2nd March, 2024
Taking a different turn today to talk abit about something frowned upon in the pragmatic dharma scene. Formulating ontology :
"The branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being."
Now why do this you might ask? Well I don't have any objective answers for that so I can only speak from personal experiences and viewpoints. At some point at the path we cross a threshold where we realise formulating ontology is arbitrary because it is all "just this". However, I believe that building our own philosophy and ontology helps ups navigate reality and come up with our own set of guidelines in order to make better choices and live a "nobler" life (however you might define that or if there even is "nobler than anything").
So!
Here is my take on my ontology. I take inspiration from a traditional buddhist view essentially and add my little romantic twist to it. I have seen my past lives, well 1 past life I've seen (materialist will say that it is just my mind, well it is true but all is just mind). Which leads me to talk about an experience I had today talking with some Hare Krishna monks (from the Hinduisim tradition/lineage).
The conversation with Hare Krishna Monks
I was approached by some lovely monks who wanted to talk to me about their religion. We started talking about souls as I was curious in what makes Hindus believe in souls. Essentially, they subscribe to the idea of an eternal soul. I explained and pointed out in direct experience the emptiness, selfless, interconnected nature of reality and that an unchanging soul not only does not fit into the nature of reality it presupposes duality. Now before I go any further, I must make a disclaimer that they were AMAZING people and we had a stimulating dialogue and exchanged our viewpoints.
There are a few things I want to address in this blog.
My problem with the idea of an UNCHANGING soul
An unchanging soul not only makes us deny our mortality (I'll get back to that later) it presupposes duality and separation. IF the soul was a fluid "object" then I would have less of a problem with it but the fact that there is insisting on a soul incarnated into a body and that it goes through time as an unchanging entity does not sit well with me. Because all "objects" in reality is conditioned and empty of INHERENT existence. I must borrow thich nhat hanh's teaching on emptiness and I will paraphrase here - a flower needs soil, rain, nutrients. Objects require countless conditions (remove one condition it will not be the same as it is) and is simultaneously full of the whole universe and empty of its own inherent existence. This can be experienced in direct experience and is actually always the case.
An unchanging soul first of all breaks "the law" of interconnectedness and dependent origination as it is seen as the primordial energy for material planes and my BIGGEST problem with it is that it belongs/inhabits A PERSON. But in direct experience there is no "person" the person is merely a concept, it is simply sounds, sight, taste, touch being self-aware. My second problem with it is that the idea of a soul is soothing to the separate self as it negates us to face our mortality on the relative level, the "problem" with this is that it denies us of our human, spontaneous quality. So in terms of ontology, the balanced view of emptiness, luminosity and compassion is a better driver (better in terms of incentivising and motivating skilful moral living). Feel free to read this post:
Investigating my own beliefs
Now I personally think it is more skilful to penetrate all inherent views and subtle beliefs before we formulate beliefs again, or else we risk reinforcing perceptual filters and "delusion". Now I think having stimulating discussions with people of different views are helpful but I noticed by neediness in pointing out emptiness and anatta to those monks. It is not the intention that made me investigate my own beliefs, it is the energy behind it - the lack of calm and patience.
I felt into my emotions and inquired into the energy behind that conversation. If I must convince others anatta and emptiness it means that a part of me is BELIEVING in antta and emptiness but these are not concepts (it is a concept pointing to the nature of reality). I must further penetrate these views, integrate wholesome states of mind into future conversations I have.
I don't think I should shy away from these conversations but I shall investigate and let go of the belief of anatta and emptiness so that reality may be effortlessly anatta and empty whilst having these conversations in the future.
My ontology and how it relates to - Bodhisattva
If one sees through the interconnectedness, empty, luminous and the spontaneous nature of our human compassion. Then it is only natural that our compassion inclines us to liberate all "sentient beings". After all, if reality is neither 1 nor many and that "we" are all interconnected. We naturally come to the place where we view true liberation as "only when all sentient beings cross to the other shore". See this post if interested: