of the way for butterflies whilst driving, consequently endangering others? Are these violence to oneself?
I think they are all forms of violence. Violence does not always have to equal you hitting, stabbing, or punching something. This is direct violence, but I feel as though there is another level to violence--indirect violence: harming by not doing. It is not as bad as deliberately going out of one's way to harm someone, but I feel that there would most likely be negative consequences for not stopping what one can.
Non-violence, in my opinion is to not harm the innocent but also to preserve peace even if it means kicking the violent person's ass, of course, avoiding conscious excess: if you can stop the guy by shouting, then you don't need to hit him. If during a struggle you kill the attacker, is that wrong? I do not believe that to be the case; what would be wrong is not attempting to stop the violence.
The violent should not be protected by the rule of non-violence.
It was, after all, their choice to commit the crime.
Wednesday, 9 March 2011
If...
God believes in Himself,
is He a theist?
If God doesn't believe in Himself,
is He an atheist?
If God knows He exists,
does it make Him gnostic?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)