Well done! Thank you. Your conclusion reminded me of the phrase "pooling our ignorance" which seems to be the all too common practice you point toward. The next image to come to mind was of all of us joyously and obliviously frolicking the our new swimming hole of ignorance.
I also enjoyed the exercise of holding up the mirror of self-righteousness to see ourselves in our supposed enemies. Or at least that is what I walked away from this post with -- right or wrong. Thanx again.
Yes I like that phrase. "Polling our Ignorance". One of our leading Triratna Order meditation teachers, and one of my favourite authors, recently returned from a 3 year, 3 month, 3 day retreat. He's not ignorant and it shows. I'm now really looking forward to his input into our discussions about what we think we are doing!
I think we have to come to terms with not knowing and not understanding. And to make a clear distinction about what comes out of books, and what comes from experience.
Wow, I always thought the phrase was "pooling", not "polling" -- that makes my second metaphor fall flat -- even if it is still useful. I have used that phrase for decades and no one has corrected me. Perhaps because my speech is so laden with error that people don't know if they should even bother! :-)
May I ask the name of the Triratna author who just returned from the 3-3-3 retreat? I look forward to your future reports.
I'm sorry, Jayarava, I seen not to get the link between the bulk of the post and its last lines. Why do you refer to the problem of "originality" (which, by the way, just does not exist: we all copy, as you nicely showed in your memories about your meditation as a teenager)?
Perhaps you don't mix with Buddhists very often? We all talk as though we know what the Buddha was talking about - as though from personal experience. I regularly have people telling me what enlightenment was like, or what the enlightenment experience must have consisted of, or what I need to do to become enlightened. It was such a conversation which made me think of this passage and re-present it with the changes I made.
Yes, we all have the problem of originality. Some of us Buddhists do not acknowledge it as a problem however. All too often a Buddhist will parrot something from a book which they, with some attempt at sincerity, present as there own insight. Very often I have read the same book and I recognise the origin of the idea. I should say that this is not a problem with Buddhist scholars, but with my colleagues and friends who are not scholars.
It's a common enough situation for me to have become quite irritated and to want to say something about it.
Does that help? Sometimes I do conflate issues that ought to be dealt with separately and confuse people, so it may be that this is what I have done here. It does directly relate to my experience of talking with Buddhists.
You are right, the Buddhists I know are all scholarly trained and would hence talk to me of texts rather than of their personal experiences. When they do refer to personal experience, they use it as an ultimate piece of evidence, one one cannot dispute (which is somehow funny), e.g., "Believe me, there is *no* subject, I experienced it". As for originality, we are all somehow under the spell that one has to be original. Should not we just forget about it? Human beings have been around for xxxx years. Surely someone has thought what I am thinking now, at a certain point, in a certain place.
I agree when you said, " All too often a Buddhist will parrot something from a book which they, with some attempt at sincerity, present as there own insight. "
But my question: Did you notice that in yourself or in others or in both (and if so, in what order)?
My 11-year-old son was driving with me yesterday and I was telling him how poorly another person was driving. Then I also let him know that everybody thinks other people are stupid. Then I concluded, "Heck, I could even be wrong now. Maybe my way of driving is bad in this case."
In this driving case, the accusation of others came first. When I left Christianity, it was catching my own inner god-talk silliness that came first -- later I saw it more clearly in others.
Yes. Sigh. We all love to generalise our personal experience. "Believe *me* there is no subject, *I* experienced it." Suuuure.
The loss of the sense of self is one of the classic mystical experiences. But then Jill Bolte Taylor experienced the same thing during her stroke. Have you watched her TED talk? http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html
My experience suggests that I do have a feeling of being a self most of the time, but that it is flexible, changeable, and intermittent (it gets switched off in sleep for instance). It's also possible for it to switch off in meditation which can be very pleasant and feel profound. Whether it *is* profound is another question. It depends on what happens afterwards.
I'm not so concerned with originality. I'm more concerned with authenticity. And to my mind authenticity includes acknowledging the sources of one's inspirations.
However if there were *no* originality I don't think we could make progress. And we usually honour the truly original. And obviously I'm a Buddhist, so I'm contractually obligated to believe that the Buddha was an original thinker ;-)
yes, I saw Jill Bolte Taylor's presentation. I can't remember if it was you who suggested it to me. I liked it, but I dislike the taste of "authentic experience" it wants to convey. I am rather sceptical about nirvikalpa pratyakṣa, non-elaborated experience. I would rather say that all our experiences,, at least since the time we talk about them, are culturally determined and would be curious to know about JBT's religious and cultural sympathies.
I think that there can be progress also by combining previous ideas. Rapsody rather than creation. As for the Buddha, this is a crucial point. If he is right, than why is it that he is the only one who could directly see the 4 noble truths without being instructed into the Buddhist path? Does not his very theory imply the *possibility* of previous and future Buddhas?
I used to parrot things more, but I try not to now. In writing I try to cite sources. I had a particular conversation in mind when I wrote the blog, though I was aware of having had the same kind of conversation many times. But they do say that what one finds irritating about other people is usually a reflection of one's own faults.
These are big questions. Yes I think JBT's experience must have been culturally determined to some extent. She was a neuroscientist with a PhD, but I suspect some more mystical influence along the way as well. JBT became interested in studying the mind because her brother suffered from schizophrenia. She does not say anything about her religious or psychedelic influences.
I think the issue of the Buddha not needing a teacher is also a culturally determined proposition. Buddhists have long felt the need to *protest* their originality and distinction from other religious traditions (even from other denominations of Buddhist!).
I think this in part reflects the religious politics of India. There are multiple Buddhist attempts to assimilate all other religions and subordinate them. Did you know that Indra, Brahmā and Śiva have all converted to Buddhism? It's in our sūtras and tantras... so it must be true. [that was irony in case you missed it]
We also know that other religions did this. Buddha was an avatara of Viṣṇu by the 7th century CE. Monotheists are less keen on assimilation.
One of the traditional emphases was the lineage of teachers stretching back to an original revelation. Think of the two lineages in Bṛhadāranyaka Upaniṣad for example. The idea of previous Buddhas is thought by some to be a response to the Jain tirthaṅkara lineage. C.f. the Gārava Sutta - which acknowledges the absolute necessity to sit at the feet of a teacher, but allows the Buddha a let out. It's a very obvious ploy on the part of Early Buddhists to argue for originality and authenticity at a time when authenticity was determined by doing exactly what your teacher said. Ironically later Buddhists also adopted this trope, and now Buddhists harps on about lineage too.
@ Jayarava Thanks -- yes, understanding our own parroting is crucial. Your and Elisa's recent posts inspired my little post today.
Another note: You said, "Monotheists are less keen on assimilation." I am reminded of "The History of God" by Karen Armstrong and "The Evolution of God" by Karen Armstrong where they discuss not only the assimilation of traditions to slowly create monotheisms but how Christianity, for instance, assimilates and generates many variety of sects depending on assimilations of philosophies and practices around her.
Thanks Jayarava for another enjoyable & thought-provoking post. This one made me laugh out loud... Worth a cartoon, methinks ;-)
I'm enjoying this general theme of first-hand experience vs. culture & influence, as in the previous post 'Having your cake & eating it (or making cake for others)'.
One of the things I like about the Dharma are the frequent reminders not to cling onto opinions, including, as you point out here, opinions about liberation, especially if we ourselves have no personal experience of liberation. Letting go of notions, as the Anapanasati puts it.
I was wondering if you knew if there were any sanskrit origins to the word 'Practitioner' i.e. someone who tries to put theory into practice and tries to distinguish between what part of theory has been verified by practice & life-experience and what part of theory hasn't.
Also if there are any sanskrit origins for the word 'living' as in living dharma (tho' i doubt you embrace this phrase)... as opposed to 'book dharma'?
A common Sanskrit word which you could translate as "practitioner" would be sādhaka.
The living as opposed to book dharma is time limited because books didn't come into Buddhism until about first century BCE. I'm not aware of a direct parallel.
But there is a long term emphasis on personal experience: the phrase evaṃ jānantā evaṃ passantā 'thus knowing, thus seeing' recurs in many places (e.g. M i.265). Compare Dhammapada 9 - "The one who wears the robe without having purified themselves... is not worthy." And so on. There is always an emphasis on authenticity.
[Image]This is an extract from my (unfinished) translation of the Tevijjā Sutta, but I'm presenting it with a little twist. In this extract I have replaced "Brahmins" with "Buddhist Teachers" and "Brahmā" with "Nirvāṇa", and tweaked the text a little to fit around the change - the structure and most of the dialogue is a fairly literal translation of Pāli however. I will admit that in doing this I intend to be provocative. However I think this is an interesting exercise.
Tevijja Sutta D 13, D i.237-8
"So, Vāseṭṭha, you are saying that you cannot decide between what your two teachers are saying. But what is the nub of the argument? Why is there disagreement?" "The path and not the path, Gotama. Various Buddhist teachers – Zen, Pure Land, Tibetan, Theravada, Triratna – all teach a way out for one seeking Nirvāṇa. Just as if there were a town not far away, and even though there were many roads, they all converged at the town: so these Buddhist teachers teach a variety of ways out of saṃsāra.
"Did you say 'they lead out' Vāseṭṭha?"
"I did say 'they lead out' my dear Gotama."
"But, has any of these Buddhist teachers personally seen (sakkhidiṭṭhi) Nirvāṇa?"
"They haven't."
"So, have any of the Buddhist teachers' teachers personally seen Nirvāṇa?"
"They haven't."
"Well, have any of these Buddhist teachers, as far as the seven generations back, personally seen Nirvāṇa?"
"They haven't."
"But what about those ancient Buddhist teachers , the sages who made the suttas, and handed them on, the old texts that were chanted, proclaimed, and compiled that the Buddhist teachers today chant, recite and repeat – repeating what was said, speaking what was spoken – what about them? Did they say 'we know this, we see this, we know where Nirvāṇa is, the location of Nirvāṇa, and the way to Nirvāṇa?'"
"No, Sir."
"From what you've said, Vāseṭṭha, there is no single one amongst the Buddhist teachers , who has gone to Nirvāṇa personally; none of the teachers, or their teachers, up to the seventh generation of teachers, and none of the ancient sages can say 'we know Nirvāṇa'. These Buddhist teachers say 'though we do not know or see, we teach: this is the only way, the straight and direct way leading out of saṃsāra for one seeking Nirvāṇa.'"
"What do you think, Vāseṭṭha, this being the case, isn't it true that what these Buddhist teachers say is just religious cant?"
"Yes, Gotama, that is certainly the case."
"It's just as if there were a line of blind men – the first one does not see, the middle one doesn't see and the last one doesn't see. The talk of these Buddhist teachers turns out to just be laughable, empty, worthless, cant."My point here is not to say that there is no one around who is liberated. I believe in the possibility and I'm aware of people with substantial experiences of insight. No. My point is that we Buddhists are always talking about things we have no experience of. I was in a discussion not so long ago about the dhyānas, and realised that no one in the group had much experience - none of us had mastered them by any means. One of the group expressed the wish to write a book about meditation, but later admitted that he never experienced dhyāna. When we moved on to talking about insight, the problem was even worse. Our discussion become entirely theoretical. And I'm not sure it's a discussion worth having. We weren't simply picking over what the various Buddhist traditions say about insight, but actually expressing our own opinions on it. This is all too common.
Buddhists have this seemingly irresistible urge to speak from the point of view of liberation. But if we have not experienced it for ourselves then our words are "laughable, empty, worthless, cant." (hassaka, nāmaka, rittaka, tucchaka.) I've been aware of the discomfort of being lectured about liberation by someone who isn't liberated for a while. As a result I tend avoid talks by Buddhists. I also try to avoid expressing opinions about things I have no experience of. It's one of the good things about scholarly writing that one has to identify the sources of one's ideas. Further if one has what seems like a new idea, one makes an effort to see if anyone got there first and acknowledge them for it. Very few of our ideas are original. Most of them we picked up along the way, forgetting the source as we go. Our opinions are mostly shaped by our conditioning, and we should be acknowledging this rather than pretending it is not the case.
16 Comments
Close this window Jump to comment formWell done! Thank you.
Your conclusion reminded me of the phrase "pooling our ignorance" which seems to be the all too common practice you point toward. The next image to come to mind was of all of us joyously and obliviously frolicking the our new swimming hole of ignorance.
I also enjoyed the exercise of holding up the mirror of self-righteousness to see ourselves in our supposed enemies. Or at least that is what I walked away from this post with -- right or wrong. Thanx again.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Hey Sabio
Yes I like that phrase. "Polling our Ignorance". One of our leading Triratna Order meditation teachers, and one of my favourite authors, recently returned from a 3 year, 3 month, 3 day retreat. He's not ignorant and it shows. I'm now really looking forward to his input into our discussions about what we think we are doing!
I think we have to come to terms with not knowing and not understanding. And to make a clear distinction about what comes out of books, and what comes from experience.
Best Wishes
Jayarava
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Wow, I always thought the phrase was "pooling", not "polling" -- that makes my second metaphor fall flat -- even if it is still useful. I have used that phrase for decades and no one has corrected me. Perhaps because my speech is so laden with error that people don't know if they should even bother! :-)
May I ask the name of the Triratna author who just returned from the 3-3-3 retreat? I look forward to your future reports.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
That was a typo!
Saturday, November 19, 2011
I'm sorry, Jayarava, I seen not to get the link between the bulk of the post and its last lines. Why do you refer to the problem of "originality" (which, by the way, just does not exist: we all copy, as you nicely showed in your memories about your meditation as a teenager)?
Monday, November 21, 2011
Hi Elisa,
Perhaps you don't mix with Buddhists very often? We all talk as though we know what the Buddha was talking about - as though from personal experience. I regularly have people telling me what enlightenment was like, or what the enlightenment experience must have consisted of, or what I need to do to become enlightened. It was such a conversation which made me think of this passage and re-present it with the changes I made.
Yes, we all have the problem of originality. Some of us Buddhists do not acknowledge it as a problem however. All too often a Buddhist will parrot something from a book which they, with some attempt at sincerity, present as there own insight. Very often I have read the same book and I recognise the origin of the idea. I should say that this is not a problem with Buddhist scholars, but with my colleagues and friends who are not scholars.
It's a common enough situation for me to have become quite irritated and to want to say something about it.
Does that help? Sometimes I do conflate issues that ought to be dealt with separately and confuse people, so it may be that this is what I have done here. It does directly relate to my experience of talking with Buddhists.
Ciao
Jayarava
Monday, November 21, 2011
You are right, the Buddhists I know are all scholarly trained and would hence talk to me of texts rather than of their personal experiences. When they do refer to personal experience, they use it as an ultimate piece of evidence, one one cannot dispute (which is somehow funny), e.g., "Believe me, there is *no* subject, I experienced it".
As for originality, we are all somehow under the spell that one has to be original. Should not we just forget about it? Human beings have been around for xxxx years. Surely someone has thought what I am thinking now, at a certain point, in a certain place.
Monday, November 21, 2011
@ Jayarava
I agree when you said, " All too often a Buddhist will parrot something from a book which they, with some attempt at sincerity, present as there own insight. "
But my question: Did you notice that in yourself or in others or in both (and if so, in what order)?
My 11-year-old son was driving with me yesterday and I was telling him how poorly another person was driving. Then I also let him know that everybody thinks other people are stupid. Then I concluded, "Heck, I could even be wrong now. Maybe my way of driving is bad in this case."
In this driving case, the accusation of others came first. When I left Christianity, it was catching my own inner god-talk silliness that came first -- later I saw it more clearly in others.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Hi Elisa
Yes. Sigh. We all love to generalise our personal experience. "Believe *me* there is no subject, *I* experienced it." Suuuure.
The loss of the sense of self is one of the classic mystical experiences. But then Jill Bolte Taylor experienced the same thing during her stroke. Have you watched her TED talk? http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html
My experience suggests that I do have a feeling of being a self most of the time, but that it is flexible, changeable, and intermittent (it gets switched off in sleep for instance). It's also possible for it to switch off in meditation which can be very pleasant and feel profound. Whether it *is* profound
is another question. It depends on what happens afterwards.
I'm not so concerned with originality. I'm more concerned with authenticity. And to my mind authenticity includes acknowledging the sources of one's inspirations.
However if there were *no* originality I don't think we could make progress. And we usually honour the truly original. And obviously I'm a Buddhist, so I'm contractually obligated to believe that the Buddha was an original thinker ;-)
Cheers
Jayarava
Monday, November 21, 2011
Dear Jayarava,
yes, I saw Jill Bolte Taylor's presentation. I can't remember if it was you who suggested it to me. I liked it, but I dislike the taste of "authentic experience" it wants to convey. I am rather sceptical about nirvikalpa pratyakṣa, non-elaborated experience. I would rather say that all our experiences,, at least since the time we talk about them, are culturally determined and would be curious to know about JBT's religious and cultural sympathies.
I think that there can be progress also by combining previous ideas. Rapsody rather than creation. As for the Buddha, this is a crucial point. If he is right, than why is it that he is the only one who could directly see the 4 noble truths without being instructed into the Buddhist path? Does not his very theory imply the *possibility* of previous and future Buddhas?
Monday, November 21, 2011
Hi Sabio
I used to parrot things more, but I try not to now. In writing I try to cite sources. I had a particular conversation in mind when I wrote the blog, though I was aware of having had the same kind of conversation many times. But they do say that what one finds irritating about other people is usually a reflection of one's own faults.
Regards
Jayarava
Monday, November 21, 2011
Hi Elisa,
These are big questions. Yes I think JBT's experience must have been culturally determined to some extent. She was a neuroscientist with a PhD, but I suspect some more mystical influence along the way as well. JBT became interested in studying the mind because her brother suffered from schizophrenia. She does not say anything about her religious or psychedelic influences.
I think the issue of the Buddha not needing a teacher is also a culturally determined proposition. Buddhists have long felt the need to *protest* their originality and distinction from other religious traditions (even from other denominations of Buddhist!).
I think this in part reflects the religious politics of India. There are multiple Buddhist attempts to assimilate all other religions and subordinate them. Did you know that Indra, Brahmā and Śiva have all converted to Buddhism? It's in our sūtras and tantras... so it must be true. [that was irony in case you missed it]
We also know that other religions did this. Buddha was an avatara of Viṣṇu by the 7th century CE. Monotheists are less keen on assimilation.
One of the traditional emphases was the lineage of teachers stretching back to an original revelation. Think of the two lineages in Bṛhadāranyaka Upaniṣad for example. The idea of previous Buddhas is thought by some to be a response to the Jain tirthaṅkara lineage. C.f. the Gārava Sutta - which acknowledges the absolute necessity to sit at the feet of a teacher, but allows the Buddha a let out. It's a very obvious ploy on the part of Early Buddhists to argue for originality and authenticity at a time when authenticity was determined by doing exactly what your teacher said. Ironically later Buddhists also adopted this trope, and now Buddhists harps on about lineage too.
All scripture is propaganda to some extent.
Cheers
Jayarava
Monday, November 21, 2011
@ Jayarava
Thanks -- yes, understanding our own parroting is crucial. Your and Elisa's recent posts inspired my little post today.
Another note:
You said, "Monotheists are less keen on assimilation."
I am reminded of "The History of God" by Karen Armstrong and "The Evolution of God" by Karen Armstrong where they discuss not only the assimilation of traditions to slowly create monotheisms but how Christianity, for instance, assimilates and generates many variety of sects depending on assimilations of philosophies and practices around her.
Monday, November 21, 2011
@Sabio
You may be right. I haven't read those books.
Jayarava
Monday, November 21, 2011
Thanks Jayarava for another enjoyable & thought-provoking post. This one made me laugh out loud...
Worth a cartoon, methinks ;-)
I'm enjoying this general theme of first-hand experience vs. culture & influence, as in the previous post 'Having your cake & eating it (or making cake for others)'.
One of the things I like about the Dharma are the frequent reminders not to cling onto opinions, including, as you point out here, opinions about liberation, especially if we ourselves have no personal experience of liberation. Letting go of notions, as the Anapanasati puts it.
I was wondering if you knew if there were any sanskrit origins to the word 'Practitioner' i.e. someone who tries to put theory into practice and tries to distinguish between what part of theory has been verified by practice & life-experience and what part of theory hasn't.
Also if there are any sanskrit origins for the word 'living' as in living dharma (tho' i doubt you embrace this phrase)... as opposed to 'book dharma'?
Thanks in Advance
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Hi Adam,
A common Sanskrit word which you could translate as "practitioner" would be sādhaka.
The living as opposed to book dharma is time limited because books didn't come into Buddhism until about first century BCE. I'm not aware of a direct parallel.
But there is a long term emphasis on personal experience: the phrase evaṃ jānantā evaṃ passantā 'thus knowing, thus seeing' recurs in many places (e.g. M i.265). Compare Dhammapada 9 - "The one who wears the robe without having purified themselves... is not worthy." And so on. There is always an emphasis on authenticity.
C.f. also my post on scholars and meditators.
Best Wishes
Jayarava
Thursday, November 24, 2011