Are all forms of Buddhism Monistic?

[Netti-Netti]

What? Change is a constant feature in reality? Can you dispute that?

It can be disputed in Buddhist theology. The Buddha essence can be seen as changeless.

 

[mattityahu]

There seems to be a sense of the having and eating of cakes here...

all things are interconnected (Indra's Net) and the universe is also an undivided whole. Divisions are created by mind.

"All things" suggests to me the existence of distinct, divided things...

 

[Netti-Netti]

Everything changes from moment to moment. Change is a constant feature in reality. Some of the changes occur in cycles, which lends a wholeness to the extremes of each cycle. Other changes may or may not be part of a cycle that we can't easily perceive, but these changes are still part of reality.

My reaction would be: since these things are undergoing cyclical change, they should be seen as ultimately unreal.

Diamond Sutra

Chapter 5.

"Subhuti, what do you think? Can the Buddha be recognized by means of his bodily form?"

"No, Most Honored One, the Buddha cannot be recognized by means of his bodily form. Why? Because when the Buddha speaks of bodily form, it is not a real form, but only an illusion."

The Buddha then spoke to Subhuti: "All that has a form is illusive and unreal. When you see that all forms are illusive and unreal, then you will begin to perceive your true Buddha nature."


​

Diamond Sutra Chapter 5.

 

[Snoopy]

There seems to be a sense of the having and eating of cakes here...
"All things" suggests to me the existence of distinct, divided things...

It's a matter of perception and describing the same thing in more than one way. Perspective. Chopped up tomatoes, cucumber, lettuce and eggs are distinct divided things. They are also a unified salad.

(Admittedly undressed)

s.

 

[mattityahu]

It's a matter of perception and describing the same thing in more than one way. Perspective. Chopped up tomatoes, cucumber, lettuce and eggs are distinct divided things. They are also a unified salad.

(Admittedly undressed)

s.

Unified but not undivided.

 

[Vajradhara]

Hello again Vaj,

Where does the Buddha teach that monism is "a particular sort of wrong view"?

Namaste netti-netti,

thank you for the post.

in Pali term for monism is "ekatta" it along with pluralism "naanatta", is considered to be part of the speculative views that lead to ucchedavada (nilhism for the pluralistic view) and sassatavada (eternalism for the monist view). the Buddhas teaching on this is the Middle Way which leads to neither extreme.

i'll see if i can find the Suttas online which address these topics for you.

metta,

~v

 

[seattlegal]

My reaction would be: since these things are undergoing cyclical change, they should be seen as ultimately unreal.

Diamond Sutra

Chapter 5.

"Subhuti, what do you think? Can the Buddha be recognized by means of his bodily form?"

"No, Most Honored One, the Buddha cannot be recognized by means of his bodily form. Why? Because when the Buddha speaks of bodily form, it is not a real form, but only an illusion."

The Buddha then spoke to Subhuti: "All that has a form is illusive and unreal. When you see that all forms are illusive and unreal, then you will begin to perceive your true Buddha nature."


​

Diamond Sutra Chapter 5.

Hence, this:

Try to look at it from a perspective of function rather than a perspective of form. Focus on the is (the verb,) portion of the phrase, "Reality is whole." {Does that help?}

 

[seattlegal]

to quote a rather famous Chinese Buddhist.. "of course the Chinese mix it together, look at what we have to work with.. Taoism, Buddhism and Confucianism.. it is like your salad bar; we take what we want and leave the rest."

metta,

~v

With oil and vinegar dressing?
"The Three Vinegar Tasters."

It's a matter of perception and describing the same thing in more than one way. Perspective. Chopped up tomatoes, cucumber, lettuce and eggs are distinct divided things. They are also a unified salad.

(Admittedly undressed)

s.

Do you think the different ingredients of this salad have different impressions of the unifying dressing, like the above vinegar tasters?

 

[Snoopy]

Do you think the different ingredients of this salad have different impressions of the unifying dressing, like the above vinegar tasters?

Clearly, some of the sentient phenomena in this salad do - as evidenced by this very thread! (But I’m not sure about the unifying dressing, I was just being silly! The Unity is all, therefore salad and dressing.) I’m confusing myself with my own analogy!

s.

 

[Netti-Netti]

i'll see if i can find the Suttas online which address these topics for you.

That would be helpful!

 

[Netti-Netti]

Try to look at it from a perspective of function rather than a perspective of form. Focus on the is (the verb,) portion of the phrase, "Reality is whole." {Does that help?}

A "reality" that is becoming - i.e., undergoing change - is not reality. As per the Diamond Sutra passage I cited, the true Buddha nature is unconditioned and is seen as independent of the changing/cyclical world of forms.

Everything changes from moment to moment. Change is a constant feature in reality.

The changing/cyclical world of forms is illusory/unreal in the Buddhist scheme of things. Therefore, change cannot be a property of reality.

Chopped up tomatoes, cucumber, lettuce and eggs are distinct divided things. They are also a unified salad.

If you are referring to the world of forms, these are component parts of an an aggregate. It seems in the Buddhism notion of aggregate is applied to the evolving universe as a whole. It seems these component parts or conditioned phenomena are all just pieces of a big illusion.

 

[seattlegal]

A "reality" that is becoming - i.e., undergoing change - is not reality. As per the Diamond Sutra passage I cited, the true Buddha nature is unconditioned and is seen as independent of the changing/cyclical world of forms.

See the first unconjecturable from the Acintita Sutta posted in post #24 of this thread.

The changing/cyclical world of forms is illusory/unreal in the Buddhist scheme of things.

See the fourth unconjecturable from the Acintita Sutta posted in post #24 of this thread.

Therefore, change cannot be a property of reality.

See the third unconjecturable from the Acintita Sutta posted in post #24 of this thread.

 

[Snoopy]

Unified but not undivided.

OK but remember it's all provisional - reality cannot be described (I suppose, following on from my own nomenclature) I mean the one with the big R!

s.

 

[Vajradhara]

That would be helpful!

Namaste netti-netti,

thank you for the post.

herein is an excerpt regarding the foundations for wrong view:

Grounds for Views

15. "There are, monks, these six grounds for false views.15 What are the six? There is here, monks, an uninstructed worldling who has no regard for Noble Ones, who is ignorant of their teaching and untrained in it; who has no regard for men of worth, who is ignorant of their teaching and untrained in it: he considers corporeality thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self';16 he considers feeling... perception... mental formations thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'; and what is seen, heard, sensed, and thought;17 what is encountered, sought, pursued in mind,18 this also he considers thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'; and also this ground for views (holding): 'The universe is the Self.19 That I shall be after death;20 permanent, stable, eternal, immutable; eternally the same,21 shall I abide in that very condition' — that (view), too, he considers thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self.'22


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.nypo.html


so we see here that monism is listed explicitly as a ground for a wrong view.

however we must bear in mind that much of the Buddhist philosophical teachings are found in the Abidharma and there are four distinct schools of thought. it can be fairly argued, in my view, that two of the Buddhist philosophical traditions posit a sort of quasi-monist view with regards to the nature of The Dharma and of Buddhanature whereas the other two schools of thought definitely refute such notions.

given that i practice the Madhyamaka school i think my view is clear.

metta,

~v

 

[Netti-Netti]

Namaste netti-netti,

thank you for the post.

herein is an excerpt regarding the foundations for wrong view:

Grounds for Views

15. "There are, monks, these six grounds for false views.15 What are the six? There is here, monks, an uninstructed worldling who has no regard for Noble Ones, who is ignorant of their teaching and untrained in it; who has no regard for men of worth, who is ignorant of their teaching and untrained in it: he considers corporeality thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self';16 he considers feeling... perception... mental formations thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'; and what is seen, heard, sensed, and thought;17 what is encountered, sought, pursued in mind,18 this also he considers thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'; and also this ground for views (holding): 'The universe is the Self.19 That I shall be after death;20 permanent, stable, eternal, immutable; eternally the same,21 shall I abide in that very condition' — that (view), too, he considers thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self.'22
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.nypo.html

Thanks for the reply, Vaj. The passage you cite appears to be a description of no-self doctrine (anatta). There is nothing in that passage that suggests that this particular doctrine can serve as a metaphysical view of reality is a whole, which is what monism is concerned with.

so we see here that monism is listed explicitly as a wrong view.

Sorry, I see no reference to the concept of monism. The passage deals only with perceptions of personal identity or sense of self.

 

[Vajradhara]

Thanks for the reply, Vaj. The passage you cite appears to be a description of no-self doctrine (anatta). There is nothing in that passage that suggests that this particular doctrine can serve as a metaphysical view of reality is a whole, which is what monism is concerned with.

Namaste netti-netti,

thank you for the post.

the concept of monism is alluded to with the idea of "the universe is the self" indeed, this very idea is monism in that it postulates that all things in the universe, including the self, are in fact one thing.

this sutta is addressing the particulars of wrong view in how it relates to the sense of self rather than addressing a particular metaphysical postulate.

metta,

~v

 

[Netti-Netti]

the concept of monism is alluded to with the idea of "the universe is the self" indeed, this very idea is monism in that it postulates that all things in the universe, including the self, are in fact one thing.

Where is this idea of "the universe is the self" developed by the Buddha?

 

[Netti-Netti]

"The universe is the Self"

If we see this concept in light of the description of the world of the senses being illusory, then what we have here is a view that all is illusion.

Problem: how can there be Dharma or Buddha nature when all is illusion?

 

[earl]

Gautama himself just generally talked about the 3 Dharma seals or marks of existence: suffering, impermanence, and no-self. Just saw this joke & thought it was cute: Dukkha, Annicca, and Anatta go into a bar. Dukkha says "life sucks." Annicca says "it won't last." Anatta says "are you talking to me?" earl

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste netti-netti,

thank you for the post.

Where is this idea of "the universe is the self" developed by the Buddha?

i'm not sure that i understand the query. are you asking which sections of the Tipitaka deal with the metaphysics underlying the Buddhist teachings? in regards to the specifics of the query, the Buddha does not develop or promote the idea that the universe and the self are one or, more generally, that all things are one contigious whole.

"The universe is the Self"

If we see this concept in light of the description of the world of the senses being illusory, then what we have here is a view that all is illusion.

Problem: how can there be Dharma or Buddha nature when all is illusion?

views are illusions of reality rather than reality is illusory. reality, or Suchness, is how it is and how it is lies beyond our ability to grasp.

metta,

~v