[unioneserry]

Realising Ultimate Reality

http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index....6,9646,0,0,1,0


I was wondering if anyone had any comments in relation to this transcript of a talk given by Prof. David Loy at the World Buddhist Conference.

[gusunsuth]

I can't say that I have any thoughts, unless there's a specific question, but here are some quotes I liked or found to be relevant to truth/practice:

"Since this sense of self is not real, we become preoccupied with trying to make something real which is not real."

Sow a thought, and reap an action.
Sow an action, and reap a habit.
Sow a habit, and reap character.
Sow character, and reap a destiny.

from Thich Nhat Hanh:

There are two dimensions to life, and we should be able to touch both. One is like a wave, and we call it the ultimate dimension, or nirvana. We usually touch just the wave, but when we discover how to touch the water, we receive the highest fruit that meditation can offer. [.....] A wave has a beginning and an end, but we cannot ascribe these characteristics to water. In the world of water, there is no birth and death, no being or nonbeing, no beginning or end. When we touch the water, we touch reality in its ultimate dimension and are liberated from all of these concepts.

[Corporal White]

Ultimate Reality is seeing things for what they really are,and not being deceived by the delusions that try to hide the truth from us.Everything we see in our conscious state cannot always be the truth,and the only way is to go beyond our consciousness to realise a real mind.

[cindygirl]

I don't see anything in that transcript that really addresses any sort of "reality", ultimate or not.

The Buddha did not speak of any notion of "ultimate reality", nor did he teach "non-dualism". These are later contrivances.

[abOfU9nJ]

We all see reality in our lives, something that exists independently of ideas concerning it,even the Buddha.Some people see the Ultimate reality as god,others as the hidden truth of all things.Buddhist look for the truth and what is really real.

[r7rGOhvd]

Everything in the world is independent of our ideas concerning it. Except, of course, for our ideas. The Buddha wasn't advocating looking for "the truth and what is really real". The Buddha did not advocate chasing "hidden truths". The Buddha advocated seeing "this is not me, this is not mine, this is not my self.".

[Nesskissabe]

Everything in the world is independent of our ideas concerning it. Except, of course, for our ideas. The Buddha wasn't advocating looking for "the truth and what is really real". The Buddha did not advocate chasing "hidden truths". The Buddha advocated seeing "this is not me, this is not mine, this is not my self.".

Whether The Buddha can be said to have sent people looking for 'hidden truths' depends on what you mean by hidden. The real state of things exists in plain view, but we do not see it because of our attachment to "me" and "mine", therefore, the ultimate reality of things is hidden -- hidden in plain view! So people mediatate and so forth in order to clear away those things that block the experience of 'ultimate reality'.

My understanding is that the term 'ultimate reality' refers to the ever changing nature of phenomena, which is different from the sort of solidified notion of things that people cling to, such as "me" and "mine" and also with regard to external phenomena which appear to be solid and unchanging but are in fact constantly in some state of decay. This also includes seeing the transitory nature of thoughts and emotions which arise in the mind.

The realization of 'ultimate reality' refers to the direct experience, not just an academic understanding, of the ever-changing nature of conditioned things. Buddha may not have used the term 'ultimate reality' specifically, but his teachings point directly to that which has been given this label. It is not a reference to some other reality, such as another dimension.

In the link provided in the beginning of this thread, there is this: "...It's rather the letting go of our selves to realize the nondual nature of reality."
So, I think conclusions are being drawn. If, as Buddha proposes, there is no "me" and "mine" , then what naturally follows here is that in the 'ultimate reality' of things, there is no separation between self and other, because by definition, "me" and "mine" is a conditional view that can only arise in the context of another object, as in "I see my chair". The entire sensation, or experience of a "me" that we cling to is wholly dependent on some exterior reference point. "me" is experienced becuse there is an object that "me" experiences, and "me" is experienced as the experiencer of that thing. "I heard a loud noise and it startled me".

In actual application, the experience of 'ultimate reality' is referred to in contrast with this ordinary dual experience of self and other. So, for example, you can say "I see the chair" if in fact, you are looking at a chair. This is an ordinary approach. But of couse, if there is no "me" or "mine", meaning that ultimately no (unconditioned arising) self can be said to exist, then there is no ultimate "me' to see the chair. And, ultimtely there is no chair. It is only the temporary coming together of the events of conditions (things) which, until they rot away, appear as what we would call a chair.

[FelikTen]

The Buddha did not speak of any notion of "ultimate reality".

Is Dhamma-Niyama ultimate reality?

"Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All processes are inconstant.

"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: All processes are inconstant.

"Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All processes are unsatisfactory.

"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: All processes are unsatisfactory.

"Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All phenomena are not-self.

"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: All phenomena are not-self."

Dhamma-niyama Sutta

[verizon]

Sure, fokiao2, but what you are describing isn't "god", and that isn't this ontological "hidden truth of all things". Calling it "Ultimate Reality" makes things out to be way more complicated than they are, and the term get a lot of abuse in the Buddhist world, especially when it is combined with advaitaist notions of nonduality and even more when combined with later misrepresentations of the Dhamma that claim that it is metaphysical and concerns "the supernatural".

[stastony]

Is Dhamma-Niyama ultimate reality?

It is not nearly so complicated as notions of "Ultimate Reality". No ontology, no metaphysics, no "supernatural" speculations. It is simply an objective analysis of the way things are.

[adactthrd]

Sure, fokiao2, but what you are describing isn't "god", and that isn't this ontological "hidden truth of all things". Calling it "Ultimate Reality" makes things out to be way more complicated than they are, and the term get a lot of abuse in the Buddhist world, especially when it is combined with advaitaist notions of nonduality and even more when combined with later misrepresentations of the Dhamma that claim that it is metaphysical and concerns "the supernatural".

Oh, when did all this happen? And who said anything about a god?

[huerta]

I think this has to do more with what door one comes in through to the dharma (dhamma) than anything else. I always heard the terms "ultimate reality" and "non-dual" used, so it is very natural for me to use these terms when referring to "no such thing as "me" and "mine".

When somebody says there is "no such thing as "me" and "mine", then of course, this comes as a surprise to most people, who are likely to point to themselves and say, "well, here I am". So naturally the question arises, "if you claim there is "no such thing as "me" and "mine" then why is that? How can that be true? On what basis is this true?"

From this, an analytical approach reveals that whatever can be thought of as "me" and "mine" is merely a series of temporary events involving various things (sources of physical input, as in the case of material objects, and mental input as in the case of thoughts) and those things are also essentially temporary events involving other things, and so on, and so on infinitely.

"Ultimately", meaning where it is impossible to go any further, or where distinctions become moot, where we see that all conditions arise interdependently. There is no self because there is no other and vice versa. There is no "me" and "mine" means there is nothing intrinsically arising that can be found to be "me" and "mine" .

For me, this is not complicated. But perhaps, I don't know, maybe for you somebody else it conjures up all sorts of metaphysical meanings.

[iklostardinn]

Oh, when did all this happen? And who said anything about a god?

Rael did:

We all see reality in our lives, something that exists independently of ideas concerning it,even the Buddha.Some people see the Ultimate reality as god,others as the hidden truth of all things.Buddhist look for the truth and what is really real.

[viepedorlella]

Oh yes, you are right. I think that many people see the connectedness of things and whatever and call it God. They personify phenomena. To me, this doesn't matter very much. We call rain clouds "Cumulonimbus" but the Souix tribe may have called them the rain spirit. The words express different things, but both terms have the same result.

Many years ago, a friend of mine visiting from Taiwan asked me why was it, of all the United States presidents, that Abraham Lincoln was the only one to which people had built a temple. At first I wasn't sure what he meant. He was referring to the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. which, if you've grown up in a country full of Buddhist and Taoist temples, looks like a big temple. Also, people put flowers there, make 'pilgrimages' to it, go there for inspiration and sometimes talk to the giant seated Lincoln. So, in fact, he was right.

People who do not study Buddhist teachings will probably not understand the Buddhist concept of 'no self' and so they might call 'ultimate reality' God, but that doesn't make it a bad term.

It is not the rug's fault if somebody walks on it with muddy shoes.

[avaissema]

I think this has to do more with what door one comes in through to the dharma (dhamma) than anything else. I always heard the terms "ultimate reality" and "non-dual" used, so it is very natural for me to use these terms when referring to "no such thing as "me" and "mine".

When somebody says there is "no such thing as "me" and "mine", then of course, this comes as a surprise to most people, who are likely to point to themselves and say, "well, here I am". So naturally the question arises, "if you claim there is "no such thing as "me" and "mine" then why is that? How can that be true? On what basis is this true?"

But that's not really what the Buddha said. He said "this is not me, this is not mine, this is not my self." It's a whole lot simpler than a categorical "there is not such thing...", which can legitimately be challenged logically. Again, the Buddha was concerned not with metaphysics of ontology, but a practical method to find peace of mind.


From this, an analytical approach reveals that whatever can be thought of as "me" and "mine" is merely a series of temporary events involving various things (sources of physical input, as in the case of material objects, and mental input as in the case of thoughts) and those things are also essentially temporary events involving other things, and so on, and so on infinitely. The Buddha takes a simpler approach: "this is impermanent, this is not my self, this can lead to suffering."

"Ultimately", meaning where it is impossible to go any further, or where distinctions become moot, where we see that all conditions arise interdependently. There is no self because there is no other and vice versa. There is no "me" and "mine" means there is nothing intrinsically arising that can be found to be "me" and "mine" . And all the advaitaist/nondualist head-tripping isn't really necessary with the Buddha's approach. And we can see the Buddha speaking of self and other precisely in such teachings as the Veludvareyya Sutta: "...what is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too". And while some conditions arise interdependently (namarupa and vinnanam come to mind), not all do -- which is what makes paticcasamuppada work at all. Without the arising of upadna, there is no arising of bhava, and no jati and no dukkha. But again we see the difference between a metaphysical interpretation of paticcasamuppada (which the Buddha did not teach), and the practical approach to alleviating suffering that he taught.

For me, this is not complicated. But perhaps, I don't know, maybe for you somebody else it conjures up all sorts of metaphysical meanings. That is how the phrase is used widely in the Buddhist world. I don't use the phrase at all in connection with the Dhamma, precisely because it is loaded up with extraneous metaphysical and "supernatural" assumptions.

[barsikjal]

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?

[DenisMoor]

People who do not study Buddhist teachings will probably not understand the Buddhist concept of 'no self' and so they might call 'ultimate reality' God, but that doesn't make it a bad term.

The allusion was probably to the Vedic assumptions that preceded the Buddha (and largely infiltrated Buddhism after his death) of Brahma (their version of philosophy's "God") being the Ultimate Reality, and that the goal of the holy life was to seek "union with the Brahmin". Brahmins exerted a great deal of influence on Buddhist doctrine after the Buddha's death (for example, in the case of Buddhaghosa), and I think this notion of an "Ultimate Reality" crept in with that influence. When the Buddha spoke of "the way things are", he tended toward the word "tathana", rather than some notion of "Ultimate (vs. conventional, mind you) Reality".

[Guloqkcm]

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.

[UltraSearchs]

It is not nearly so complicated as notions of "Ultimate Reality". No ontology, no metaphysics, no "supernatural" speculations. It is simply an objective analysis of the way things are.

Well explained. Thanks

[oplapofffe]

But that's not really what the Buddha said. He said "this is not me, this is not mine, this is not my self." It's a whole lot simpler than a categorical "there is not such thing...", which can legitimately be challenged logically. Again, the Buddha was concerned not with metaphysics of ontology, but a practical method to find peace of mind.

Well explained. Thanks

You know, your post reminded me of this sutta, here, that I just read: Khemaka Sutta

I thought this was a really lovely, poignant & honest sutta.

With metta