[Lån-Penge]

For that matter, we personify Buddha by saying he was a person.

If "there is nothing that can be called 'me' or 'mine'" then who said it?

It is pretty clear that he was a person.

As I have found myself discussing often online, in my work as a psychiatric nurse I meet many people with mental illness who experience symptoms of acute, extreme anxiety - such as the phenomona of depersonalisation and derealisation, as well as the more disabling psychotic conditions in which individuals experience various types of hallucinations, and other types of altered perceptions which interefere with the ability to maintain a stable sense of identity and self in a conventional sense. This does not aid the ending of suffering in any way.

[dyestymum]

'Ulimate Reality is nothing but a transcendent truth which governs the universe and
human life'

Philosophy or Metaphysics is not the answer to this Stuka,but rational thinking.

[zuhraliyana]

You see, I have never seen "ultimate reality" used in the context of which you speak, in terms of union with Brahman, only as an expression of that which is experienced when the mind is not clinging to notions of "me" and "mine".

[bestworkothlo]

It is pretty clear that he was a person.

My point isn't that he didn't exist, or that he wasn't a human. But I am saying, if you utilize the methods through which it is determined that no "me' or "mine" is inherently existent, and you apply that to the fellow called Sakyamuni, then "ultimately" he didn't have any "me" or "mine" either, thus no teachings can be said to have been "his". But in the ordinary sense, of course he was the Buddha and he taught the Dhamma.

[TaxSheemaSter]

'Ulimate Reality is nothing but a transcendent truth which governs the universe and
human life'

Philosophy or Metaphysics is not the answer to this Stuka,but rational thinking.

The notion of an "Ultimate Reality" is inherently philosophical (ontology) and/or metaphysical.

The unattributed quote you cite is an unsupported assertion, at best a fallacious appeal to misplaced authority.

[gennickhif]

You see, I have never seen "ultimate reality" used in the context of which you speak, in terms of union with Brahman, only as an expression of that which is experienced when the mond is not clinging to notions of "me" and "mine".

I have, but not as a Buddhist idea. As an expression of the mind not clinging, it is at best confusing and misleading. Non-clinging is not an alternate reality from a reality in which one clings to phenomena (i.e., "provisional/etc reality" vs. "Ultimate Reality"), it is the same reality and what has changed is our reaction. Very simple and no need to cloud the matter with vague terms.

[Fetowip]

If Buddha asserts that "this is not me, this is not mine, this is not my self." what does that mean?

My understanding is that there is nothing that can be truly called a 'self', yet mistakenly clinging to such notions is what people tend to do, and this is what results in suffering.

Conventionally, "me" and "mine" is what we experience.
"I" am typing this on "my" computer.
But ultimately, as Buddha says, "this is not me, this is not mine, this is not my self."

This is what I understand to be the distinction made between relative reality and ultimate reality, or sometimes called relative truth and ultimate truth. It's not that two separate realities exist, rather that two views of the same reality exist, one that is based on clinging to a self, and one that isn't.

[nermise]

My point isn't that he didn't exist, or that he wasn't a human. But I am saying, if you utilize the methods through which it is determined that no "me' or "mine" is inherently existent, and you apply that to the fellow called Sakyamuni, then "ultimately" he didn't have any "me" or "mine" either, thus no teachings can be said to have been "his". But in the ordinary sense, of course he was the Buddha and he taught the Dhamma.

You see? You have turned the Buddha's teaching of non-self into an ontology: "There is no 'me', therefore there was no such person as the Buddha". Anatta is not an ontology: "there is no me". It is a phenomenological method of breaking free of self-centered thinking.

"No 'me' or 'mine' is inherently existent" is an ontological statement. The notion of "inherent existence" is an ontological question. The very act of putting it into terms of "inherent existence" is a speculative distraction. The Buddha refused to address such questions because they are speculative. The Buddha did not speak of "ultimate reality" or "inherent existence"; instead he recommended that we examine phenomena and see "this is not me, this is not mine" and thus detach ourselves from it. Ontology doesn't enter into the equation: what is important is our detachment, the letting go of clinging to things as "me" and "mine".

[mGUuZRyA]

I have, but not as a Buddhist idea. As an expression of the mind not clinging, it is at best confusing and misleading. Non-clinging is not an alternate reality from a reality in which one clings to phenomena (i.e., "provisional/etc reality" vs. "Ultimate Reality"), it is the same reality and what has changed is our reaction. Very simple and no need to cloud the matter with vague terms.

The fact that non-buddhists use the term 'ultimate reality' to refer to something else doesn't have anything to do with how Buddhists use it. It is only misleading to the person who associates it with other meanings. the fact that I use water to satisfy my thirst is not influenced by the fact that others use water to bathe in.

[arrismVam]

The fact that non-buddhists use the term 'ultimate reality' to refer to something else doesn't have anything to do with how Buddhists use it. It is only misleading to the person who associates it with other meanings. the fact that I use water to satisfy my thirst is not influenced by the fact that others use water to bathe in.

But, as you can see, Buddhists are also giving it other meanings -- including you.

[FoetAgerhot46]

It is pretty clear that he was a person.

Fortunately he was and this simple fact is paramount for the teachings of the Buddha. Those teachings were not given by a superhero, a intergalactic redeemer, a God, or a metaphysical entity suitable just for advanced connoisseurs.

[ketNavatutt]

When the Buddha says we should see, "This is not me, mine,self, etc", it is just one of several devices he suggests that we can use to detach with, to cease clinging to things.

What you say about how we originally tend to see the world vs how the Buddha suggests we view it in order to let go is in accordance with the Dhamma, but calling it "conventional" and "ultimate reality" complicates it unnecessarily and opens the door for the sort of misinterpretations we see in several sects that claim tthat this teaching *is* about alternate realities.

[BakerBonce]

But, as you can see, Buddhists are also giving it other meanings -- including you.

Please explain my incorrect usage

[Phouepou]

Ajahn Amaro mentions "Ultimate Reality" in the first sentence of the quote below:


"The Buddha, in the Theravada tradition, is always pulling away from creating a metaphysical description of Nibbana, the Beyond, Ultimate Reality.

Instead he always comes right back to the focus of: “If there is suffering, it’s because there is clinging to something. An identity is being created.”

That’s all we need to know. The rest is whipped cream. Over and over again such abstruse philosophical questions were put to the Buddha, and over and over again he would bring it back to: “I teach only dukkha and the ending of dukkha.”


It’s not a matter of creating the perfect philosophical model (and then getting lost in it) but looking at how we feel now, what’s happening within our heart right now.

As we recognize that, as we see dukkha being created, we trace it back. We realize there’s been some clinging; the clinging came from craving; the craving came from feeling; and the feeling came from that contact.

We realize, “Aha! It was that thought that triggered this.” We see that and let it go. This is dukkha-nirodha, the ending of suffering.


The ending of suffering is not some kind of Armageddon, a cosmic healing at the ending of time. The ending of suffering occurs at exactly the place where the suffering is generated.

When we trace back some particular event of dukkha, when we see where it has arisen from and let go of it right there, then there is no suffering." Source : "Theravada Buddhism in a Nutshell"

http://www.forestsangha.org/index.ph...by-ajahn-amaro

[8cyVn4RJ]

Ajahn Amaro mentions "Ultimate Reality" in the first sentence of the quote below:

Thanks Aloka...

When I read this kind of quotes, some sort of liberation and clear understanding is felt... the other way, hidden meanings, "ultimate realities", philosophical amusements, and heavenly refuges have never led me into awareness but just into metaphysical speculative entanglements leading into restlessness.

[saturninus.ribb]

Please explain my incorrect usage

Post#24

[N1bNXuDb]

Thank you for this information. I have never heard of these kinds of speculations being made before. I would like to know what Buddhist schools actually teach such things. You may be surprised to know that these words from this Theravada teacher match perfectly with the Vajrayana schools of Mahamudra and Dzogchen, which teaches to let the mind relax in its original state without any kinds of fabrications or elaborations, but instead emphasizes the inseparability of nirvana (nibbana) and samsara. As I said before, 'ultimate reality' is not a different reality, it is the everyday world seen with a mind free from attachment to 'me' and 'mine'.

[Effopsytupt]

You may be surprised to know that these words from this Theravada teacher match perfectly with the Vajrayana schools of Mahamudra and Dzogchen

Not much of a surprise to me that you should think that, having originally been a Vajrayana practitioner myself and familiar with those practices you mention, before transfering to this particular Theravada Thai Forest tradition. I feel it is much more relevant to my practice and understanding at this point in time and cuts through any pointless add-ons.

Does one really need to speculate about 'the inseperability of nirvana and samsara' if ones mind has knowledge of samadhi/emptiness/ stillness/clarity /wisdom and awareness ? I doubt it, because maybe it all just becomes unnecessary terminlogy and mental proliferation distracting one from the immediacy of here and now.

Anyway, sorry, back to topic !

[loolitoertego]

The notion of an "Ultimate Reality" is inherently philosophical (ontology) and/or metaphysical.

Stuka

What exactly is ontology?

Could you kindly explain the reasons why the following stock phrase found in the Pali suttas does not accord with notions of ontology?



Thanks

Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma:

"The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it & makes it plain:

[sFs4aOok]

Does one really need to speculate about 'the inseperability of nirvana and samsara' [...]

Absolutely not. That speculative "need" happens if, and only if, mind is disturbed, full of worldly concerns, restlessness, chattering with in, fabrications, etc., Once the mind is not peaceful, not aware... the bunch of speculative metaphysical entanglements settles in.