Antinomianism

No holds barred discussion on the Buddhadharma. Argue about rebirth, karma, commentarial interpretations etc. Be nice to each other.

Re: Antinomianism

Postby oushi » Wed Nov 20, 2013 3:30 pm

Muddy water is not cleared through pushing away mud, but through not stirring it. That is the whole difference. If you put effort in clearing the water you will stir the mud.
:stirthepot:
User avatar
oushi
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am
Location: Chrząszczyrzewoszyce

Re: Antinomianism

Postby dharmagoat » Wed Nov 20, 2013 3:32 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:As an analogy, the true nature of water is clear.
If it is clouded by mud, this doesn't change water's true nature.
Water's true nature will always be clear, regardless of whether it is cloudy or not.
but unless the mud is removed, that clear nature won't bee seen.

:good:
oushi wrote:Muddy water is not cleared through pushing away mud, but through not stirring it. That is the whole difference. If you put effort in clearing the water you will stir the mud.

:anjali:
These two quotes have it covered.
User avatar
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: Antinomianism

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Wed Nov 20, 2013 4:16 pm

oushi wrote:Muddy water is not cleared through pushing away mud, but through not stirring it. That is the whole difference. If you put effort in clearing the water you will stir the mud.
:stirthepot:


My teacher uses this analogy when referring to meditation, allowing the mind to rest.
So yes, you are right. effort is uselsess.
but lots and lots of no effort....
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Antinomianism

Postby duckfiasco » Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:07 am

oushi wrote:Muddy water is not cleared through pushing away mud, but through not stirring it. That is the whole difference. If you put effort in clearing the water you will stir the mud.
:stirthepot:

If I had made no effort to stir the mud, I'd likely be dead from suicide for several years now.
For me, it's been more like pulling out the shopping carts and car tires, the gross causes of suffering.
They do nothing but keep algae and mud mixing around in eddies.
Once they're removed, the water has a chance to clear.
Until then, suffering remains acute and our actions only compound it further.

I think sometimes we're eager to get to the ultimate and we discount the conventional.
Without some application of relative methods like ethics, counting the breath, we don't see the ways that we're constantly kicking up the mud, constantly throwing more tires and shopping carts in.
Our habits are totally transparent to us without something to compare them to, e.g. the precepts, specific teachings, etc.

Anyway, that's what I wanted to say. :rolleye:
Please take the above post with a grain of salt.
User avatar
duckfiasco
 
Posts: 379
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:11 am
Location: Oregon

Re: Antinomianism

Postby oushi » Fri Nov 22, 2013 7:46 am

duckfiasco wrote:I think sometimes we're eager to get to the ultimate and we discount the conventional.

I make no such distinctions, because everything we speak of, is conventional.
duckfiasco wrote:Our habits are totally transparent to us without something to compare them to, e.g. the precepts, specific teachings, etc.

Bingo! Without knowing about paradise, you would not desire it, and not suffer from earthly life. It is because of the desire to be faster, stronger, better... suffering arises. By not accepting what is now, we desire a great life in future. Suffering is caused by the difference between what you have, and what you want, no matter what the aspect or volume of the thing desired. Adding some virtues to the wish list ain't gonna solve the problem, because the problem is caused by the method, not the object. Because through thoughts you are able to imagine a "better" state in the future, you perpetuate your becoming. This is all covered in Buddhas teachings, but people grab solutions without knowing the problem. Everyone here knows dozens of methods for practice, but if I ask what dukkha really is, even scholar will argue with each other.
duckfiasco wrote:They do nothing but keep algae and mud mixing around in eddies.
Once they're removed, the water has a chance to clear.

Oh really? Carts or tires do not make eddies... the struggle to find and remove them does.
User avatar
oushi
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am
Location: Chrząszczyrzewoszyce

Re: Antinomianism

Postby oushi » Fri Nov 22, 2013 8:24 am

A good friend of mine, sent me this yesterday:

First 10 minutes of this lecture explains precisely what is the problem here.

"what was evil was turned to good and what seemed good kept alive the forces of evil. -Jung"
User avatar
oushi
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am
Location: Chrząszczyrzewoszyce

Re: Antinomianism

Postby jeeprs » Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:42 am

I loved Alan Watts but he could have benefitted from self-restraint when it came to liquor.
He that knows it, knows it not.
User avatar
jeeprs
 
Posts: 1427
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Antinomianism

Postby oushi » Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:44 am

jeeprs wrote:I loved Alan Watts but he could have benefitted from self-restraint when it came to liquor.

How do you know that? What benefits are there to acquire?
User avatar
oushi
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am
Location: Chrząszczyrzewoszyce

Re: Antinomianism

Postby jeeprs » Fri Nov 22, 2013 10:46 am

Not dying from excessive alcohol consumption whilst still in your fifties would be a good start.

As I said, I like Alan Watts. His writing was excellent, he was an original thinker, but he really didn't 'walk the walk'. In the last period of his life he drank a bottle of vodka every day 'to fill up the nothingness', I think was the phrase that Monica Furlong quoted in her biography. He was also not beyond reproach in his relationships with women.

So in the context of the discussion, that is relevant. He could have been a lot less 'antinomian' and I think his health would have benefited from it.
He that knows it, knows it not.
User avatar
jeeprs
 
Posts: 1427
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Antinomianism

Postby oushi » Fri Nov 22, 2013 12:29 pm

jeeprs wrote:Not dying from excessive alcohol consumption whilst still in your fifties would be a good start.

Good for what?
As I said, I like Alan Watts. His writing was excellent, he was an original thinker, but he really didn't 'walk the walk'.

He did not walk the walk others imagined he should walk.
He could have been a lot less 'antinomian' and I think his health would have benefited from it.

The whole notion of "benefit" is a twisted one, because it does not have a foundation. That is why I ask those simple question. To show that benefits are not only illusory, but are the very source of the illusion. Immediate reaction to "Benefit" is "desire". Often it is enough to label something as beneficial, and it will automatically make people desire it.
Since nothing is permanent, every benefit is temporal, and creates suffering, because the more you treasure something, the more you suffer from loosing it.
User avatar
oushi
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am
Location: Chrząszczyrzewoszyce

Re: Antinomianism

Postby seeker242 » Fri Nov 22, 2013 1:12 pm

Muddy water is cleared by making the effort to stop stirring the water to begin with. The water has been continually stirred for the past 10,000 eons. Make the effort to stop doing that and it stops being muddy.

:namaste:
One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!
User avatar
seeker242
 
Posts: 648
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Location: South Florida, USA

Re: Antinomianism

Postby Ayu » Fri Nov 22, 2013 1:20 pm

matthewmartin wrote:Antinomianism is Christian an exercise in mental gymnastics that lead to the conclusion that ethics don't matter.

Now, I'm just an amateur, but I keep coming across spirited arguments in Zen & Tantra that imply ethics don't matter. In Zen's case, it's something about non-dualism and how right and wrong, moral and immoral are artificial distinctions & it is all the same. In Tantra, it's the bit about breaking conventional moral rules to ... something, something about using the power of forbidden things to achieve conventionally meritorious things.

Set me straight. What are the arguments, facts or what have you that Buddhist metaphysics doesn't ultimately lead to antinomianism. (And what is the word for antinomianism in the Buddhist traditions?)

Thanks

On the path to becoming a bodhisattva ethics DO matter. They are one of 6 Paramitas (excercises) to reach completion.

Sometimes i hear also reasons like: "Because everything is empty, it doesn't matter if you lie - nothing is real or true, so you can lie as you like." Such thinking is completely messed up.
Because, if our mothers, who have been kind to us
From beginningless time, are suffering,
What can we do with (just) our own happiness?
From 10th of 37 Bodhisattva Practices
User avatar
Ayu
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:25 am
Location: Europe

Re: Antinomianism

Postby duckfiasco » Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:59 pm

I appreciate what you're saying, oushi, but I think I'm not being skillful in explaining what I mean.
All I know is had I tried to jump straight to more profound teachings like you suggest, I would not be here today.
Doing nothing is simply not a viable approach for some people deeply mired in suffering who already believe they're not doing anything, that it's a cruel world or people or society that inflicts pain on them, or any other wrong view that deepens their pain.

Some people need to do it "wrong" first with precepts and ideals, just to stop thrashing around in samsara long enough to realize there's another way.
Please take the above post with a grain of salt.
User avatar
duckfiasco
 
Posts: 379
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:11 am
Location: Oregon

Re: Antinomianism

Postby smcj » Fri Nov 22, 2013 7:06 pm

Sometimes i hear also reasons like: "Because everything is empty, it doesn't matter if you lie - nothing is real or true, so you can lie as you like." Such thinking is completely messed up.

That's the classic mistake of the nihilist. With a slightly different emphasis and phrasing it is a characterization of the absolute.
On the path to becoming a bodhisattva ethics DO matter. They are one of 6 Paramitas (excercises) to reach completion.

That's a causal vehicle perspective, which can safely be said to be provisionally valid by definition.

*************************************************************************

There does seem to be scripture that says there is a level beyond good and evil, and that level is present in the here and now. And there are scriptures that say one needs to accumulate merit in order to gain realization. I don't see a conflict.

My analogy is the space program. In space there is no up or down. Yet to get into orbit, where one can experience the lack of up and down, one needs to aggressively travel 'up'. But once in orbit you can see that 'The Universe' has no absolute up or down, and that fact can be seen as retroactively true even when walking around on planet Earth. However effectively one is still well advised to be aware of gravity and the dangers of falling down while walking around on planet Earth, regardless of the lack of 'absolute' up and down. Tripping on your shoelace will still result in your falling down, even though 'down' is not an absolute. There is no contradiction.
smcj
 
Posts: 1474
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Antinomianism

Postby oushi » Fri Nov 22, 2013 7:51 pm

duckfiasco wrote:I appreciate what you're saying, oushi, but I think I'm not being skillful in explaining what I mean.
All I know is had I tried to jump straight to more profound teachings like you suggest, I would not be here today.
Doing nothing is simply not a viable approach for some people deeply mired in suffering who already believe they're not doing anything, that it's a cruel world or people or society that inflicts pain on them, or any other wrong view that deepens their pain.

Some people need to do it "wrong" first with precepts and ideals, just to stop thrashing around in samsara long enough to realize there's another way.

I think I understand what you're saying, but I do not see myself on the opposite side of the barricade. I am not talking about simply doing nothing, but doing nothing about doing. Stirring is not cause by acting, but acting upon acting. This meta-acting, so to say, is an echo of acting, which takes place in our thoughts. It "crystallizes" and creates conscience. This crystallized structure is the ego/self. This cage is the very tool used to inflict suffering. Now, to say that it is required to keep us moral implies that we a immoral by default.
I can understand that this crystallized structure, creating personality, may be deformed in such a way that it differs from the moral norms developed by a certain society, or dogma. One needs to reshape it, to even start dissolving it. But it is wort mentioning that this deformed structure is build in relation to the moral one. It is fully dependent on it, so by removing the moral framework, both are removed and the only thing that is left is the default state.
Infants comes into this world as immoral and must be shaped (taught morality) to fit into society (upbringing). Nature makes everything unique, society normalizes everything. In other words, we are taught to be. It is done through applying morality upon us. The very reactions to those limitations define ego/self. When those limitations are shattered, Buddha shines forth.
User avatar
oushi
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am
Location: Chrząszczyrzewoszyce

Re: Antinomianism

Postby dude » Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:17 pm

Bad causes arise from the illusion that they won't produce bad results.
Destruction of illusion enables the will to endure the bad effects of past causes without making more bad causes in counter productive efforts to escape.
dude
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 3:38 am

Re: Antinomianism

Postby Tenzin Dorje » Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:25 pm

Hot water is hot merely for your body is colder than the "hot" water is. It isn't "hot" from its own side, but that doesn't make your touching it without any consequences, does it ?

(answer to matthewmartin)
User avatar
Tenzin Dorje
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 8:56 pm

Re: Antinomianism

Postby Lindama » Sat Nov 23, 2013 3:55 am

jeeprs wrote:Not dying from excessive alcohol consumption whilst still in your fifties would be a good start.

As I said, I like Alan Watts. His writing was excellent, he was an original thinker, but he really didn't 'walk the walk'. In the last period of his life he drank a bottle of vodka every day 'to fill up the nothingness', I think was the phrase that Monica Furlong quoted in her biography. He was also not beyond reproach in his relationships with women.

So in the context of the discussion, that is relevant. He could have been a lot less 'antinomian' and I think his health would have benefited from it.


OK, wait a minute... did you listen to the audio? You judge him on precepts when he is talking about profound compassion beyond our petty opinions. He is offering a piece of development that I feel is missing in Buddhism, particularly in my experience with zen. He is much more than an original thinker, he speaks an integrated truth... perhaps because he experienced suffering and compassion himself. Undoubtedly he suffered, but he is presenting a teaching that will reveal a larger consciousness, wisdom and compassion only for our benefit. When we listen, it is only for our insight into ourselves and our suffering. It just ain't that easy to write him off. I've heard this controversy and judgement about him before, so we judge people by their behavior and success with practices and precepts in traditions that they don't follow ... doesn't work for me. We miss the larger view. Listen to him, is it a teaching? It is for us to take what teaches us, what gives us insight and leave the rest. We can learn according to what we hear if we don't rely on authorities.... we do know when we are honest with ourselves.

Alan Watts most definately walked his talk, all of it - some of it to his detriment, it just doesn't add up to our expectations. He is teaching us about compassion and mercy for ourselves and others... he is teaching us to be a lamp unto ourselves. If you don't understand, please remember, you may when you are ready.

And, you worry about the vodka. He paid a price for sure. It's none of our business. Do his words have any value? Alan Watts has my gratitude for it all.... the good, the bad and the ugly so-called. He was a pioneer, no one showed him the way.

This idea of antinomian that says anything goes is not accurate.... I have said this before. It is unkind and inaccurate to pin that on Alan Watts.

Thank you. End of rant. :namaste:
Lindama
 
Posts: 371
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:26 pm

Re: Antinomianism

Postby jeeprs » Sat Nov 23, 2013 11:15 am

I hear you. The last public talk I gave on Zen Buddhism, earlier this year, I played two of his videos. His books are right in front of me on the bookshelf as I write this, and they have made a lifelong impression on my outlook. I know that when students complained about Watts' behaviour to Suzuki-roshi, he wouldn't tolerate any criticism of him. But the remark I made was still justified in the context.
He that knows it, knows it not.
User avatar
jeeprs
 
Posts: 1427
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Antinomianism

Postby oushi » Sat Nov 23, 2013 11:44 am

jeeprs wrote:But the remark I made was still justified in the context. We need to be real about it.

You did not answer my questions because you wanted to remain real? What is that you call "being real"? Where is this reality grounded when the whole context is provisional?
It is commonly accepted that long life is better then short. Being sober is better then being drunk, being tall is better then being short etc... Adhering to those views are PC BS, good for adults that never grew up, because everything is infinitely complicated and making easy judgement while leaning on appearances is far from wise, or reasonable. Can you tell us if it would be better if he never touched alcohol? If you think it would, then In what sense better, and how do you know?
This is his type of thinking he presented. Very liberal, open and honest. It seems you know better then him, and you would give him few good hints..
User avatar
oushi
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am
Location: Chrząszczyrzewoszyce

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Lotus108, MSN [Bot], MSNbot Media and 13 guests

>