Without Discoverable Beginning (The limitations of science)
by xeno6696 
, Sonoran Desert, Sunday, January 15, 2012, 02:57 (4695 days ago)
"Grass and Sticks"
(SN 15:1; II 178)
The Blessed one said this:
"Monks, this samsara is without discoverable beginning. A first point is not discerned of beings roaming and wandering on hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving. Suppose, monks, a man would cut up whatever grass, sticks, branches, and foliage there are in this Jambudipa [Pali for "rose apple land"] and collect them together into a single heap Having done so, he would put them down, saying for each one: 'This is my mother, this my mother's mother.' The sequence of that man's mothers and grandmothers would not come to an end, yet the grass, sticks, branches and foliage in this Jambudipa would be used up and exhausted. For what reason? Because monks, this samsara is without discoverable beginning. A first point is not discerned of beings roaming and wandering on hindered by ignorance and dettered by craving. For such a long time, monks, you have experienced suffering, anguish, and disaster, and swelled the cemetery. It is enough to become disenchanged with all formations, enough to becoe dispassionate toward them, enough to be liberated from them."
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Without Discoverable Beginning
MATT: The Blessed one said this:
"Monks, this samsara is without discoverable beginning. A first point is not discerned of beings roaming and wandering on hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving. Suppose, monks, a man would cut up whatever grass, sticks, branches, and foliage there are in this Jambudipa [Pali for "rose apple land"] and collect them together into a single heap Having done so, he would put them down, saying for each one: 'This is my mother, this my mother's mother.' The sequence of that man's mothers and grandmothers would not come to an end, yet the grass, sticks, branches and foliage in this Jambudipa would be used up and exhausted. For what reason? Because monks, this samsara is without discoverable beginning. A first point is not discerned of beings roaming and wandering on hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving. For such a long time, monks, you have experienced suffering, anguish, and disaster, and swelled the cemetery. It is enough to become disenchanged [disenchanted?] with all formations, enough to become dispassionate toward them, enough to be liberated from them."
As always, Matt, you find new ways to challenge us! Thank you. I’m tempted to ask: Did the Blessed One really say this? Is it an accurate translation? But perhaps it would be more productive to ask what exactly was his concept of samsara. Did he believe that each human being passes through different lives? (Men only, or do the mothers also come again? And can they achieve enlightenment?) Or that humans endlessly repeat the cycle of ignorance and craving endured by their predecessors? Or that each of us repeats the cycle during our one life? I’ve always felt that the concept of moksha (liberation) might just as well be identical to permanent death (no more rebirth, no more suffering). And it’s all very well being unfettered by craving, but some of the greatest human joys and achievements have also arisen out of craving – not least, the need for love – and without it, the human species would die out within a single generation!
In the context of our discussion on time, how can there be a cycle of birth and rebirth of any kind without a past and a present, and how can moksha be attainable if there is no such thing as a future? All of these terms indicate that time is a sequential reality.
As for a discoverable beginning for samsara, did he mean that we would never know how life originated, or that life on Earth may have been preceded by life elsewhere in the universe, or that we would never know when humans first walked the earth and began to suffer and get themselves recycled?
O Master Xeno, thou know'st more than me,
Myopic as I am, so help me see.
But if to end the cycle of death and life
Means no more chocolate, no more kids or wife,
Methinks my preference will be rebirth,
Since there's so much to live for here on Earth.
Without Discoverable Beginning
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, January 17, 2012, 00:01 (4693 days ago) @ dhw
dhw
...Did he believe that each human being passes through different lives? (Men only, or do the mothers also come again? And can they achieve enlightenment?) Or that humans endlessly repeat the cycle of ignorance and craving endured by their predecessors? Or that each of us repeats the cycle during our one life? I’ve always felt that the concept of moksha (liberation) might just as well be identical to permanent death (no more rebirth, no more suffering). And it’s all very well being unfettered by craving, but some of the greatest human joys and achievements have also arisen out of craving – not least, the need for love – and without it, the human species would die out within a single generation!
1. Did he actually say this?
Who knows for sure? The book is from "In the Buddha's Words," but every Zen teacher I've read all say pretty much the same things: The Buddha was a man, not a God, and his writings were passed orally for a very long time. Is it a good translation? It's translated by 'Bhikku Bodhi' an American-born Theravedan Buddhist ordained in Sri Lanka. He's well-respected.
The tiebreaker in Buddhist practice--is experience. If you use a teaching and it manages to make your own--or someone else's--life better, then its a true teaching. (And it doesn't contradict the core tenets, such as nonviolence.)
You're the one who brought the Samsara discussion together with the Dalai Llama some weeks back. Since the Pali Canon is the oldest known (complete) body of the Buddha's teaching, I thought it would potentially shed some light.
Craving as you have termed it--isn't quite right. It's perfectly fine to love, to get angry, and to get sad--but what isn't alright is when you lose yourself in the emotion. It's true--great and beautiful things can happen when one loses themselves. The main perspective of Buddhism however--is that we should cultivate our insight as well as our will, so we know when we're losing control. It wouldn't be too far to say that it's like learning to lucid dream in your waking hours.
I think that without doubt that the original Buddha most certainly accepted the Hindu idea of the cycles of birth and death--his major reformation was that it was possible to break away from the cycle and live forever in "the ultimate dimension," of which, nothing I've read even tries to discuss it. The more... "Utilitarian" Buddhism that I started learning 8-9 years ago simply chooses not to bring those things on board. (Which makes sense... both the Chinese and Japanese are well known for their practicality.)
What I'm coming to realize is that perhaps David is right, and all along I've been a sort of Nihilist. I just... see no purpose for an afterlife, and that entire aspect of religion is the part that I have the least care for.
Though in my recent searches I HAVE come across several Buddhist sites claiming evidence(s) for rebirth--even from non-Buddhists. However... the stories all fall into that "NDE" territory and I (as usual) feel I have no rung with which I can grasp.
In the context of our discussion on time, how can there be a cycle of birth and rebirth of any kind without a past and a present, and how can moksha be attainable if there is no such thing as a future? All of these terms indicate that time is a sequential reality.
IF you want my true opinion here, I think that the whole concept of death/rebirth is best understood metaphorically. In terms of our relation with time--you hit it right on the head in the other thread--that there are sequences of events, however, the key insight is that at our present state--the ultimate cause of these sequences have no discoverable beginning... hence why I chose that particular selection for this thread. In Buddhist terms, the linear story is really to get the practitioner to think about how inter-related we all are, and in the light of science and evolution--this point is underlined and exclaimed! If it is true that all life descended from a single living creature--then by all means we have much more room (in my book) to love everything that exists.
As for a discoverable beginning for samsara, did he mean that we would never know how life originated, or that life on Earth may have been preceded by life elsewhere in the universe, or that we would never know when humans first walked the earth and began to suffer and get themselves recycled?
I'd have to put myself in the mind of Gotama. I often said that Nietzsche taught me how to read, and I hold to that. I think he would have said yes to all three. Myself... even with the Big Bang, even with a first cause and/or a creator--the problem of discoverability remains.
O Master Xeno, thou know'st more than me,
Myopic as I am, so help me see.
But if to end the cycle of death and life
Means no more chocolate, no more kids or wife,
Methinks my preference will be rebirth,
Since there's so much to live for here on Earth.
I realize it's poetry, but I certainly hope I don't come off as those first two lines... I know I can be strong-willed, but I fear condescension and don't wish to harm our friendship in that way!
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Without Discoverable Beginning
Matt quoted from the teachings of “the Blessed Oneâ€, and I posed a series of questions.
First of all, thank you for your response. I must confess that I was being slightly naughty, in that my questions were a mixture of inquiry and Matt-like scepticism. Virtually every aspect of the quote was wide open to different interpretations, and my post contained a particularly pointed parenthesis concerning the situation of women in the great quest for Enlightenment. Ambivalence is the keynote here as in many other religious teachings: they mean whatever you want them to mean. So much so that for me they lose all credibility, and even when they give direct moral or philosophical guidance, this is also – as you so rightly say – subject to the test of experience. Your answers generally confirm this impression, and there are only two that I would like to make further comment on.
You wrote: “What I’m coming to realize is that perhaps David is right, and all along I’ve been a sort of Nihilist. I just...see no purpose for an afterlife, and that entire aspect of religion is the part that I have the least care for.†This would help to explain the nature of our discussion on NDEs, but for what it’s worth, I don’t see you as a nihilist at all. You have a breadth of interests that indicates almost boundless curiosity, and your scepticism does not stop you from continually delving into the value of things and pursuing those which you think have potential. That, I’m happy to say, is not my idea of nihilism! As regards the afterlife, I myself can’t conceive of a form that would entail “purposeâ€, but I remain curious without “cravingâ€. If death is the end, so be it. But the idea of being reunited with loved ones is immensely attractive, even if one hasn’t a clue what one will do for the next hundred years, let alone eternity!
Secondly, the first two lines of my little poem (“O Master Xeno, thou know’st more than me, / Myopic as I am, so help me see") disturbed you:
“I fear condescension and don’t wish to harm our friendship in that way!â€
I hope you now know me better than that! You have a far broader grasp of Buddhism than I have, and the same applies to a vast range of other subjects. The poem was a light-hearted way of finishing off a series of questions – though of course I did not expect definitive answers – and of making my own comment on the negative view of life that arises from the whole concept of samsara. We have many disagreements, but these are rarely based on knowledge and far more frequently on matters of interpretation and/or difficulties of communication. However, let me state categorically that the last thing my wide-ranging ignorance could possibly allow is condescension. People like David and yourself are continually broadening my horizons, even if my own scepticism (and pedantry) make me challenge you every inch of the way! My apologies if the lines gave you the wrong impression.
Without Discoverable Beginning
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, January 18, 2012, 02:35 (4692 days ago) @ dhw
Matt quoted from the teachings of “the Blessed Oneâ€, and I posed a series of questions.
First of all, thank you for your response. I must confess that I was being slightly naughty, in that my questions were a mixture of inquiry and Matt-like scepticism. Virtually every aspect of the quote was wide open to different interpretations, and my post contained a particularly pointed parenthesis concerning the situation of women in the great quest for Enlightenment. Ambivalence is the keynote here as in many other religious teachings: they mean whatever you want them to mean. So much so that for me they lose all credibility, and even when they give direct moral or philosophical guidance, this is also – as you so rightly say – subject to the test of experience. Your answers generally confirm this impression, and there are only two that I would like to make further comment on.
You bring up a common criticism about Buddhism--in regards to women--one that is certainly shared by the Catholic Church in the west. (At least, Catholic priests were once allowed to marry... but then the question of who got what upon the death of the priest arose...)
Add to that that Gotama himself abandoned his wife and child to pursue his path. Though, they were still living in the resplendence of his father's wealth, so that's mitigated a bit here... The more harmful implication is the idea of abandoning your child. I have a hard time considering what could possibly be so important that I would abandon my children. There's probably an awesome novel in there somewhere...
Still: It is the exegesis of these documents that I find is the most important part. The important aspect for me in regards to religious literature is that it often forces you to be creative, and yes--you can come away with something different every time, but isn't that the true power and beauty of all poetry?
...This would help to explain the nature of our discussion on NDEs, but for what it’s worth, I don’t see you as a nihilist at all. You have a breadth of interests that indicates almost boundless curiosity, and your scepticism does not stop you from continually delving into the value of things and pursuing those which you think have potential. That, I’m happy to say, is not my idea of nihilism! As regards the afterlife, I myself can’t conceive of a form that would entail “purposeâ€, but I remain curious without “cravingâ€. If death is the end, so be it. But the idea of being reunited with loved ones is immensely attractive, even if one hasn’t a clue what one will do for the next hundred years, let alone eternity!
And if you ever make the mistake of googling "nihilism" I'm sorry. I never saw so much postmodern garbage in my life... And yes, I can see where the lack of a utility for an afterlife would shape my thinking on NDEs. I think I'd be better off planning for the void and be pleasantly surprised. 
Returning to the issue you brought up with the Dalai Llama... I have to say that I think he's obligated to reincarnation--there's a battle brewing over his successor with China saying they get to dictate his successor... which of course sounds so absurd! I also learned a bit more... news that's probably old hat. The Dalai Llama is the former title for the ruler of Tibet, which was a "theocracy" based on Buddhism. I've always known that he was respected but wasn't seen as speaking for all Buddhists... It's important I think to note that I have very, very, rarely seen Buddhist writers reference outside of their own sect. I have yet to see Zen writers reference anything that the Llama has to say, Neither Thich Nhat Hahn nor disciples of Dogen here in the states have made any memorable quotes referencing the Dalai Llama. There is probably a polite competition here.
Secondly, the first two lines of my little poem (“O Master Xeno, thou know’st more than me, / Myopic as I am, so help me see") disturbed you:
“I fear condescension and don’t wish to harm our friendship in that way!â€
I hope you now know me better than that! You have a far broader grasp of Buddhism than I have, and the same applies to a vast range of other subjects. The poem was a light-hearted way of finishing off a series of questions – though of course I did not expect definitive answers – and of making my own comment on the negative view of life that arises from the whole concept of samsara. We have many disagreements, but these are rarely based on knowledge and far more frequently on matters of interpretation and/or difficulties of communication. However, let me state categorically that the last thing my wide-ranging ignorance could possibly allow is condescension. People like David and yourself are continually broadening my horizons, even if my own scepticism (and pedantry) make me challenge you every inch of the way! My apologies if the lines gave you the wrong impression.
To be clear here... I just wanted to be sure that YOU didn't think I was condescending! I did NOT want to insinuate that upon you.
We can't see into everyone's thoughts, and I KNOW that I can be overbearing... I've had friends and family both call me "self-righteous" before when I was pursuing some line of argument to its end. While I understand that you and David know me quite well about all of that--I never want anything I say to harm.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Without Discoverable Beginning
MATT: The important aspect for me in regards to religious literature is that it often forces you to be creative, and yes – you can come away with something different every time, but isn’t that the true power and beauty of all poetry?
Yes indeed, but as you know all too well, it’s the creative talents of the exegetes that lead to so much division, prejudice, repression and bloodshed. On the other hand, your comment reinforces my impression that deep down you are far from being a nihilist. No nihilist (according to my understanding of the word) would talk in terms of the true power and beauty of poetry!
As regards NDEs, you write: “I think I’d be better off planning for the void and be pleasantly surprised.†Precisely my own feelings.
MATT: To be clear here…I just wanted to be sure that YOU didn’t think I was condescending. I did NOT want to insinuate that upon you.
Yet another classic misunderstanding! I thought you had taken the first two lines of my doggerel to be ironic, which they were not. You write: “I never want anything I say to harmâ€, which is also my own greatest fear on this forum, particularly when dealing with people who have deep-rooted beliefs. In some cases, I suspect they leave because they regard all opposition as a sign of stupidity, but I’m sure others opt out because our discussions can become too destructive. Those are the ones I feel bad about. If anyone does come across as “overbearing†(you don't), experience suggests that those who remain are quite capable of defending themselves!
Without Discoverable Beginning
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, January 18, 2012, 22:42 (4691 days ago) @ dhw
http://www.skeptiko.com/upload/skeptiko-155-shinzen-young.mp3
This interview with a Western Buddhist...
Yeah, I would love to be able to talk with him regularly.
Shinzen Young discusses things like NDEs and the profound idea...
That we can even go BEYOND these things...
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Without Discoverable Beginning
MATT: http://www.skeptiko.com/upload/skeptiko-155-shinzen-young.mp3
This interview with a Western Buddhist...
Yeah, I would love to be able to talk with him regularly.
Shinzen Young discusses things like NDEs and the profound idea...
That we can even go BEYOND these things...
Maybe I was expecting too much, but although Shinzen Young seems a nice enough man, I’m afraid I found this interview extremely frustrating. Some good questions, but the answers were evasive, and not even skilfully so. My hopes were raised when Shinzen said he was a hard-nosed scientist, and I thought, “Great! Here’s a kindred spirit of Matt’s, who will explain how he reconciles materialism with Buddhist spirituality.†Did he? Like heck. All we got was that it was a paradox and not a contradiction. Which applied to most of what he had to say. Even I can give a better explanation of the “paradox†underlying the need to improve the self and at the same time lose the self. As for NDEs, no he didn’t discuss them. After an embarrassing session of humming and hawing, he admitted he didn’t know much about them, but he thought they were similar to some other experiences. Atheists? Well some Buddhists are and some aren’t – but what does he believe? Reincarnation? Not a mention. Situation of women? Not a mention. Soul? Not a mention. Just a load of wool about “knowingnessâ€, “mindfulnessâ€, “be a good personâ€. And the profound idea, the going beyond? Just words that sound profound, that sound as if they’re… going beyond. No doubt he knows a lot more than this, but I’m afraid it left me with no urge “to talk with him regularlyâ€. I get more out of discussions with you – but thanks all the same!
Without Discoverable Beginning
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, January 20, 2012, 18:29 (4689 days ago) @ dhw
Maybe it should have stayed with me... I thought Ven. Young shed some clear light on the notion of theology and Buddhism, and discussed the reason why I for example, got the wrong impression about the Dalai Llama's positions when clearly--he thinks reincarnation is an essential belief. It also discussed, or at least brought to light, some of the very nonmaterialist parts of Buddhism, such as believing that the Buddha is still very much with us. (How?)
I can now see when other authors cearly believe in something as a spiritual truth.
He got caught in evasion, i agree, when confronted with his claim about having had "an NDE." I was interested in this, however, as it was the first time I heard such talk from a modern Zen teacher.
Bhikku Bohdi addresses this directly in the Book that spawned this thread.
It seems to me, that the greatest challenge to accepting Buddhism is coming from Buddhists themselves!
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Without Discoverable Beginning
MATT: It seems to me, that the greatest challenge to accepting Buddhism is coming from Buddhists themselves!-If we take Buddhism to be a religion, you could say that they all challenge themselves, since none of them can ever reach a consensus on how to interpret texts and/or teachings. Christianity probably has the worst record of internecine violence, but Islam is rapidly catching up. At least the Buddhists aren't literally at each other's throats. -It doesn't matter to me what Shinzen Young believes, but I would have liked him to tell us, and to explain how he reconciles those beliefs with the materialism of a "hard-nosed scientist". In that, perhaps he could take a leaf out of David's book. But I'm being unfair ... one shouldn't pass judgment on someone because of a 45-minute interview. I was just disappointed, that's all. Now I'll tell you what would really interest me. When you drew our attention to this interview, you mentioned "the profound idea" and that "we can even go BEYOND these things" (e.g. NDEs). If you have a bit of spare time, I'd love to know what you meant!
Without Discoverable Beginning
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, January 21, 2012, 22:21 (4688 days ago) @ dhw
MATT: It seems to me, that the greatest challenge to accepting Buddhism is coming from Buddhists themselves! > > If we take Buddhism to be a religion, you could say that they all challenge themselves, since none of them can ever reach a consensus on how to interpret texts and/or teachings. Christianity probably has the worst record of internecine violence, but Islam is rapidly catching up. At least the Buddhists aren't literally at each other's throats. > -Well... the interesting thing I've noticed about Buddhism, is that without doubt, all branches accept all other branches. The only real "schism" of sorts centers around Theravedan Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism. The original split between these groups centered around--money--not philosophy. The Theravedans flatly said that monks should never touch money, that they should only ever own or live off of what was offered. The maha--the majority--obviously took a more urban look at things. (This was all based off of the beginning of the money-economy in ancient India, and flatly--money is the human invention that if nothing else, has provided the foundation for cities as we know it.) -To this day, Mahayana literature contains some couched language that takes jabs at "the conservative elders" as being members of the "small vehicle." All forms of Buddhism today outside of what's practiced in a small cluster of countries between Sri Lanka and Vietnam are ultimately Mahayana. Of interesting note, Islamic missionaries blame the economic poorness of these countries on Buddhism, and the general idea that the Monastics refuse to handle money. This custom is in Chinese Mahayana to a certain extent--in Buddhist funerals in China, it is customary to burn money. -So, your discussion about internecine conflict is poignant, and it must be said that it doesn't look like Buddhists have ever tried to kill each other over their differences in opinion--they just wrote texts subtly disparaging the other. The issue of money aside, the different forms simply choose to place certain texts ahead of others in terms of their practice, but they seem to do it so politely as compared to say, Lutherans vs. Catholics. -> ... Now I'll tell you what would really interest me. When you drew our attention to this interview, you mentioned "the profound idea" and that "we can even go BEYOND these things" (e.g. NDEs). If you have a bit of spare time, I'd love to know what you meant!-It was purely his statement that said that we can go beyond NDEs... he seems to implicitly claim that Zen can give you an OOB. <--Not buying it. But it would be interesting to know that I could forcefully step outside of my body whenever I meditated enough. This harkens back to the writings of some of the ancient chan master's that claimed to do some of these things. -But if you want me to dig deeper... I've caught glimpses of what he termed "source consciousness." There's a level of internal calmness that I've reached a couple times recently--that seemed to have a profound physiological effect. Is this God? Another Zen master pointed me to the writings of St. John of the Cross... he describes something very similar. -So... you must remain disappointed, as I was disappointed that he didn't really discuss it. (I posted the link before I had finished the podcast.)
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"