After a deep meditation experience, I think I realized the key to understanding the deeper teaching of the Buddha for myself. It took me about a week to find a way to put it words, but I came up with the following: “Everything we believe is untrue. Even this.”
Alternatively: "Every belief or conception is an oversimplification of complex reality (chaos theory)".
If the Buddha says something is wrong view, wrong belief, delusion, he actually means it is useless, ultimately leading to Dukkha.
If the Buddha says something is a right view, right belief, truth, he actually means it is useful, leading to the cessation of Dukkha.
Is this is interpretation justified?
Is this a valid interpretation of Buddhism?
Is this a valid interpretation of Buddhism?
Last edited by Maarten2 on Sun Jul 01, 2012 8:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
May you all become enlightened.
- Goofaholix
- Posts: 4015
- Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
- Location: New Zealand
Re: Is this a valid interpretation of Buddhism?
I would have said "Every belief, conception is an over-complication of simple reality."Maarten2 wrote:“Everything we believe is untrue. Even this.” Every belief, conception is an oversimplification of complex reality, if you will (see chaos theory).
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
Re: Is this a valid interpretation of Buddhism?
That was just a way of putting it words, actually "reality is simple", "reality is wrong", "today is sunday" are all believes which are not true (but also also not wrong). I hope that made it less clear.I would have said "Every belief, conception is an over-complication of simple reality."
EDIT: I think I found a less Zen, more mathematical way of putting it: "Under the assumption that reality is simple, every believe is a complexification of reality. Under the assumption that reality is complex, every believe is a simplification. Without any assumption nothing can be said.".
Last edited by Maarten2 on Sun Jul 01, 2012 10:11 am, edited 2 times in total.
May you all become enlightened.
Re: Is this a valid interpretation of Buddhism?
I might have said, "There are no words which do not mis-represent reality."Goofaholix wrote:I would have said "Every belief, conception is an over-complication of simple reality."Maarten2 wrote:“Everything we believe is untrue. Even this.” Every belief, conception is an oversimplification of complex reality, if you will (see chaos theory).
Kim
Re: Is this a valid interpretation of Buddhism?
The problem is there is no way of saying it without contracting yourself, but I think the idea is clear enough now. Anyway, I originally posted it in classical Theravada, because I was hoping some provide concrete sutta reference for or against this view, especially the interpretation of wrong and right believes.Kim O'Hara wrote:I might have said, "There are no words which do not mis-represent reality."
May you all become enlightened.
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: Is this a valid interpretation of Buddhism?
depends on conventional or ultimate level.Maarten2 wrote:“Everything we believe is untrue. Even this.”
or over-complication sometimes something seams simple yet we over complicate it, and sometines something seems complex yet we over simplify it.Alternatively: "Every belief or conception is an oversimplification of complex reality (chaos theory)".
There is what is given, there is mother & father and spontaniously born beings, there are results for good and bad actions...If the Buddha says something is wrong view, wrong belief, delusion, he actually means it is useless, ultimately leading to Dukkha.
If the Buddha says something is a right view, right belief, truth, he actually means it is useful, leading to the cessation of Dukkha.
seams both factual and useful form of right view is being described.
I would say "how we see things may not be in-line with the dhamma. Even this"
meaning even if it is true, there may be a dissonance in the understanding.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Re: Is this a valid interpretation of Buddhism?
Never mind. This question was not phrased well. I will find more concrete sutta references for my point of view and ask it again.
May you all become enlightened.
Re: Is this a valid interpretation of Buddhism?
‘Misschien is niets geheel waar, en zelfs dát niet’
Multatuli
Multatuli
Mettāya,
Kåre
Kåre
- reflection
- Posts: 1116
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm
Re: Is this a valid interpretation of Buddhism?
In a way, yes, if ´belief´ refers to conceptual belief. A conceptual belief, for example based on words, is always wrong.
However, through the practice of the path, we can have experiences that show the way the mind works. These experiences give us a belief that is not conceptual, because it is based on a direct encounter with the truth. If it was a real insight and not a mistaken one, these beliefs are not untrue. Of course, unless we start to put them into words again.
That´s why all the suttas are wrong in a way, but right in another way. The buddha tried to explain his experiences in words. But words never become the truth. Just like someone describing the way something looks to a blind person, it is on another dimension.
However, through the practice of the path, we can have experiences that show the way the mind works. These experiences give us a belief that is not conceptual, because it is based on a direct encounter with the truth. If it was a real insight and not a mistaken one, these beliefs are not untrue. Of course, unless we start to put them into words again.
That´s why all the suttas are wrong in a way, but right in another way. The buddha tried to explain his experiences in words. But words never become the truth. Just like someone describing the way something looks to a blind person, it is on another dimension.
Re: Is this a valid interpretation of Buddhism?
It is my point of view (not necessarily rooted in teaching of the Buddha) that this is just conceptualizing on a deeper level.reflection wrote:However, through the practice of the path, we can have experiences that show the way the mind works.
May you all become enlightened.
Re: Is this a valid interpretation of Buddhism?
Hello Maarten2,
Personally I believe this: Every word is about something. Word is not the object itself.
Saying "food" will not feed you, saying "hot" will not warm you. To say "sweet" is different from actually putting sugar on your tongue.
The same event can be called using different words. Words are not inherent in the phenomenon, but are social agreements...
So the problem with philosophy is that it can be merely juggling of these words which may not even point to anything existing...
Personally I believe this: Every word is about something. Word is not the object itself.
Saying "food" will not feed you, saying "hot" will not warm you. To say "sweet" is different from actually putting sugar on your tongue.
The same event can be called using different words. Words are not inherent in the phenomenon, but are social agreements...
So the problem with philosophy is that it can be merely juggling of these words which may not even point to anything existing...
Re: Is this a valid interpretation of Buddhism?
I think what you yourself said above should be applied to what you are putting forward here:Maarten2 wrote:It is my point of view (not necessarily rooted in teaching of the Buddha) that this is just conceptualizing on a deeper level.reflection wrote:However, through the practice of the path, we can have experiences that show the way the mind works.
So with theories, insights and understandings - do they lead to cessation of Dukkha? We experience something and then we think about it, theorize about it, try to encapsulate the insight into words and get a handle on reality as it is now, post-insight. Putting down all handles, theories, and concepts is almost impossible, but I guess the more we focus on the actual task at hand, the less important these handles, theories and concepts become.If the Buddha says something is wrong view, wrong belief, delusion, he actually means it is useless, ultimately leading to Dukkha.
If the Buddha says something is a right view, right belief, truth, he actually means it is useful, leading to the cessation of Dukkha.
Or at least, this is my theory!
_/|\_
Re: Is this a valid interpretation of Buddhism?
First to clarify we are on the same page: what I mean with conceptualizing is any form of interpretation or generalization of sensual stimuli.
The following is one view, not necessarily mine:
The following is one view, not necessarily mine:
The following is another view, again not necessarily mine:Assuming there is no ultimate reality [to be gasped by the human mind] is a view that might be helpful, because it leads to detachment and tolerance.
"Conceptualizing less" is an important tool in Buddhism. Without conception there can be no perception, thus stopping to conceptualize entirely leads to the highest meditative attainment of "neither perception nor non-perception". However, Conceptualizing is a bad thing if and only if it leads to attachment to concepts. One can't stop conceptualizing permanently (in ones lifetime), but if one becomes mindful about the fact that one is conceptualizing, that person can stop clinging to concepts (including ones views, ones believes and the self itself).
May you all become enlightened.
Re: Is this a valid interpretation of Buddhism?
Maarten2,
This might be of help: Kaccayanagotta Sutta: To Kaccayana Gotta (on Right View), http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Regards
Ringo
This might be of help: Kaccayanagotta Sutta: To Kaccayana Gotta (on Right View), http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle.
Regards
Ringo
Re: Is this a valid interpretation of Buddhism?
Hi Ringo, Maarten,
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=11269" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
In brief, the commentators I quoted there see it as talking about eternalism vs annihilationism, not a commentary on "reality".
Mike
It may help, but be sure to read the discussion here about what "existence" and "non-existence" means:ringo wrote: This might be of help: Kaccayanagotta Sutta: To Kaccayana Gotta (on Right View), http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=11269" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
In brief, the commentators I quoted there see it as talking about eternalism vs annihilationism, not a commentary on "reality".
Mike