Are all forms of Buddhism Monistic?

seattlegal said:
Does this help? :p
comic2-867.png
Click to expand...

Are you on commission with this cartoon? :p;):D

s.
 
Snoopy said:
probably why the Buddha and Buddhist philosophy is wary of ontology.

s.
Click to expand...
Indeed.
Acintita Sutta

AN 4.77 PTS: A ii 80

Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
© 1997–2009

"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas1 is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...2
"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."​
Of course, madness and vexation often go along with koan contemplation. ;)
 
mattityahu said:
But isn't it clear that the Stones and the Beatles make different music?
Click to expand...

Clearly. I was just trying to illustrate at the relative level there exist dualities such as good and bad.

And there either is an absolute standard of musical "goodness" or not.
Click to expand...
Well that's your opinion :)

As I understand, in Buddhism, absolute reality transcends polarity as it is undivided.

(Btw, the Beatles are better than the Stones :p
Click to expand...
You must be a scouser. :p

s.
 
seattlegal said:
Indeed.
Acintita Sutta

AN 4.77 PTS: A ii 80

Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
© 1997–2009

"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas1 is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...2
"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."​
Of course, madness and vexation often go along with koan contemplation. ;)
Click to expand...

Well this explains my mad and vexed ontological nature :p
 
mattityahu said:
Please forgive, for I'm a total noob when it comes to Buddhism. I've heard that some Buddhists (Zen?) use the phrase "If you see the Buddha, kill him", and that it means that you haven't realised that you are the Buddha, because all is one (monism). Is this right?

And if it is, what about things like love and hate, good and evil, are they all one and the same too?

Many thanks in advance,
Matt
Click to expand...
Actually, Buddhism has a highly developed ethical schema referred to in Sanskrit as sila. Most schools of Buddhism encourage the adherence to such of core importance in the development of wisdom. But, they point out that these modes of operating are the innate way an enlightened person behaves. So, pre-enlightenment they are essentially standards to which the Buddhist aspires. Post-enlightenment, no "standards." Just a natural way to respond. by the way, love the Stones' Sympathy For The Devil. earl
 
earl said:
Actually, Buddhism has a highly developed ethical schema referred to in Sanskrit as sila. Most schools of Buddhism encourage the adherence to such of core importance in the development of wisdom. But, they point out that these modes of operating are the innate way an enlightened person behaves. So, pre-enlightenment they are essentially standards to which the Buddhist aspires. Post-enlightenment, no "standards." Just a natural way to respond. by the way, love the Stones' Sympathy For The Devil. earl
Click to expand...

Not sure I follow. The standard surely still exists independent of whether you've gotten yourself enlightened or not? Just post-enlightenment you become unaware of this standard.

[I am so out of my depth here...thank you all kindly for your patience and taking the time to answer my questions. :)]

ETA: That smiley looks like a smug cheese puff.
 
mattityahu said:
Not sure I follow. The standard surely still exists independent of whether you've gotten yourself enlightened or not? Just post-enlightenment you become unaware of this standard.

[I am so out of my depth here...thank you all kindly for your patience and taking the time to answer my questions. :)]

ETA: That smiley looks like a smug cheese puff.
Click to expand...
Pre-enlightenment, you attempt to flower. Post-enlightenment, you simply flower.:) earl
 
mattityahu said:
What is "the good" that becomes internalized?
Click to expand...
Actions beneficial to all beings and ourselves. Once one is enlightened, they are automatic. Sort of like learning how to ride a bike. At first one is highly conscious of all actions taken to keep one's balance. After you learn, you just ride. earl
 
Even when such actions become automatic, there is a very real an obvious extent to which these actions are good as opposed to bad.

Are enlightened Buddhists aware of whether non-enlightened folk are doing good or bad deeds?
 
mattityahu said:
Even when such actions become automatic, there is a very real an obvious extent to which these actions are good as opposed to bad.

Are enlightened Buddhists aware of whether non-enlightened folk are doing good or bad deeds?
Click to expand...
Even quite unenlightened ones are.;) earl
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top