Buddhism Midterm

Draw one idea from the Transmission of Mind narrative and be ready to share your thoughts with the class.

Don't aspire to Buddhahood. Don't cling to anyone. Sunlight is near, but it also pervades the cosmos. If they put "a stop to conceptual thought and forget their anxiety, the Buddha will appear before them, for this Mind is the Buddha and the Buddha is all living beings." Void is not really void but Dharma. Strong bias against concepts. Concepts fail.

How are the five skandhas portrayed in the Heart Sutra?

Form (rupa), sensation, perception, volition, and mind or consciousness. They are empty. "All things are by nature empty."

How are we to resolve the apparent inconsistencies and contradictions of the Dhammapada?

Given to people in different circumstances and at different levels of understanding. And even a single person may have a variety of needs that cannot be fully addressed from a single perspective. Milk before meat. Sometimes Buddha admonishes us to attain the kind of merit that leads to a heavenly or favorable birth; other times to repudiate all concern with merit and demerit.

Draw one idea from The Two Paths sermon and be ready to share your thoughts with the class.

Happiness and suffering arise from temporary conditions, but since the conditions are temporary, they will pass, so we should not be exult or sorrow. "If you are not stirred by the winds of joy or sorrow, you are in silent accord with the Way. This called accepted worldly conditions." You are in the world but not swept up by its ever-changing circumstances. Also, we need to learn to be virtuous "without being conscious of being virtuous."

Two kinds of truth:

conventional and ultimate. A chariot is conventionally real; on closer inspection, however, we discover that it is not ultimately real because it depends on parts and causes for its existence. We call it real because "chariot" is a shorthand way of referencing an assemblage of parts, and we don't want to get bogged down in enumerating all the parts and causes. The self is a conventionally true entity, a useful fiction. Taking it too seriously results in dukkha.

According to Huang-Po, who or what is the Buddha, and how does one achieve Buddhahood (enlightenment)?

"All the visible universe is the Buddha." "The One Mind alone [which is like a boundless void] is the Buddha, and there is no distinction between the Buddha and sentient things but that sentient beings are attached to forms and so seek externally for Buddhahood. By their very seeking they lose it."

What attitude does this poem enjoin toward opposites? What attitude does it enjoin toward unity and plurality?

"Don't live in a world of opposites." "Don't even cling to the One." Evidently because clinging to the One assumes that you are something other than the One. Emptiness seems to be the way to achieve this non-dualist state of mind. Don't discriminate, don't differentiate. Let your mind be the perfect sponge. The sponge that becomes what it absorbs. "Enlightenment has no likes and dislikes."

Draw one idea from the Lin-chi Record and be ready to share your thoughts with the class.

"If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha" (p. 49). Don't cling to the Buddha.

Draw one idea from Selected Poems by Chinese Nuns and be ready to share your thoughts with the class.

"The most the ancient holy ones can do is scrub your back; When has a bodhisattva ever illuminated anyone's mind. If you want to realize the stage beyond impurity, You should sweat from every last pore of your body." (p. 64) "Once the mind becomes unattached to things, all things become pure." (p. 67) "If within there is no self, then each and every thing is intimate." (p. 68) "And now no longer cling to existence or nonexistence." (p. 71)

How does the Kanzeon Sutra cut against the grain of early Buddhism?

"The sixth line is a fairly common Mahayana inversion of terms from early Buddhism (eternal instead of impermanent, joyous instead of suffering, existing instead of absence of self, and pure instead of impure). The third word literally is "self" but in many translation is transformed into "selfless." In effect, this line is another way of contradicting what the Heart Sutra also contradicts through its lengthy string of negations."

How does the Heart Sutra characterize enlightenment?

"There is no suffering, origination, annihilation, or path; there is no cognition, no attainment, and no realization." Whereas early Buddhism emphasized the impermanence of things, the Heart Sutra proclaims emptiness (sunyata) as the fundamental characteristic of all things, and insists that an experiential understanding of sunyata can lead to awakening.

What three historical phases of Buddhist philosophy will Siderits discuss in his book?

(1) Early Buddhism, the teachings of Buddha and his immediate disciples; (2) Abhidharma: the development of rigorous metaphysical and epistemological theories growing out of the attempt to give consistent, systematic interpretations of the teachings of early Buddhism. (3) Mahayana: philosophical criticism of aspects of Abhidharma doctrines, together with an alternative account of what Buddhist metaphysics and epistemology should look like.

Explain the fourfold schematism for understanding the Dhammapada and while doing this also explain or define kamma, rebirth, samsara, Nibbana, the Four Noble Truths, dukkha, Sangha, and the four stages of attainment or enlightenment.

1st level: happiness and well-being in the here and now, inclusive of others and mindful of our future circumstances. 2nd level: Present world topsy turvy. Good people often suffer and bad people often prosper. What is the long-range value of goodness? Buddha teaches that there is long-range value. All actions come to fruition, as regulated by an "impersonal universal law" known as kamma. Like seeds planted in a garden, some karmic seeds ripen more quickly than others. Kamma not fate, but volitional action. We freely make choices with regard to behavior and thought, and those choices leave subtle imprints on the mind, and on the universe, which eventually come to fruition under the right circumstances. 3rd level: What one needs to do to achieve final deliverance, Nirvana. Come to understand the Four Noble Truths and practice the Noble Eightfold path. In Theravada Buddhism this often entailed joining a sangha, an order or monks or nuns who devote themselves to achieving deliverance. Asceticism and renunciation of worldly pleasures, often to include family. 4th level: "No new disclosure of doctrine or practice, but an acclamation and exaltation of those who have reached the goal. 4 stages of enlightenment: (1) Stream-enterer—one who has gotten his first glimpse of Nirvana and enters irreversibly upon the path to liberation. Will return to the wheel of rebirth no more than seven times before achieving Nirvana. (2) Once-returner. Individual will return the human world at most only one more time. (3) Non-returner. Person will never come back to human existence, but will be reborn on a celestial plane, "bound to win final deliverance there." (4) Arahat. Perfected One. Holy One. Called a "brahmana" in the Dhammapada. Will, at death, enter Nirvana. A source of wisdom and inspiration to all others.

Elaborating the three levels of Buddhist morality, explain why we should strive to be good, moral persons.

(1) Moral rules reflect karmic laws. There are consequences, good and bad, to the things we do. This is a very basic level of morality, and it appeals to people principally concerned with avoiding pain and achieving pleasure and happiness in this world. These are people not actively seeking nirvana but a more pleasant rebirth. (2) Three poisons, greed, hatred, delusion (sometimes called ignorance), and these are self-perpetuating. The eightfold path is designed to wean away us away from these, to counteract the three poisons. This is a higher level of morality, one adapted to people seeking nirvana. (3) Concern for the welfare of others and highest level of morality. Benevolence. Doing what we can to help others avoid pain. To be no less concerned with the welfare of others than with our own welfare. This concern will come naturally once we realize that there is no self. So we begin trying to reduce the quantity of suffering in the world, not just in "my" life. Suffering, we realize, is "ownerless."

Explain the Four Noble Truths.

(1) Suffering or dukkha; (2) Suffering has a cause; (3) Because suffering has a cause, it can be "uncaused" or uprooted; and (4) There is a path (8-fold path) to the cessation of suffering. (1) Suffering is not mere physical pain but existential suffering arising from the transitory nature of our existence: dissatisfaction, frustration, boredom (Schopenhauer), alienation, and despair. (2) Suffering is not real because it is caused. It does not intrinsically exist but only as other things give birth to it. (3) In conjunction with (2), this is good news. Because suffering is caused and dependent on things other than suffering, it can be snuffed out, extinguished. Nipped in the bud. (4) Following the Eightfold Path is the way to extinguish suffering.

Rehearse the doctrine of Non-Self and the arguments that support it.

1. If there were a self, it would be permanent. 2. None of the skandhas is permanent. 3. We consist solely of the five skandhas (a premise smuggled in). Conclusion: There is no self. 1. If there were a self, one could never desire that it be changed. 2. Each of the five skandhas is such that one can desire that it be changed. Conclusion: There is no self.

What are the three levels of suffering? Why might we mistake the third level as an escape from suffering when in fact it is just more of the same?

1st level: ordinary pain, like toothache. These things hurt at the moment, but they also remind us that our lives are not free of pain. 2nd level: This level specifies all negative experiences resulting from impermanence. What we are, what we have, is perishable, because these things are caused: they do not exist intrinsically, and therefore they do not exist eternally. 3rd level: Pursuit of happiness carries us from one birth to the next. We might suppose that the next rebirth will put us in a situation where all our desires in this life are satisfied. But even if that were the case, even if we found ourselves at the very heart of paradise, we would then have to face the prospect of death. We ourselves are impermanent and therefore not fitted for eternal happiness. When we see this we feel a sense of cosmic ennui. This is the big picture, but even in the big picture of things, there is no allowance for permanent happiness. Solution: get off the treadmill.

Rehearse the rebirth-karma objection to the Buddha's concept of non-self. How do Buddhists overcome this objection?

A fire is not one big thing, or if it is, it is only conventionally so. Rather a fire is a progression of many little fires. Think of a grass fire. For a moment one blade of grass burns, then dies, but not before igniting another blade. Our karmic seeds may last only a moment, but in that moment they give birth to other karmic seeds, and so on. Different karmic seeds, or different skandhas, mark each moment, but the illusion of continuous "I" persists across all those discontinuities.

Explain Buddhist cosmology—how Buddhists view the universe.

A universe in process. Heraclitean. Fluid, flowing. All thing impermanent. Beginningless, and endless. No creator or moment of creation. No providential God attending to our welfare and looking after our interests.

What is the Dhammapada and why was it compiled?

Collection of sayings of Buddha, widely read among Buddhists, particular Theravada Buddhists (Theravada means "doctrine of the elders"). Dhamma means "doctrine," "truth," and pada means "foot," implies way or path. Written in the Pali language, the language of early Buddhism.

Hoping to attain nirvana, I decide to live wholly in the present moment—that is, I decide to become a punctualist. What is wrong with this approach?

Because there are future consequences to what I do now. What "these skandhas do will affect the welfare of future skandhas." If we think of ourselves conventionally as persons, we protect our conventional selves. Might say we care for future skandhas without falling for the hunch of selfhood.

. Situate Zen among the schools of thought we have talked about. Who was Bodhidharma and what role did he play in the establishment of Zen (Ch'an) in China? What other streams of thought (besides Buddhism) have blended into it? In what ways did these other streams impact Indian Buddhism to produce a "new" school of Buddhism?

Buddhism began developing in China in the 4th century A.D. Bodhidharma, from south India, arrived in the early 5th century A.D., introducing Mahayana Buddhism, a branch that originated about two centuries before the birth of Christ. He introduces Zen Buddhism, which travels from China to Korea and Japan. Zen blends in with native beliefs and practices. In China it merged with Taoism and Confucianism, producing a system of thought "that is both embedded in nature and active in human society." The Confucian work ethic militated against the Indian Buddhist practice of begging, and inclined Zen monastics to farming and other kinds of hard physical labor and sometimes menial tasks. Zen masters sometimes decry words—both spoken and written—but nevertheless excel in expressing themselves verbally.

Why the tremendous emphasis in Buddhism on meditation? Is meditation alone sufficient to facilitate enlightenment? Why or why not?

Buddhism generally said to cut a middle path between wisdom (philosophical inquiry) and meditation. Philosophy alone is insufficient to achieve Nirvana since even if we know something in a propositional sense, we may not know, realize, or feel it experientially. Meditation required to bring home the truth of wisdom. We may reason that there is no self, but this is one's conventional self reasoning, and at the level of philosophical analysis, the dharma doesn't really sink in. In fact I may be so caught up in the brilliance of the analysis that all I do is reinforce my sense of self. But meditation helps me see "how impermanent mental states actually do all the work that we imagine could only be done by an enduring self." Philosophy (wisdom) aids the practice of meditation by giving me the conceptual tools to make sense of my meditative experience. The two go hand in hand.

In what sense may Buddhism be considered a religion and in what senses (there is more than one) may it not satisfy our (Western) preconception of what a religion is?

Buddhism is not concerned with the worship of deity. Not polytheistic nor monotheistic. It is, however, concerned with salvation or liberation from pain. Moreover, some people regard religion as an irrational, non-rational, or extra-rational affair, but Buddhism (generally speaking) prizes reason. It is part of the toolkit by the aid of which one achieves salvation. Buddhists are asked to rationally interrogate the teachings of Buddha, not just take them on faith. And the general stance is that we are not saved through superhuman intervention. We save ourselves, with the help of others and through adherence to the Four Noble truths.

Siderits points out the some early Buddhists were certainly wrong in their belief that material bodies were composed of atoms consisting of earth, air, fire, and water. He adds, though, that this mistake need not be taken as a reason not to study Buddhism. Explain.

Buddhist ethic, epistemology, and metaphysics can be profitably studied independently of Buddhist cosmology. Aristotelian cosmology was wrong, we now believe, but other elements of his philosophy are still very relevant.

Explain how a Buddhist's sense of morality probably differs from a Christian's.

Buddhists don't think of moral rules as divine commandments. And, along with that, they don't worry about God seeing their secret sins.

Briefly explain the twelve-linked chain of origination. That is, try to distill it down to two or three sentences.

Ignorance of what is happening, sensory stimulation which triggers attachment to impermanent entities, disappointment and pain as things don't work out, attachment to a new set of entities as a way of easing the pain, and the cycle goes on. More succinctly, ignorance, unenlightened response to our circumstances, disappointment, in the pain of the moment another unenlightened response to our circumstances, and so on.

Buddhists and Hindu often charge that Westerners misunderstand the doctrines of karma and rebirth. Explain these ideas as they are understood in the East.

Karma an impersonal cosmic law. Not divine retribution for our sins because there is no divine being administering or enforcing the law. It just is. It is descriptive rather than prescriptive. If I do not overcome my attachments in this world, those attachments will suck me into another incarnation. Further, karma is not meant to offer relief to the question, "If a man die, will he live again?" He will live again, but living again, cyclic existence, is the problem Buddha tried to resolve. Nothing romantic or exciting about reincarnation. Important to note that karma and reincarnation just part of the Indian landscape. Not a religious creed that Buddhists had to adopt.

Saying 291 reads: A monk asked, "What is my self?" The master said, "Have you eaten your breakfast or not?" The monk said, "I have eaten." The master said, "Then wash out your bowls." Help us understand what is going on here.

Maybe, since there is no self or non-self, the initial question is irrelevant.

Laying down a pattern that many later Zen masters would emulate, Bodhidharma was known for his disinclination to talk, intellectualize, and lean on others for enlightenment. Identify passages to this effect.

Meditate in front of a wall until you discover there is no distinction between you and the wall (the practice of wall-gazing). And, when the emperor asked him how much merit he had, Bodhidharma responded "None." "What is the first principle of sacred truth?" "Nothing sacred, vast emptiness." "Who then is facing me?" "Don't know."

What role does mind (and heedfulness) play in one's quest for liberation, according to Buddha?

Mind is foundational. Must learn to discipline it, control it. It is the forerunner, the determinant, of all that we are. Must tame our minds.

Westerners often wonder about and misunderstand nirvana. Explain what it entails. Do those who attain nirvana become extinct? Can one achieve nirvana prior to death? Is nirvana a joyful state?

Nirvana means extinction. Not extinction of self, because there is no self to extinguish, and this realization is the basis of Nirvana. But extinction of suffering, and extinction or cessation of rebirth. But Nirvana is not nihilism, annihilationism, or the reduction of everything to utter meaninglessness. Buddhism cuts a middle path between eternalism and annihilationism. Nirvana can occur before death, as "cessation with remainder," or cessation of the accumulation of new karma with residual karma ("remainder") keeping the present life going. At death then one experiences Nirvana as "cessation without remainder." Nirvana often depicted as a state of "quiet happiness."

How does the anti-reflexivity principle undermine, or seem to undermine, the concept of self? Explain the shifting coalitions strategy response to the anti-reflexivity principle.

No thing can operate on itself, can work its distinctive magic on itself. The eye is made for seeing, but can't see itself directly, and surely it can't see itself seeing. The nose can't smell itself smelling. The hand can't touch itself touching. So there can't be a governing entity governing itself—there can't be a self. The shifting coalitions strategy posits that the skandhas take turns controlling the others, takes turns performing the executive function. Thus it seems that the three criteria are satisfied: (1) a person is nothing other than the five skandhas; (2) I can perform the executive function on each of the skandhas; and (3) An entity cannot operate on itself (the anti-reflexivity principle). "I" in this case does not refer to a single, enduring thing. The word "I" is a convenient designator, a useful fiction. If you want to pretend that there is a single, enduring entity, that is fine, but remember it's just a pretense.

One interpretation of Buddhism holds that we are all one, or, as a Beatles' song puts it, "I am you, and you are me, and we are all together." Is this correct? Why or why not?

Not correct. Certain Indian philosophers (Advaita Vedanta) argue that we are all one, but they hold that there is a self and that we are all, at bottom, the same self, a universal self. But Buddhists deny self altogether, whether one universal self or many individual selves. The idea of a universal self engenders compassion for others, but so also does the idea of no self. Either way we can't individualize suffering, we can't selfishly focus on "my" suffering. We see it as a universal problem.

Explain Milinda's principle. How does Nāgasena modify or correct this principle?

Numerically distinct skandhas make for numerically distinct persons. Nagasena corrects this idea by insisting that ultimately there are no distinct persons. There is no "I" who has a string of different experiences. Our psychological states are ownerless. Milinda's principle doesn't make sense because it would imply that at every moment we have a brand new person, and so how can we hold people accountable for their actions, or reward them for their good deeds?

How does the principle of lightness play into the doctrine of non-self?

Ockham's razor. Don't invoke observables unnecessarily. So don't invoke a self unless there are no other options. But there are other options.

How does suffering arise?

Our ignorance of the three characteristics of existence—suffering, impermanence, and non-self—leads to assume we have selves. (For a little kid just learning to talk "mine" and "me" are powerful words.) And once we see ourselves as possessing selves, we try to carve out a niche for ourselves in the world by stockpiling goods and accomplishments that can never, owing to their impermanence, slake our thirst for happiness. We attach ourselves to things that change and perish, and, lacking an enduring self, we change and perish as well. Nirvana occurs as we divest ourselves of these attachments. We are in the world, but we are not egotistically invested in it. The eightfold path is the key to overcoming suffering, but certain techniques or methods allow us to move along the eightfold path. Meditation, philosophical analysis, or some combination of both. Zen Buddhists often hold that Nirvana can be achieved through meditation alone, while some Theravada Buddhists argue that philosophical inquiry alone can project one into Nirvana. Buddha seems to have taken the middle path between meditation and philosophical analysis. Another middle path is between eternalism and annihilationism (nihilism), the former view that the self exists eternally and the latter that it exists for a time but suffers destruction. The middle path here is that it does not exist at all, that "all of life's continuities can be explained in terms of facts about a causal series of psychophysical elements."

Are our lives inherently meaningless, according to Buddhism?

Our lives are not inherently meaningless or meaningful because that assumes there is an enduring self or subject for whom meaning is an issue, and such does not exist. "There is no one whose life either has or lacks meaning. There is just life."

Explain the paradox of liberation and further explain how we might be able to escape the paradox.

Paradox concerns the quest or desire for Nirvana and the fact that desires are generally thought to be part of the problem, what we wish to eliminate in order to reach Nirvana. Must act indirectly. Adopt something like the accidental or incidental theory of happiness. Don't achieve happiness by headlong pursuit, but by helping others and forgetting oneself.

Briefly outline the practices of Zen monastic life; that is, those practices which have been developed to help one reach enlightenment.

Physical labor, menial tasks done mindfully and carefully. Zazen or sitting meditation. Walking meditation. Ceremonial observances, often requiring one to bow and chant at length. Koans, which are "living words" rather than the "dead words" of doctrine. Those who share or contemplate koans often wish to overcome duality, or to get past the three poisons—delusion, greed, and hatred. Example: "How do you do zazen while driving a car?" And sometimes, philosophical analysis.

Distinguish between qualitative sameness and numerical sameness.

Qualitative sameness—they share the same qualities; they are alike. Numerical sameness: they are one and the same thing. E.g., the morning star and the evening star. Two mass-produced T-shirts are qualitatively alike but numerically different or distinct. A person can undergo significant qualitative change while retaining numerical identity. We can survive qualitative change.

Explain how the third noble truth follows from the second noble truth.

Since dukkha has an origin, a cause, it can be eliminated. Dukkha is only conventionally real, not ultimately. Since it is caused, it can be un-caused.

Explain the five skandhas. Rehearse the argument involving skandhas which concludes that there is no self. Do you find the argument persuasive? Why or why not?

Skandhas are 1. rupa (form), 2. sensation (of pain, pleasure, and indifference), 3. perception, 4.volition (the mental forces responsible for bodily and mental activity), and 5. consciousness. We consist only of the five skandhas, and none of these are the self. Therefore we are empty of self. But, Siderits points out, this argument assumes the five skandhas are exhaustive, which might not be right. There might be something else to our being, unobserved. Another argument: all the skandas are impermanent, but the self, if it existed, would be permanent. Since every part of us is impermanent, nothing about us can be the (permanent) self.

This is a very iconoclastic (where "iconoclasm" means breaking the sacred icons of one's belief system) narrative. Identify some of the iconoclastic passages and pass judgment on them. What, if any, is the value of this kind of disruptive, even violent behavior?

Some people say that hitting novices teaches them to let go of the past, of what just happened. Don't cling to what I just said or did, or what you just said or did.

One poem ends with the following line: "It is only recently that I have mastered the art of being a complete fool." What virtue is there in becoming a fool? That is, why should anyone want to become one? Can you think of anyone who aspired to foolishness?

St. Paul, the Fool in the Tarot deck, the Beatles' "Fool on a Hill."

Do you think that the Buddha is being overly pessimistic? Why of why not?

The Buddha says the happiness-seeking project cannot be sustained in the long run. This would be depressing if there were no alternative. But he says there is an alternative: Get off the treadmill. Nirvana.

As Buddhists use the word what is meant by "self"?

The essence of a person—the one part whose continued existence is required for that person to continue to exist.

Distinguish between conveniently true and ultimately true statements. How does this distinction allow Buddhists to get out from under the charge that the Buddha on occasion contradicts himself when speaking of selves and non-selves?

The former are acceptable statements that lead to successful practice. The latter correspond to facts and do not rely on or presuppose conventionally true statements. Conventionally true statements tend to obscure the nature of reality.

Explain how the four sights relate to the first noble truth.

The four sights are an old person, a sick person, a corpse, and a wandering renunciant. The first three sights signify the fact of human mortality, and the existential crisis that results from this fact, while the fourth represents the possibility of averting this crisis.

If we choose to identify the self with the mind, what difficulty do we run into as we contemplate the nature of mind? Nevertheless, how does the idea (illusion) of mind originate?

The mind is not permanent—The very nature of mind, at least as we directly experience it, is fluidity, change. Our thoughts, feelings, and observations are always flowing, changing. If we suppose the mind to be a stable receptacle in which all this occurs, we can't observe it empirically. It seems we only imagine it. If we focus on those things at hand, they are moving, changing. Nevertheless we want to grab on to something permanent, so we assume that over and above the thoughts themselves, there is some sort of enduring entity. This is like conferring reality on a flock of birds independently of the birds themselves. You have twenty birds, say, and then over and above the twenty birds, you have a flock of birds. A category mistake.

Draw one idea from Hui-neng's autobiography in the Platform Sutra and be ready to share your thoughts with the class.

The stanza on p. 26. Non-sentient beings do not sow karmic seeds and therefore are not reborn. We, sentient beings, should be like them in this one respect—we do not cling to things and therefore do not sow karmic and are not reborn. Also, "Likes and dislikes are the mind's disease."

Rehearse the theory that traces suffering back to the fact of our (and everything else's) impermanence. Why is this theory wrong, and what is the real cause of our suffering?

The theory assumes erroneously that I have a self, even if it is an impermanent self, for whom things, even impermanent things, can have significance. The real reason I suffer is because I have no self at all, but ignorantly suppose that I do. "I" am not even mine, let alone this bicycle, say. There is nothing about me over and above experiences, no me that owns them or derives intrinsic value from them. Owner-less, self-less existence.

Why do some scholars reject the claim that the Buddha was a philosopher?

There is the question of whether Buddha categorically denies the existence of a self that transcends that is empirically given, namely the five skandhas or psychophysical elements (form or matter (Rupa), sensation, perception, mental formation or volition, and consciousness, which is the action and interaction of the previous four skandhas but not the self, not something over and above them). We have no evidence that he did, but we do know that he rejected the idea that any of the skandhas was the self. So he may have left open the possibility that we do possess selves, but such are not empirically given. If this was his intent, then it may be argued that he felt that the self could not be grasped by philosophical inquiry. Such inquiry is an obstacle to Nirvana and should be repudiated. On this interpretation, Buddha was opposed to philosophy. The difficulty here is that Buddhists have traditionally assumed that Buddha denied the existence of self. Another reason for supposing that Buddha was not a philosopher is that he shied away from speculating about issues that lack evident practical application. He seems to have been almost exclusively concerned with overcoming suffering, and often dismissed or refused to answer questions that were not directed toward that end. Nevertheless, various philosophical traditions flowered in his wake, and some of these we study in this course.

. In his stanza the head monk Shen-hsui portrayed the mind as a bright mirror on a stand that requires periodic dusting. The "barbarian" Hui-neng, however, states that the "bright mirror has no stand" and there is no place where dust can collect. Explain what is going on here.

To say that the mind is a bright mirror on a stand is to portray as something other than what it reflects—that's why dust can collect on it. But to portray is as a bright mirror on which no dust can collect is to suggest that it is nothing apart from the dust and the world itself. So an overture toward non-dualism.

Draw one idea from Chao-chou's Recorded Sayings and be ready to share your thoughts with the class.

To seek the path toward Buddhahood is to deviate from it. A dog does not have a Buddha nature because "he has the nature of karmic delusions." The master has but one tooth, and the novice asks how he is able to eat. "Even though there's but one, I chew one bite at a time," replies the master.

To what extent should we be like children who learn to think of their life as a story held together by an enduring self?

To some extent. Much child-rearing is concerned with getting children to think beyond the present moment, to reflect on their past misdeeds or kindnesses, and to think about the future consequences of their present actions. So to some extent it's okay to imagine ourselves as a character in a story, because if we behave correctly we reduce the quantity of suffering in the world. But if we take the story too seriously, then we are liable to increase suffering in the world. So we have to unlearn the story or myth through realization that the self is a useful fiction but continue the practice of caring for future skandhas. "The enlightened person avoids the pain of tooth decay, just like the rest of us. But the enlightened person also avoids existential suffering."

Explain also why it is a mistake to say that arhats who attain nirvana are extinguished or annihilated.

When a fire is extinguished, where does it go? The question makes no sense. The fire can only go someplace if it already existed. But it never existed ultimately in the first place, only conventionally. The fire was just a series of causally-related micro-events, no one of which existed intrinsically but only as it momentarily borrowed existence from some other such micro-event.

Some people say that nirvana is ineffable. Explain how this misunderstanding arises.

When the Buddha was asked about the post-death status of an Arhat, he listed four possibilities: (1) he exists; (2) doesn't exist; (3) exists and doesn't exist; and (4) neither exists nor does not exist. Buddha rejects all four possibilities. Whatever its answer may be, the question agitates the mind, and therefore militates against the attainment of nirvana. If the Buddha were to decide on one answer, we would attach ourselves to that answer, and that attachment would keep us from nirvana. The Buddha seems to value rational thought only insofar as it helps us solve the practical problem of eliminating suffering.

Rehearse the tetralemma regarding the possible existence or non-existence of an arhat (so-called perfected person or one who has attained nirvana). Why might the Buddha lead us into such a thicket of apparent confusion? To what extent did he value rational thought?

When the Buddha was asked about the post-death status of an Arhat, he lists four possibilities: (1) he exists; (2) doesn't exist; (3) exists and doesn't exist; and (4) neither exists nor does not exist. Buddha rejects all four possibilities. May value rational thought only insofar as it helps us solve the practical problem of eliminating suffering.

What in turn is the Buddhist response to the shifting coalitions strategy? (As illustrated in the King Milinda-Nāgasena dialogue.)

Words like "I" and "chariot" are just convenient designators which allows us to talk in a shorthand way about an assortment of parts. Early Buddhism, says Siderits, seems to have a bias against wholes.