Make this my home page
More buttons
Best of the Day
Page
Paid Parental Leave - all the other kids are doing it
Video

I Google Myself - looking for sex and love online

Blog
Sync or Swim - Olympic Sychronized Swimming
Game
Final Fantasy XIII
Art
Julie Heffernan - the gorgeous and the grotesque
Cool tools
Hot links
Exposing systematic torture in Iran
Museum of science fiction, utopia and extraordinary journeys
The real story of christianity
Image bookmarking
Developing tech to get the internet to its full potential
Free Culture, Open Government, Liberty
Online Buddhist meditation
Reducing harm from drug use
The community is the brand
Dissecting the {Subset} Culture
Catching a lift to the heavens
A comprehensive look at the Iraq war
Internet news for the masses
The social music revolution
A fresh Australian gaming site.
Reality Check

2500 years ago the Buddha gave a teaching that was so dramatic that some of the listeners fell down and died of heart attacks. Since then there have been many commentaries on what the Buddha taught that day, and many names to describe what his discourse was about: shunyata, Emptiness, Suchness. RENATE OGILVIE calls it reality check.

After meditating and gaining enlightenment the Buddha initially planned to stay silent. He simply did not believe that there would be an audience for the profound insights he had gained. After all, the first person he met was a kind of ancient Homer Simpson. Impressed by the luminous aura around the Buddha this man asked him if he was a god.

‘No,' replied the Buddha.

‘Are you a human?'

‘No.'

‘What are you then?'

And the Buddha replied: ‘I am awake.'

At which point H. Simpson shrugged and walked off.

What he could have learnt from the luminous figure who was neither god nor human, but who had cast off the veils of delusion and woken from the sleep of ignorance, was the profound analysis of the nature of reality.

When the Buddha was finally persuaded to teach, he told his listeners that all phenomena were empty of inherent existence, that everything we see as actually existing was simply a mirage, a delusion like a conjurer‘s trick. What he meant was that we dwell in a reality that is full of apparently concrete entities, but that these are subject to decay and impermanence. Their perceived nature is only what we project on to them.

In our world of delusion everything seems to be exactly what we think it is. A hammer is a hammer, and if we drop it on our foot we know it. But when we actually start looking at the hammer, say in a happy moment in between some tricky DIY manoeuvres, we begin to wonder what actually makes it a hammer. Is the metal head the hammer, or is it the wooden handle? It can't be both. We perceive a thing but where does its ‘hammerness' reside? We begin to realise that the object in our hand is merely labelled as a hammer so that we can pass it on to our mate when he asks for it, and not give him a metal object that is labelled spanner.

Labels are a convenience. They are not reality. We are surrounded by lots of things, forms that we need to conceptualise in order to communicate with others. They have no intrinsic nature that corresponds to the label and they do not suddenly spring into existence but they emerge, they are dependent arising, they are made or created, and they eventually decay.

Buddhists call this the empty nature of all phenomena, modern science explains it as interactive processes. A recent article in the science magazine Current Biology (Pearson/Clifford: ‘Suppressed Patterns Alter vision during Binocular Rivalry') establishes that imagination influences our perception, or in other words: labels determine what we see.

The tricky bit is that the labels we give things sort of take on a life of their own, like ghosts taking over, and we begin to believe in the self existence of labels. What is a short hand becomes an incubus, concepts begin to masquerade as reality.

And this is not the only problem. We also tend to think that objects and phenomena have an intrinsic nature of being either good or bad. But as soon as we seriously examine this we are once again confused.

Is dog poo really disgusting? Well, yes sure. We tread in it and it is vile. But flies and dung beetles don't think so. The pickled gherkins that most people hate and leave out of their Big Mac are precisely what I really like about a burger. But surely poo and gherkins can't be both good and bad, disgusting and delicious? We have to conclude that what they are to us is what we project on to them, and that like all other phenomena gherkins and dog shit are without any intrinsic characteristic whatsoever. Weird but true.

Consider the fabled Goldwing motorbikes:  they are either perceived as the bees knees by some, or the failsafe sign that the guys riding them are wankers. The bike itself is golden and innocent. Heavy Metal is a sound orgasm for some, unbearably loud and primitive for others. In itself it's simply a combination of sound waves.

Diamonds are very simple carbon structures, and it is only by a kind of insane universal agreement that they are deemed extremely valuable. Money, too, of course. No one carries sacks of gold around, and a mere piece of paper with numbers on it and worth a few cents replaces the yellow metal. And gold itself is also only valuable because we all agree it is.

Our projection of pleasant and unpleasant can change too: most of us have photographs that we would rather hide because we wear the truly embarrassing clothes of previous fashions. But remember - these were cool at the time!

If we become aware of labels dominating our life, then it can become a little easier. We can relax more into a natural level of love and affection with friends and lovers for example. We realise that most of our clinginess and obsession is based on fantasy, and a lot of characteristics that are inflated and changeable.

People and things are simply what they are before we project our concepts and expectation on them, and so we need to become more realistic. That doesn't mean that our loved ones become grey and uninteresting, just more themselves rather than what we want or need them to be. We no longer tend to fall into dramatic extremes when anything happens to disappoint us. Relationships benefit from this kind of realism.

In the material world we are surrounded by an endless array of different forms, and they simply exist bare of our hallucinated view. They are present, vibrant, exciting and vivid in their own right.

If we understand this we can see the world around us with new eyes, awake as the Buddha was in India, 2500 years ago.

Renate Ogilvie is a psychotherapist and teacher of Buddhist philosophy.

Go back to previous pageLeave some feedbackPrint this pageEmail link to friendsBookmark in del.icio.usAdd to Stumble ThisAdd to your favourite bookmarksDigg this article

Tags

 

Related Stories

   
Next
It's said that Russia's response to Georgia's attack on South Ossetia is disproportionate: we hear of "Western leaders anxiously watching for a withdrawal and puzzling over how to punish Moscow for what they called a disproportionate reaction to the Georgian offensive". No one has asked whether a disproportionate reaction or response is always wrong.

War, or an armed attack, can itself be a disproportionate response to some offense. If Britain, for example, declared war on Sweden for producing Abba, that would be disproportionate. It would also be wrong, because Abba isn't cause enough for initiating violence. Britain could at least ask for a large indemnity first. The Nuremberg tribunals placed aggression, a "crime against peace", ahead of war crimes. Perhaps this was meant to remind us that wars usher in far worse than war-fevered cheerleaders suppose, and are virtually always an immoral and disproportionate response to offences...

There is also a relationship between war as an immorally disproportionate response, or starting war for the wrong reasons, and all its consequences. When you start a war for the wrong reasons, you are responsible for all that follows, even the other side's atrocities. Though the other side is to blame for its crimes, so are you. You don't even have the right to kill in self-defense. If you are wrong to start a war, you don't suddenly fall into the right just because, contrary to your expectations, it's you, not the other guy, who has to defend himself.

War is not like self-defense in civilian life, when the response must be proportionate to the threat... The unacceptably disproportionate response was Georgia's in starting the war, not Russia's in finishing it. [More]

Find out about our Widget

Feedback

10 aug

The HomepageDAILY community likes to co-create both content and process. What are you thinking right now about what we do and how we do it? Tell us about the news, videos and stories and anything else you see on HPD. What you like, what you don't like, what you'd like to see in future. Recommend a website, video or article; send us pix, new stories - share it with us and by so doing you are giving us permission to share it with the world.

Leave Feedback here

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

Re: Take Your God and Shove Him

Thank you Pat Condell, you are a secular saint. My son does not attend the religion lesson at school and was told by one of the volunteers who come in to warp the kids' minds that she was "praying for him". I want to play her, and all those other interfering busybodies, this video. In fact it's so good I think I will transcribe it and pass the text around. My faveourite bit is the end: I'm not interested, I've heard it all before and I think it's all lies - insulting, degrading nonsense that contaminates everything it touches. Whenever I'm exposed to religion I feel dirty, I feel contaminated by the mealy-mouthed platitudes that pass as wisdom, the naked money-grubbing, the controlling rhetoric devoid of any humanity or compassion, the supercilious hectoring tone, the constant intrusive demands for privilege and the absolutely unforgivable violation of the minds of young children. Amen - Michelle

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

Re: Experts Agree: Legalize Drugs - From Julian Critchley

Amen Julian Critchley. Legalize all drugs. People should have access to any molecule or compound they want. Gate Keepers for Big Pharma are costing end users a fortune. Retiring Police seniors inevitably say Legalization is the only way to take the money out of the criminal economy. Safe access through guaranteed qaulity control reduces street overdose/HIV infection. People have to have access to safe drugs on demand.

Personally I think the Olympics should be used for drug testing. The money sqaundered on the "games" and all the infrastructure around them would be better utilised in research and development. The bullshit about winners by one hundredth of a second is past a joke. Crowd control and propaganda for political posers and Patriotism "the last refuge of scoundrels". It's a farce - the athletes who do not want be used as lab rats should have drug free games which would be like the Para Olympics where the entrants display raw courage and drive with next to no support from the Public purse... Like Euthanasia, a doctor of your choice should be able to give you a legal release and advise you the best they know how about what drugs/course you wish to take. We are destroying doctors who really want to help individuals run their own lives with legal bullying by moralistic parasites who are terrified of the idea that they and all of us are responsible for our own lives - Anthony Innes

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

Re: Is Australian General Jim Molan a War Criminal?

Thanks Gerry, I did click on the link you recommended to "find the dogs" and then I threw up. Jim Molan a war crim? Generals can't help themselves. Molan bombed hospitals, Georgia bombed hospitals in Osettia. The U.S. military hasn't even faced up to its criminal obliteration of Nagasaki. War crimes are what the baddies do - it's never us - Sherbert

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

Re: Washington Comes to Mr Smith

Condi, is yet another of those on my list to post a poop to, with a note attached stating, "Take a look at yourself!" Cranky soul that I am - Dean

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

Re: Scary Mary

Love it. I have always found Julie Andrews quite frightening - Sue

9 jul
12 jun
More feedback...
© 2007 homePageDAILY - All rights reserved * Terms of Use * Privacy Policy * Advertising Information * Media Kit * Contact Us