Socrates used to walk through the streets and say to his students, “You must understand yourself! You must understand yourself! You must understand yourself.” Then one day a student said, “Sir, you always say we must understand ourselves. But do you understand yourself?” “No, I don’t know myself,” Socrates replied. “But I understand this ‘don’t know.’” If you experience that, you will understand, Avalokiteshvara, Allah, the Holy Spirit, Brahman......your true self........
The sutras are just words "pointing" to something. What are they pointing to? There is an old poem: Blue sky and green sea Are the Buddha’s original face. The sound of the waterfall and the bird’s song Are the great sutras. Where are you going? Watch your step. Water flows down to the sea. Clouds float up to the heavens.
The Key difference between Buddhism and other religions is that in Buddhism if one chooses to believe in Avalokiteshvara only figuratively it doesn't matter much; the message of the sutra is essentially unchanged. On the other hand, if your a Muslim (no disrespect to their wonderful religion), you generally don't have much of a choice but to believe in Allah in some kind of literal manner (which isn't a bad thing if you're Islamic).
Generally, it's true that experience, not the stories or ideas, is the way to go. Yet is it not true that even experience itself is not wholly reliable either? What we experience may also be part of the dream, because the way we're built, the way the brain is structured, our nervous system (and so on) conditions the experience. Who knows? The way the body (brain) is structured may only offer us a limited number of vantage points. The human body is not necessarily such a great vehicle for the "truth", whatever "truth" may be. Even without the stories and ideas, our cultural conditioning, there's no way of being certain that what we see, what we experience is wholly accurate, because of the body's limitations. I may see a table in front of me (I'm using "me" here to communicate merely), denuded of the stories and opinions, yet with 10 senses, say, I would perhaps see something totally different. It depends on what is meant by "truth". I'm reminded of this gentleman's point that zen is about returning to the "not-knowing mind", so uncertainty (as expressed here) may make for genuine progress. While that is certainly true, the basic point remains: that even direct experience (denuded of stories and opinions) does not ensure accurate perception (in the sense that MUCH may be left out).
I've done quite a bit of zazen. I've read parts of the pali sutta pitaka, studied in a Vietnamese Zen group for almost a year, read the diamond sutra, heart sutra and parts of the lankavatara. I've done kinhin and I even had a dokusan. Ive read books on Buddhism by Walpola Rahula and others. I still don't understand what suggests beyond a reasonable doubt that Avalokiteshvara is any more real than Allah or the Holy Spirit or Brahman.
I understand that they are metaphorical to a great extent, however there are also a lot of specific details and nuances in the sutras and suttas which seem to point out a more literal interpretation. I often question how Buddhists can believe in Avalokiteshvara and bodhisattvasa and Buddha-beings and hungry ghosts and yet pass their traditions off as being much more scientifically inclinced and intellectual than Christiand and the other Abrahamic faiths. How do you know with certainty that Jizo
Not all Buddhists believe that Avalokiteshvara is real. I'm willing to bet most traditional Theravada Buddhists haven't even heard of him; he's more of a Mahayana thing. Of those who do know his name, many don't believe him to be an actual entity per se, rather he is a personification of the compassionate aspect of the mind, or the aspects of the Universe that bring out compassion in an enlightened mind.
he talks so much about relativism differentiating truth and knowledge from opinion and subjective experience... but what about the sutras? arent they always true and infallible to a buddhist?
... or other bodhisattvas exist? you talk about opinion vs truth. couldnt the idea that enlightenment is possible, or that suffering can be ended be an opinion rather than the truth? what if suffering is necessary in human life to some degree? How do you know that enlightenment isnt just wishful thinking? And given this possibility why become a monk and throw the rest of your life into the hands of a possibility that may simply not be true. what if bodhi is a false promise?
It's not what you do......it's why you do it. If this why is clear, there is no failure or false end.
Socrates used to walk through the streets and say to his students, “You must understand yourself! You must understand yourself! You must understand yourself.” Then one day a student said, “Sir, you always say we must understand ourselves. But do you understand yourself?” “No, I don’t know myself,” Socrates replied. “But I understand this ‘don’t know.’” If you experience that, you will understand, Avalokiteshvara, Allah, the Holy Spirit, Brahman......your true self........
The sutras are just words "pointing" to something. What are they pointing to? There is an old poem:
Blue sky and green sea
Are the Buddha’s original face.
The sound of the waterfall and the bird’s song
Are the great sutras.
Where are you going?
Watch your step.
Water flows down to the sea.
Clouds float up to the heavens.
The Key difference between Buddhism and other religions is that in Buddhism if one chooses to believe in Avalokiteshvara only figuratively it doesn't matter much; the message of the sutra is essentially unchanged. On the other hand, if your a Muslim (no disrespect to their wonderful religion), you generally don't have much of a choice but to believe in Allah in some kind of literal manner (which isn't a bad thing if you're Islamic).
Generally, it's true that experience, not the stories or ideas, is the way to go. Yet is it not true that even experience itself is not wholly reliable either? What we experience may also be part of the dream, because the way we're built, the way the brain is structured, our nervous system (and so on) conditions the experience. Who knows? The way the body (brain) is structured may only offer us a limited number of vantage points. The human body is not necessarily such a great vehicle for the "truth", whatever "truth" may be. Even without the stories and ideas, our cultural conditioning, there's no way of being certain that what we see, what we experience is wholly accurate, because of the body's limitations. I may see a table in front of me (I'm using "me" here to communicate merely), denuded of the stories and opinions, yet with 10 senses, say, I would perhaps see something totally different. It depends on what is meant by "truth". I'm reminded of this gentleman's point that zen is about returning to the "not-knowing mind", so uncertainty (as expressed here) may make for genuine progress. While that is certainly true, the basic point remains: that even direct experience (denuded of stories and opinions) does not ensure accurate perception (in the sense that MUCH may be left out).
Most Buddhists I've met have INSISTED upon the LITERAL existence of bodhisattvas and pure lands, etc.
I've done quite a bit of zazen. I've read parts of the pali sutta pitaka, studied in a Vietnamese Zen group for almost a year, read the diamond sutra, heart sutra and parts of the lankavatara. I've done kinhin and I even had a dokusan. Ive read books on Buddhism by Walpola Rahula and others. I still don't understand what suggests beyond a reasonable doubt that Avalokiteshvara is any more real than Allah or the Holy Spirit or Brahman.
I understand that they are metaphorical to a great extent, however there are also a lot of specific details and nuances in the sutras and suttas which seem to point out a more literal interpretation. I often question how Buddhists can believe in Avalokiteshvara and bodhisattvasa and Buddha-beings and hungry ghosts and yet pass their traditions off as being much more scientifically inclinced and intellectual than Christiand and the other Abrahamic faiths. How do you know with certainty that Jizo
I guess I just tend to be a skeptic, and I'm inclinced towards a Socratic deduction of logic.
Not all Buddhists believe that Avalokiteshvara is real. I'm willing to bet most traditional Theravada Buddhists haven't even heard of him; he's more of a Mahayana thing. Of those who do know his name, many don't believe him to be an actual entity per se, rather he is a personification of the compassionate aspect of the mind, or the aspects of the Universe that bring out compassion in an enlightened mind.
Lot's of questions!! What is, "Avalokiteshvara? " You said "I" here six times. What is this "I"?
he talks so much about relativism differentiating truth and knowledge from opinion and subjective experience... but what about the sutras? arent they always true and infallible to a buddhist?
... or other bodhisattvas exist? you talk about opinion vs truth. couldnt the idea that enlightenment is possible, or that suffering can be ended be an opinion rather than the truth? what if suffering is necessary in human life to some degree? How do you know that enlightenment isnt just wishful thinking? And given this possibility why become a monk and throw the rest of your life into the hands of a possibility that may simply not be true. what if bodhi is a false promise?