Buddhism, or so you want to transcend reality

It's pulling out the root of suffering all together, which is desire. At least this is my view of the matter. Dhamma is exceptionally radical. If you leave even a hint of the root then the weed can start growing back. So you tear it out completely and then make sure there are no seeds. To be no longer driven by every passing urge is just one step, I feel. Yes, it makes it easier to not suffer but the goal is to never suffer again. To cure the disease entirely. Anything less is neutering the true strength of the Dhamma, as I see it.

Though there are many various interpretations of various things in Buddhism. One good example is with dualism and non-dualism in Buddhism. Theravada is an entirely dualistic practice. For us there is Right and there is Wrong, there is Skillful and there is Unskillful, there is Truth and there is Falsehood. The Enlightened cannot be called unenlightened because they are Enlightened, and the unenlighted cannot be called Enlightened because they are not enlightened. However several Mahayana schools meanwhile go towards a non-dualistic path where there is no right or wrong as we see it and there is no state of being unenlightened. It is more you having not realized that you have Buddha-self. Which to Theravada is poppycock and to Mahayana we are the poppycocks.

 

Let's talk about Naraka and the Avicci Naraka in particular. So Naraka is basically Buddhist Hell. If you fuck up enough and accrue enough negative fruits you are reborn in a realm where you are tortured for hundreds of years at the very least. The lowest level and worst Naraka is called Avicci. Avicci also has a fun other name. Namely the Unceasing Torment. But Aondeug you ask. I though that nothing was permanent in Buddhism! And you are correct. This is where we enter into the world of TRUTH.

So Buddhism has two types of truth. We have conventional and relative truths and then we have absolute and ultimate truths. The conventional truths are just that. They are true by convention. So for example the word dog. Dog refers to that specific animal by convention. English speakers just agree that this thing is a dog. However the word for that animal in Arabic is not dog but kelb and in Japanese it is inu. All these things are true even if they seemingly contradict one another because they are just conventions. A dog is not absolutely known as a dog.

Absolute truth meanwhile is a truth that always holds true no matter what fancy names we give it. Examples of these would be laws of physics, I suppose. We can call gravity "AAAAAH" but that doesn't mean that gravity somehow stops working the way it does. While there may be rules to gravity that we don't know that seemingly make gravity not work or something the fact is that gravity is still gravity. There just may or may not be more rules that we do not know about.

Which leads us to Avicci. So in Buddhism we know that some things are absolutely true and will always hold no matter the circumstances. Two of these things are the Three Marks of Existence and the Four Noble Truths. As a refresher the marks are impermanence, no-soul, and suffering. The truths meanwhile are suffering, the cause of suffering being desire, there being a cure, and the cure being the Eightfold Path. Now these things are always true. However we conventionally know them by these names in English. I could rename the Four Noble Truths Buddha's Dickbutt Simulator and then reword the entries as "a", "b", "c", and "d" but that wouldn't actually change the truths on an absolute level. I'm just changing the symbols by which I describe this thing.

So with these we have a conclusion. Namely that all beings are impermanent. This then leads to the conclusion that all beings must die or otherwise end in some fashion. If all things are impermanent then things, logically, must die or otherwise end.

Which leads us back to Avicci and its name. Now it is called the Unceasing Torment which would mean that it is unending conventionally, yes? But is it absolutely? Go back our mark of impermanence. Everything needs to end. Now if everything needs to end, logically, could avicci never end? No. That's dumb and illogical. Of course it has to end.

So what about Nibbana. If everything needs to end what is its deal? First off, Nibbana is the ultimate realization of the fourth noble truth. If we assume that the fourth truth is right then Nibbana needs to be right. Now the marks only apply to things within existence. That is why they are marks of existence. Now we know that Nibbana ends the rebirth cycle. This is why the Eightfold Path is also called the Path to the Deathless. If one never dies then one is deathless, yes? So if one is never reborn then one is never held to the marks of existence. Therefore nothing is contradicted. However Avicci is still within the bounds of existence because it is one of the six realms of rebirth. Because it is a place in existence it MUST adhere to the marks. Also in a way, I guess Nibbana ending the rebirth cycle adds up logically with the mark of impermanence. If ALL things in existence must end then I suppose that existence itself and Nibbana would be added onto this list. They are in existence no?

The name the Unceasing Torment is just that. It's a name. A linguistic convention by which we know a thing. Instead the actual, true meaning of the name I think is metaphorical. Avicci is called the Unceasing Torment not because it literally never ends, but instead because it lasts so long that it seems to be unceasing. And given that the Hot Narakas end up lasting for time periods that need to be handled in scientific notation solely because the zeroes get to be wildly unruly that makes fucking sense. Avicci Naraka is basically longer than ALL of those combined. We're entering "oh god can you even count that high????" territory.

 

So a topic that came up in the Undertale thread has reminded me that I should show off various Buddhist art things that I find. Because while the end goal might be Enlightenment who says you need to hop in right away? That and what is better at catching people's attention than art! So let's have some Buddhist music first off.

Some here might be familiar with Buddhist music of the Chinese variety. A very sing songy type of chanting using gongs and bells and such for time keeping. There is other stuff out there too.

Like Buddhist metal. These here are The Firstborn. I haven't listened to a lot of their stuff yet but it is very interesting. Given the letters, lyrics, and some of the musical techs it seems that they're Vajrayana of some variety?

And here is Buddhist rap. Hoodie Monks is the project of a Zen monk in Japan to spread Buddhism to the Japanese youth as being something other than just funerals. With trendy rap music. I am very fond of this! Their hip hop group is called FBSD (Free Buddha, Spit Dharma). We definitely need more Buddhist rap.

 

Oh. How could I forget Susumu Hirasawa. Hirasawa's music is often painfully Buddhist. It is lovely. He paints these sci-fi wonderlands of many armed gods and lotuses.

Here is Switched-On Lotus. For more fun the song is also a tribute to transpeople he knew.

 

I've been doing reading on Mahayana Buddhism lately and I think it's a good idea to share my findings and ramble about them I think. So let's paste a thing I wrote on tumblr here to start that off.

So while reading this book it has really hit me just how different our definitions are. So I’m going to put down some of the ones I’ve noticed so far. I’ll go through definitions of Buddha, paccekabuddha, savaka, arahant, and bodhisatta in Theravada and Mahayana.



So in Theravada this is how things work:

• Buddha - Someone who has reached Enlightenment without the aid of a teacher of the Dhamma.
• Paccekabuddha - A Buddha who after reaching Enlightenment keeps his findings to himself and does not teach.
• Savaka - A disciple of the Dhamma. This includes laypeople and the Sangha.
• Arahant - Someone who has reached Enlightenment with the aid of a teacher of the Dhamma.
• Bodhisatta - Someone on the verge of Enlightenment. Additionally may refer to someone who is on the verge of Enlightenment and who refuses to pass over until the world is free as a whole.

And in Mahayana it works like this to my knowledge:

• Buddha - Someone who has reached Enlightenment with or without a teacher in the Dhamma and who teaches the Dhamma.
• Paccekabuddha - A Buddha who achieved Enlightenment without a teacher in the Dhamma.
• Savaka - A disciple of Theravada and, in particular, the monks and Arahants.
• Arahant - Someone who has reached Enlightenment for themselves and who is satisfied with this alone.
• Bodhisatta - Someone who has vowed to reach Enlightenment for the good of all beings and who seeks to make sure everyone reaches Enlightenment. May or may not be Enlightened.

There’s also our differences in spelling of course because Mahayana uses Sanskrit and translations from it while Theravada uses Pali. All the terms have been spelled in their typical Pali form in this post. Here are the Sanskrit renderings in Latin script: Buddha, pratyekabuddha, sravaka, arhat, bodhisatva, Dharma, Samgha.

 

And on this note one very key difference I've seen is the nature of the Buddha. Within Theravada Buddhism he is just a man. There is nothing particularly amazing about him besides his wisdom. He's just a normal human and bound by the constraints of one. He was born in India as a prince and he lived and then he took his Parinibbana. He is never coming back.

In Mahayana Buddhism however he is presented as being eternal. There is always a Buddha and there will always be more Buddhas. He comes into the world again to preach the Dhamma and get people back on point before dying and leaving us alone for a bit. So all those Buddhas mentioned like Amitabha and Vairocana? They are all just emanations of the original Buddha. The Shakyamuni himself is an emanation of the Hombutsu, the Original Buddha basically. In the future we will meet other Buddhas such as the Matteya Buddha.

However in both Mahayana and Theravada the Buddha is noted to have had special powers. He can read minds, teleport, walk through walls, emanate a beam of light from his forehead and so on.

 

Let's do some reading recommendations this time. Instead of rambling.

Lately I've been reading The Buddhist Visnu by John Holt. It's a book about the worship of Visnu as a Buddhist god in Sri Lanka. It also has information about Buddhist god worship in Sri Lanka in general. It's an academic as fuck book though so be warned. It is not an easy read.

Another book on Sri Lankan Buddhism to look at is Buddhism Transformed: Religious Change in Sri Lanka by Richard Gombrich and Gananath Obeyesekere. Which isn't nearly as focused as The Buddhist Visnu.

Unfortunately these things need to be bought because argh academia. Good news is that the Mahavamsa, one of the Sri Lankan histories used in Holt's research study, is available for free in pdf form. You can find it and a few other Sri Lankan history books at mahavamsa.org.

Away from Sri Lanka and to Theravada texts in general accesstoinsight is basically your best friend. The entire Tipitaka can be found there and translations of much of it too. A series of other books, papers, and talks by people like the Thanissaro Bhikkhu can also be found on the site. Buddhanet has a very nice online library too.

For particular things to read The Kalama Sutta is a good start canonically. The Thanissaro Bhikkhu gives a very, very nice commentary on how the text isn't just some Buddhist treatise of free thought, but actually covers the issue of faith in Buddhism. The Roots of Buddhist Romanticism by the Thanissaro Bhikkhu is a nice read too for those interested more in how the West misperceives Buddhist doctrine and why.