[prpaims]

I have read two of Matthieu Ricard's books- The Monk and The Philosopher and The Quantum and The Lotus. For those who do not know, Matthieu is a molecular biologist turned Tibetan Buddhist monk. He has lived in Tibet and studied under the many great masters for over 40 years.

I have a few questions after reading these books. I would love to write to him with these questions but i can't find any address anywhere.

1.) Ricard is extremely adamant about the reader becoming aware of the "illusion of the self." He is adamant to the point of redundancy. He says it over and over and in every possible way. The is no "I", there is no "me", there is no "you", there is no "self". Fair enough...this is a fundamental conviction within Buddhism.

And yet, he is also very adamant there what does exist is a individual/unique stream-of-consciousness that each person has. He seems to imply that this stream of consciousness belongs to something by the very use of his terms. "You have an individual stream-of-consciousness", he states during one of his dialogues.

Wait a minute, what/who has a stream-of-consciousness? In Matthieu's opinion, you do.

Hold on, he has posited ad nauseum that there is no you. How can "you" have something when there is, in fact, no "you"? How can a nonexistent "you" be in possession of anything.

It's clear that the mere mention of a "self" is anathema to Ricard. He spends hundreds of pages trying to refute the notion, sometimes somewhat forcefully, yet always states that each person has an individual stream-of-consciousness. Each person's consciousness, in his words, is a continuity of conscious experience from life to life.

And even if you are the individual stream-of-consciousness itself (being it rather than possessing it), wouldn't we still just be quibbling over superficial labels and concepts. Couldn't one, for the sake of convenience, give a name to each individual and unique stream of consciousness such as "self" and even refer to it as "you", "me", or "I"? Your unique individual stream-of-consciousness is your self, and mine is my self.

Couldn't I refer to your infinite individual stream-of-consciousness as "you" and couldn't I use the term "self" as a term-- not for one's body, personality, or conditioned/temporal identity (ego)-- but for that individual stream-of-consciousness.


2.) In The Quantum and The Lotus, he speaks about the notion of a beginning as being absurd and illogical. He posits nothing, unequivocally nothing, exists that is uncaused. Everything exists due to the laws of cause and effect and interdependence. He states that all phenomena, all universal laws, all processes, all events and indeed EVERYTHING is contingent. Events, conditioned by the laws of cause-and-effect, stretch back for infinity. Once again, he states the NOTHING is uncaused.

My questions is, if everything is the result of a cause and nothing causeless truly exists, then what about the greater "process" itself? The process of the unfolding of events, phenomena, etc? If events have been unfolding for eternity without beginning, then this process of unfolding events is, by definition, uncaused.

Cause-and-effect events are sequential and could be thought of as dominoes, one tipping over into the other, bifurcating, branching out, creating webs, etc. Nonetheless, it is all a sequence, i.e., a continuous and connected series. Sequence inevitably implies movement and process.

This great movement or process of the unfolding of cause-and-effect events/phenomena could indeed by thought of as an event or phenomenon itself. Indeed, it is an event that contains all events and a phenomenon within which all phenomena occur (or the greater unconditioned phenomenon of the appearing and disappearing of conditioned phenomena) and it is itself uncaused.

3.) Ricard is very clear that the ultimate future for all sentient beings (i.e., all individual streams of consciousness) is to become purified and thus enlightened. The clear implication is thus: that the "goal" of each individual and particular steam-of-consciousness (don't you dare call it a "self") is to become enlightened. This is the denouement of an infinite number of lives we have lived, so says Ricard and many schools of Buddhism as a whole.

According to Ricard, and many schools of Bhuddhism, our individual streams-of-consciousness (don't you dare call it a "self")* never had a beginning. The incarnations that this individual stream-of-consciousness (don't you dare call it a self) have had are unlimited and infinite.

So, my question is this: How can you have a goal within infinity?

This may not seem like an incompatible scenario, but if you truly analyze this you will see that it is absurd and illogical.

What many Buddhists may not realize, is that when you eliminate a beginning, you eliminate an end. Not just an end in the usual sense of a termination of experience, but also an "end" in the sense of a goal, destination, denouement, climax, etc.

I don't have a problem with a beginningless existence. This is not what I am contesting.

If you never set off on your journey, then you have no ultimate destination. You can have relative goals but never an ultimate goal/event, in a string of events that has no beginning and has no end.

Since enlightenment depends on whether one darkens or purifies their individual stream-of-consciousness (don't you care call it a "self") and that this darkening/purification happens in the context of time-bound incarnations, what you have is tantamount to an ultimate temporal goal/event (temporal= of or related to time) in the midst of timelessness. This is a logical contradiction- a sheer contradiction in terms.

With enlightenment, you have the breaking of the chain of samsara- the cycle of death and birth, according to Buddhism.

Once again, if this process of incarnation via birth and death never began, it CANNOT end. A process can only end if it had a beginning.

Theoretically, Buddhism says that ALL sentient beings will eventually become enlightened and freed from suffering. The term "eventually" is once again a temporal reference. The natural question that might follow such a postulate is: when?

Each individual steam-of-consciousness (don't you dare call it a "self"), supposedly on its journey toward enlightenment, never actually began the journey. Or more precisely, they have ALWAYS been journeying. So far, it's been eternity. Actually the phrase "so far" doesn't even have any meaning in terms of eternity. Neither does the question "when?"

Time, in terms of an infinity of lives or an eternal flow of consciousness, has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. Eternity has no reference points.

The concept of sentient beings eventually becoming elightened, not to mention the ultimate goal event or end-state of enlightenment itself, is completely absurd and preposterous.

* Sorry if my "don't you dare call it a "self" notes became redundant. That, actually, was the point. That is how I felt reading many of his passages where he would seem to restate this in a hundred different ways.


4.) Matthieu Ricard said that all non-human sentient beings will eventually become enlightened, but that ultimately enlightenment can only come to fruition during a human incarnation. Aside from the blatant anthropocentrism, this entails a very serious problem and one that I have never seen examined in buddhist literature past or present.

Aside from the nonsensical "time" when that might occur (see question above) this would obviously mean with the enlightenment of ALL sentient beings, there would be no more animals, or any other non-human sentient beings for that matter.

And since all life forms are interconnected and interdependent, as Buddhism rightly observes, then there would no longer be a diversity of lifeforms and thus no biological life as we know it.

Matthieu Ricard says also that the number of individual streams-of-consciousness (don't you dare call them "selves") that exist (i.e. sentient beings) is without end. It too, interesting enough, is infinite.

So, once again how can you have ALL beings enlightened when there is an infinite number of them, all supposedly in varying stages of purification.
"All" or any references to numbers or quantities have equally no meaning in terms of infinity just as references to time have no relevant meaning in terms of eternity.

[w4HPpbSW]

I have a few questions after reading these books. I would love to write to him with these questions but i can't find any address anywhere

Hi philosophia,

You might be able to contact Matthieu Ricard at one of his website addresses or send a letter care of the book publishers.

I haven't read any of his books myself, but I know that he is respected by Tibetan Buddhists and in the wider community, so therefore we need to be mindful to debate the beliefs being questioned, rather than becoming over-critical of the person who is expressing them.

The above post is far too long - and should have been split into about 4 posts at least! You can still do this by using the editing facility .
. Additionally,its helpful to give some links to the texts you mention, or to a resource which makes similar statements, showing what it is that you disagree with...and maybe just ask the group one question at a time.

Later

I am moving this thread to the 'Beyond Belief' forum. I also forgot to mention that there's a 12 hour limit on editing.(but it tells you that anyway in the 'help' info found at the top of the main page)

Kind regards,

A-D

[TerriLS]

philosophia

It's not easy to respond to your post, as you have covered a lot of ground and you are talking about two books you have read and which I have not.

It seems to me that your argument is not with Matthieu Ricard himself, but with the teachings of Tibetan Buddhism.

First of all, it’s important to understand that what’s called reincarnation in Tibetan Buddhism has nothing to do with the transmigration of some “entity” like an autonomous "self". It’s not a process by which the same soul inhabits in succession the bodies of different beings.

As long as one thinks in terms of entities rather than function and continuity of experience, it’s impossible to understand the Buddhist concept of rebirth.

Over successive rebirths, what is maintained is not the identity of a “person,” but the conditioning of a stream of consciousness, it is said. If you couple the consciousness to the entity of a "being", you will come face to face with the illogical conclusions that your post is addressing.

It has been said many times in this forum that the Buddha did not teach the doctrine of reincarnation.

It is up to each of us to test the meaning of the Buddha's teachings ourselves. When you read someone else's conclusions, you are free to discard them if they do not resonate with you.

To go a little further, if the teachings of Tibetan Buddhism do not resonate with you, then the tradition is not for you.

There are other schools of Mahayana Buddhism, and there is Theravada Buddhism, too.

[effebrala]

As long as one thinks in terms of entities rather than function and continuity of experience, it’s impossible to understand the Buddhist concept of rebirth.

I don't think of the self as an entity, but indeed as a process. In terms of "function and continuity of experience"- what is experiencing the continuity of experience?

In order to experience, there needs to be an awareness of that experience. Thus, obviously, you need consciousness.

So, experience and consciousness are inextricably linked. Without consciousness, there is no experience. So, experience is something that happens to consciousness. It could be thought of as a happening within a happening.

So, either experience happens to something that is conscious, or it happens to consciousness itself. It would have to be one or the other. Since Tibetan Buddhism rejects something (i.e., an entity) that is conscious then experience, from that perspective, must be happening to consciousness itself.

Therefore, consciousness itself, is the self.

[sessoorale]

Ricard is extremely adamant about the reader becoming aware of the "illusion of the self." He is adamant to the point of redundancy. He says it over and over and in every possible way. The is no "I", there is no "me", there is no "you", there is no "self". Fair enough...this is a fundamental conviction within Buddhism. Yes.

As for the rest, about stream of consciousness, all beings attaining enlightenment, etc, just let it go. These things are also illusion or imagination (imo). They cannot be proved or verified, mere speculation they are.

The Buddha himself declared all consciousness is impermanent, arising & passing, and never mentioned a "stream".

[WebDocMan]

I don't think of the self as an entity, but indeed as a process.

Yes. The Buddha taught 'self' is a mental process of becoming or thought formation born from craving & ignorance.

In terms of "function and continuity of experience"- what is experiencing the continuity of experience? Memory, albeit imperfect. Can your mind remember everything it did, spoke & thought today? No

In order to experience, there needs to be an awareness of that experience. Thus, obviously, you need consciousness. Naturally

So, experience and consciousness are inextricably linked. Without consciousness, there is no experience. So, experience is something that happens to consciousness. It could be thought of as a happening within a happening. Yes & no. Consciousness facilitates experience but experience is actually happening to the mind (citta).

So, either experience happens to something that is conscious, or it happens to consciousness itself. It would have to be one or the other. Yes. The "other" here is the mind (citta)

Therefore, consciousness itself, is the self. No. Consciousness is just consciousness or awareness.

The "self" is a kind of illusory thinking or assumption.

The Buddha said:
There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form, feeling, perception, fabricating and/or consciousness to be the self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that. And that fabrication is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. That craving... That feeling... That contact... That ignorance is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....081.than.html

[chadnezzrr]

Element,

Ok, fair enough. But everyone has this sense of "me". They can theorize, hypothesize, postulate, philosophize and pontificate all they want, but that inherent sense of "I" will still be there. I would go so far as to say that it it will always be there for everyone, regardless of what they do or don't do, or how "enlightened" they are.

They can spend talk indefinitely about how there is no "I" or "me", but at the end of the day, this sense of "I" will always remain. It will remain even for someone who has dedicated their life to dispelling the illusion of it.

Memory is not what is experiencing experience. Even if you got knocked on the head and lost ALL memories and even lost the ability to form any memories, there would still be experience. And even if you lost all your past memories, you would still have the sense of "I", you just wouldn't have a story or a history to go with it.

[6M8PJigS]

The Buddha said:
There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form, feeling, perception, fabricating and/or consciousness to be the self. That assumption is a fabrication."

There's also another explanation which seems rather plausible. Maybe the Buddha was wrong. That seems like something that most Buddhists won't even consider because otherwise they wouldn't be Buddhists would they?

Element, is it possible that the Buddha was wrong? Or partially wrong? Is it not even a possibility, theoretically speaking?

Buddhists have a propensity to turn this man (which may or may not have existed) into a god. A god in the sense that he is infallible and inerrant in his conclusions and convictions. What you have here is analogous to the Christian glorification of their bible. They see the bible and inerrant and infallible even when they don't know whether it is or not.

Some may say, "Yeah, but the Buddha tells us to test his words and never to believe them because he says so." Christians say the same thing about scripture, but interestingly enough they continue to "believe" in it whether their tests reveal anything or not.

Surely there have been adherents to the path of Buddha that have tested his theories and conclusions, and found them to be wrong.

[GoveMoony]

Hello philosophia,

I read both books and another one which is the worse of the set. That last one is very like of those about New Age Easy Mysticism books like the ones of Deepak Chopra and the like. What Mathew is exposing in his two first books are just a very bad remake of the teachings of a Tibetan Religion that is very far away from the teachings of the historical Buddha... Sakyamuni Buddha... the one that was made of bones and flesh.

Tibetan religion, commonly known as Tibetan Buddhism, has blended some Buddhist ideas with Bö, the original religion of Tibetans in the time when they were a military culture before the arrival of Buddhism. It is highly shamanic, esoteric, ritualistic and magical. And that is because the cultural traits of Tibetan people. In that same way, many core Zen teachings have blended with the Taoist political and philosophical approach to mundane issues as a feature of the Chinese culture.

Buddhism should have been about the "best way and art of the practice the teachings of the historical Buddha" and not a kind of idealism mixing religion and philosophy. The Buddha just taught Dukkha, its understanding and its cessation and the core of this teaching is found and founded in the Four Noble Truths from where the Buddha developed the rest of them over a 40 year period.

The teachings are grouped in the Pali Canon which is the most pristine source of the teachings of the Buddha. To go to the source is the best way and the most wise attitude so to be sure about the real purpose of the teaching we are looking at and we are intend to practice. People that go to the source of the teachings of the Buddha go there because their (or our) main issue is about Dukkha, neither philosophy nor religion.

The most difficult aspect of the teachings of the historical Buddha is the idea of a self that has NO inherent existence but is in absolute dependence of a process clearly espoused by the Buddha in a large doctrine known as Dependent Origination which expouses, too, the Khandha doctrine which sets the idea of the self as a mind illusion or ignorant condition of the mind.

The Khandha teaching and the Dependent Origination is the hallmark of the understanding of why the self, felt as something with an inherent existence, is a very powerful illusion.

To know if the teachings of the Buddha are write or wrong is what, curiously the same Buddha encourages us. To test them. The Four Noble truths are neither a philosophical exposure nor an act of faith but a experience that should be tested by ourselves in an absolute privacy and this privacy is obtained thorugh meditation.

[DOWNLOADnowADOBEphotoSHOP]

is it possible that the Buddha was wrong?

Hi Philosophia,
Of course it's possible that Buddha was wrong. All of us should test the words of Buddha but also test our understanding of them.

On a mundane level, there is no sense of 'I' in deep sleep, rather it emerges as we wake up or enter the dream state. So even with this example you can see that it's impermanent and some kind of 'fabricated' thing.

Namaste
kris

[Nmoitmzr]

They can theorize, hypothesize, postulate, philosophize and pontificate all they want, but that inherent sense of "I" will still be there. I would go so far as to say that it it will always be there for everyone, regardless of what they do or don't do, or how "enlightened" they are.

The Buddha never told that "nothing is there" but that the self as a inherent entity is as illusory as to think that a rabbit has appeared suddenly in the hat of the magician.

[...]theorize, hypothesize, postulate, philosophize and pontificate[...]

Exactly, this are mental entanglements (of fabrications in the words of Buddha) that lead us to the idea of a inherent self, something that "is there". So, can we tell exactly where is such a "there"? That "there" is always changing, fading way and we tend to attach to it. If not, why stress? If not, why we change our mind all the time?

[...]this sense of "I" will always remain.

Exactly, it is a sense. It has no inherent substance. The quest is to know HOW, and just how, this sense comes to be so real for us.

So, experience is something that happens to consciousness.

Not exactly. Experience builds consciousness. Not only told by the Buddha but by all the theoretical edifice of Developmental Psychology that tells how consciousness is just a "by product" of experience and it is not just "given".

For example, in anthropology there is a reaserch field about how this thing called "consiusness" is socially build. Examples of feral children found in the wilderness show the kind of consciousness given by the experience of being reared by dogs, wolves or apes but not the kind of consiusness build up by human society. Once the have human social experiences they develop a kind of human social consiousness.

[joulseenjoync]

Hi Philosophia,
On a mundane level, there is no sense of 'I' in deep sleep, rather it emerges as we wake up or enter the dream state. So even with this example you can see that it's impermanent and some kind of 'fabricated' thing.

But remember, there is also no conscious experience in deep sleep so of course there is no sense of "I". Naturally the sense of "I" depends on consciousness and in deep sleep, one is unconscious. But as long as there is conscious experience, there will be a sense of "I" however one wants to define that sense- either as truly existing or inherently nonexistent. They can tell themselves that the sense is an illusion, but that does not prevent the sense from continuing. The fact that I know a mirage is an illusion doesn't prevent me from seeing, sensing it, and experiencing it all the same. Sure, it may not be water, but it is something. I may never know what is is, but I sense it nonetheless.

So is eternal and irrevocable "deep sleep"/unconsciousness the final end of this process of experience for "you" and "I"? I guess that Buddhist spirituality conforms exactly with materialist reductionism in this respect- in that the final analysis conscious experience will eventually yield to its own eternal and irrevocable extinction/annihilation.

[jelena-nanana]

To know if the teachings of the Buddha are write or wrong is what, curiously the same Buddha encourages us. To test them. The Four Noble truths are neither a philosophical exposure nor an act of faith but a experience that should be tested by ourselves in an absolute privacy and this privacy is obtained thorugh meditation.

Yes, but millions of dedicated hindu meditators (among others) have meditated for years and come upon a completely different conclusion- that of the ultimate Self, the Brahman.

[yasmin]

Yes, but millions of dedicated hindu meditators (among others) have meditated for years and come upon a completely different conclusion- that of the ultimate Self, the Brahman.

True, also in some Soto Zen traditions there is the illusion that through Zazen we can reach an ultimate realm a kind of Atman. If that is your quest hinduism is right for you. If your quest is about Dukkha, hinduism is not the correct choice.

Meditation, in the teachings of the Buddha, are about watching and contemplation of how our mental fabrications arise and fade away so to still the mind and become mindful about this ultimate aspect of reality.

[RokeIdeadioke]

For example, in anthropology there is a reaserch field about how this thing called consiusness is socially build. Examples of feral children found in the wilderness show the kind of consciousness given by the experience of being reared by dogs, wolves or apes but not the kind of consiusness build up by human society. Once the have human social experiences they develop a kind of human social consiousness.

I think we may possibly be confusing a particular shaping of consciousness with consciousness itself. Consciousness itself is essentially an all or nothing proposition, although it can be shaped/molded. It can be dimmed, brightened, expanded, contracted, or essentially shaped in any way but the primary "substance" of consciousness itself remains the same.

[Sanremogirl]

True, also in some Soto Zen traditions there is the illusion that through Zazen we can reach an ultimate realm a kind of Atman. It that is your quest hinduism is right for you. If your quest is about Dukkha hinduism is not the correct choice.

You refer to that conviction within Soto Zen traditions it as an illusion? They would say the same of Dukka hinduism.

No, I am not a Hindu. In fact I am not attached to any particular religion, philosophy, path, etc. I just think its important to remind people that one person's illusion is another person's truth, which shows that ultimately all "knowledge" gained through contemplation, introspection, meditation is relative and subjective.

[Starichok]

It can be dimmed, brightened, expanded, contracted, or essentially shaped in any way...

This is posible just because it does not has an inherent existence.

but the primary "substance" of consciousness itself remains the same.

Yes. This substance is known as mental fabrications. Remains because is a by product of experiences, perceptions and feelings.

[siklop]

You refer to that conviction within Soto Zen traditions it as an illusion?

Yes... but I told that just some of them. Zazen, in accordance of what the Buddha taught, is about contemplation. Contemplation of what? Of how mental fabrications arise and fade so not to be attached to them and not to point them as having an inherent nature.

[jackie Obrian]

Yes. This substance is known as mental fabrications. Remains because is a by product of experiences, perceptions and feelings.

So you are stressing the primacy of experiences, perceptions, and feelings. They are fundamental to, and produce consciousness?

They are the objects of consciousness. How do the objects of consciousness actually produce the state of being conscious? This seems rather skewed.

[bpejjssoe]

Yes... but I told that just some of them. Zazen, in accordance of what the Buddha taught is about contemplation of how mental fabrications arise and fade so not to be attached to them and not to point them to an inherent nature.

Arise and fade within what? Something that also arises and fades?