Is Buddhism a form of mysticism?

[crossfire]

I think your question has been adequately answered by Crossfire. Once you start on this there is no end. It is OK for us Hindus, we have discussed this non-stop for more than 3,000 years and are not going to stop anytime soon. But Buddha smartly side-stepped it.

Yeah, but you guys have the atman, so it's easier for you.

Buddhism uses the apophatic approach of anatta. The apophatic approach is widely adopted by mystics, as it can continue on further than the cataphatic approach when language and words break down,--when language is unable to positively describe. (All the more evidence of similarities between Buddhism and mysticism.)

 

[Papoon]

You wanted a debate. Buddha said this is useless since it does not help in cessation of sorrow.

No, I didn't want a debate. I was correcting a common misrepresentation of Gautama's teaching, for the sake of readers on RF who are interested in precisely what Buddhism teaches.

 

[Papoon]

To clarify that further - correct understanding of anatta is a crucial aspect of the path to cessation of dukha. As Crossfire pointed out, Gautama made it clear that assertions of there is a self OR there is not a self are both incorrect interpretations of anatta, which clearly and only states that the aggregates are not self.
This is not debate, it is simply presentation of what Gautama actually said.

 

[sayak83]

I sometimes view it as such.

Mystics are welcome to comment.

Buddhist tradition has a rich repertoire of both mystical and rationalistic thoughts (just as Hindu thought does) and what you like depends on what your preference is. While book like that from Dalai Lama,
Thich Nath Hahn focus more on the mystical/spiritual/relogious aspects of Buddhism, there exists lots of very interesting books on the more rationalist works of philosophy penned by Buddhists such as Nagarjuna, Dignaga, Dharmakirti etc. They make important and innovative contributions to epistemology, ontology and phenomenology or experience. Example
http://www.amazon.com/Buddhism-as-Philosophy-An-Introduction/dp/0872208737

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Gautama made it clear that assertions of there is a self OR there is not a self are both incorrect interpretations of anatta, which clearly and only states that the aggregates are not self.

But do the suttas describe anything "beyond" the aggregates which is self? I don't think so.

Note that the Dhammapada includes "sabbe dhamma anatta", which seems unambiguous.

 

[crossfire]

But do the suttas describe anything "beyond" the aggregates which is self? I don't think so.

Note that the Dhammapada includes "sabbe dhamma anatta", which seems unambiguous.

Water Snake Simile calls basis for consciousness as "untraceable," and refers to the Purana where Indra and Pajapati go in seach of the Atman and cannot find it, yet such a person is obviously conscious in the here and now.

"And how is a monk a noble one with banner lowered, burden placed down, unfettered? There is the case where a monk's conceit 'I am' is abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. This is how a monk is a noble one with banner lowered, burden placed down, unfettered.

"And when the devas, together with together with Indra, the Brahmas, & Pajapati, search for the monk whose mind is thus released, they cannot find that 'The consciousness of the one truly gone (tathagata) [11] is dependent on this.' Why is that? The one truly gone is untraceable even in the here & now. [12]

"Speaking in this way, teaching in this way, I have been erroneously, vainly, falsely, unfactually misrepresented by some brahmans and contemplatives [who say], 'Gotama the contemplative is one who misleads. He declares the annihilation, destruction, extermination of the existing being.' But as I am not that, as I do not say that, so I have been erroneously, vainly, falsely, unfactually misrepresented by those venerable brahmans and contemplatives [who say], 'Gotama the contemplative is one who misleads. He declares the annihilation, destruction, extermination of the existing being.' [13]​

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Water Snake Simile calls basis for consciousness as "untraceable," and refers to the Purana where Indra and Pajapati go in seach of the Atman and cannot find it, yet such a person is obviously conscious in the here and now.

"Speaking in this way, teaching in this way, I have been erroneously, vainly, falsely, unfactually misrepresented by some brahmans and contemplatives [who say], 'Gotama the contemplative is one who misleads. He declares the annihilation, destruction, extermination of the existing being.' But as I am not that, as I do not say that, so I have been erroneously, vainly, falsely, unfactually misrepresented by those venerable brahmans and contemplatives [who say], 'Gotama the contemplative is one who misleads. He declares the annihilation, destruction, extermination of the existing being.' [13]​

Presumably because there was never really any existing being or "person" to annihilate?

As the Vajira Sutta says:
"Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found. Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So, when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.'"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.010.bodh.html

 

[crossfire]

*doh* it's an Upanishad, not a Purana Buddha was referring to. sorry.

 

[crossfire]

Presumably because there was never really any existing being or "person" to annihilate?

As the Vajira Sutta says:
"Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found. Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So, when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.'"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.010.bodh.html

It's not traceable, so any view would be speculation.

 

[crossfire]

The only way to approach the basis for consciousness without resorting to speculation would be via investigating the chain of interconnected causes, imo.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It's not traceable, so any view would be speculation.

It looks like consciousness / mind which is being described as untraceable, but in any case there is no suggestion of self or "true self" or whatever.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The only way to approach the basis for consciousness without resorting to speculation would be via investigating the chain of interconnected causes, imo.

In the suttas consciousness is described as arising in dependence on sense-base and sense-object, eg eye-consciousness arises in dependence on eye and visible form. That does seem to correspond with experience.

 

[crossfire]

In the suttas consciousness is described as arising in dependence on sense-base and sense-object, eg eye-consciousness arises in dependence on eye and visible form. That does seem to correspond with experience.

Indeed. I'm not aware of any suttas describing the basis for unconsciousness, except as a lack of sensory consciousness. I'll have to do some investigating on suttas regarding the basis for dreams when you are not conscious.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I'll have to do some investigating on suttas regarding the basis for dreams when you are not conscious.

I assume that would be related to mind-consciousness. It might be worth distinguishing between lucid dreaming and the memory of dreams upon waking.

I think in some schools of Buddhism there is the idea of "subtle consciousness?"

 

[crossfire]

Interesting: I just found a reference to a tradition that arahants never dream.

 

[crossfire]

Found this:

The Uddesavibha"nga Sutta explains the nature of consciousness and the general cognitive attitude of an arahant:[41]

1. The consciousness of an arahant is not scattered and diffused in the external world (bahiddhaa vi~n~naa.na.m avikkhitta.m avisa.ta.m) ; this becomes possible because he does not indulge in the enjoyment of sense objects.
2. His consciousness is not established within (ajjhatta.m asa.n.thi.ta.m): this is possible because he does not become attached to the enjoyment of the jhaanas.
3. He remains unagitated without grasping (anupaadaaya na paritassati): this means that he does not identify himself with any of the five aggregates or personality factors.

The Mahaasa.laayatanika Sutta explains more fully the cognitive experience of an arahant from the angle of sense experience.[42] The arahant realistically understands the nature of sense faculties, sense objects, sense consciousness, sense contact established by the convergence of these three factors, and the resulting sensations of pleasure, pain, and hedonic neutrality. He does not get attached to any of these factors. When he lives without deriving pleasure and without getting attached to perceived sense objects and without being deluded by the process of sense perception, recognizing the evil consequences of sense perception, the five aggregates of grasping or the personality factors do not get built up. They fall apart, as craving which leads to rebirth is totally eliminated. All physical and mental tensions (darathaa), torments (santaapaa), and fevers (pari.laahaa) are destroyed. The arahant experiences perfect physical and mental bliss.

We are not quite sure exactly what is meant by the realistic understanding of the nature of sense faculties, but we might suppose that an arahant intuitively understands, through the framework of his own personality, how the sense stimuli pass through sense receptors and nerve fibers and are interpreted at brain centers. Modern science explains to a certain extent the physiological processes involved in the activity of sense perception, but this understanding is confined at best to the intellectual level and is dependent on technological devices in medical laboratories. Such knowledge cannot bring about the attitudinal and emotional changes which are necessary for liberation. An arahant's understanding springs from a deeper experiential level with direct vision into the whole perceptual process as explained, for instance, in the Madhupi.n.dika Sutta.[43]​

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/desilva/wheel407.html

 

[crossfire]

Sankhara-khandha. Karma is intention. Our unconscious mind will keep on until we consciously become aware of it. Go figure.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Sankhara-khandha. Karma is intention. Our unconscious mind will keep on until we consciously become aware of it. Go figure.

So does an Arahant cease to have a personality traits? Or is it just the identification with personality traits that ceases? I mean there wouldn't be unskillful mental states like craving and aversion, but presumably there would be a range of skillful mental states.....

 

[crossfire]

So does an Arahant cease to have a personality traits? Or is it just the identification with personality traits that ceases? I mean there wouldn't be unskillful mental states like craving and aversion, but presumably there would be a range of skillful mental states.....

One would hope so. (regarding the skillful mental states)

 

[sayak83]

I assume that would be related to mind-consciousness. It might be worth distinguishing between lucid dreaming and the memory of dreams upon waking.

I think in some schools of Buddhism there is the idea of "subtle consciousness?"

Yep. This is the famous Alaya-Vijnana or "repository consciosness" posited by the Yogacara/Vijnanavada school (Asanga etc.) I am still fighting with Buddhist suttas and Nagarjuna's Madhyamika. But here is a take on the repository consciosuness theory of the Yogacara tradition.

The theoretical developments that led to the notion of repository consciousness (ālaya-vijñāna), which is associated with the Yogācāra School, are already foreshadowed in these Abhidharma debates about how best to account for continuity in the mental stream and the efficacy of accumulated karmic potential. The notion of repository consciousness appears perhaps for the first time in Asaṅga’s encyclopedic work, Stages of the Practice of Yoga (Yogācārabhūmi, cf. Schmithausen 1987, 12, 18). The new type of consciousness, closely connected with the living body, retains much of the original use of vijñāna to designate both consciousness and cognition. The function of the repository consciousness is explained in a seminal Yogācāra work such as theSutra Explaining the Profound Meaning (Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra, V. 2, Lamotte 1935, 230) as having the primary function of ‘descending’ in the mother's womb, ‘appropriating’ the sensory systems and their respective cognitive support, and thus creating the predisposition toward mental proliferation (cf. Waldron 2003, 95 and passim).

Very advanced ideas for something written 1900 years ago! Anyways, read the rest of the summary in section 5.5 here
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-indian-buddhism/#5.5
I hope to read the primary literature eventually.
Ok, back to Nagajuna.