Disrespecting HHDL=Disrespecting Trijang & Phabongkha Rinpoches
Lozang Trinlae
Dear Tibetan Buddhists,
Any disciple or person seeking the blessings of Kyabje Trijang RInpoche
or Phabonkha RInpoche and any Yidam deities they hold inseparable from
them respectively should take care not to disparage them by way of
disparaging His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama.
The reasoning is thus established:
Aryashura states in verse 26 of his Fifty Verses of Guru Devotion:
"(Guard) your teacher's belongings as you would your own life. Treat
even your teacher's beloved (family) with the same (respect you show)
for him. (Have affectionate regard for) those closely around him as if
they were your own dearest kin. Single-mindedly think (in this way) at
all times."
(Translation LTWA, 1975)
Kyabje Phabonka Dechen Nyingpo states in Liberation in the Palm of the
Hand:
"It says in a tantra: 'It is better to offer to one pore of the guru
than to all Buddhas of the three times.' Note that the phrase 'offering
to one pore of the guru' means offering to the guru's horse, his
watch-dog, attendants, and so on. It does not mean his ordinary
body-pores."
(Translation: Wisdom, 1991)
Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche wrote in the colophon to Liberation in the Palm
of the Hand:
"Long Live the noble Gelug line!
O lotus lake of perfect yellow flowers.
Tenzin Gyatso [the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet] is lord of a Mount Meru
Towering over the worldly peaks
And pinnacles of selfish peace.
The omniscience, love and power of all the Victors
Make up the atoms of your mountain.
May you be with us for hundreds of aeons!
May your good works shine
Like the ear-rings of the gods of sun and moon.
O glorious Lhasa, city of eternal happiness,
A Buddha-field in the midst
Of this, our happy land;
May your sky be an auspicious canopy
Of merit-laden monsoon clouds,
Contenting all with the showers of benign nectars."
(Ibid)
His Holiness the Dalai Lama was raised, educated, and cared for by
Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, Kyabje Ling Rinpoche, and Tathag Rinpoche, who
was the main teacher of HHDL as a child and gave him his novice
ordination. Kyabje Trijang RInpoche, Kyabje Ling Rinpoche, and Tathag
Rinpoche were three of Phabonkha Rinpoche's four main disciples.
Therefore due to the proximity of relationship, HHDL is a member of
Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche's 'family' and by way of the scriptural
quotations cited above it can be clearly seen that any disparaging of
HHDL is no different than disparaging Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche directly.
Likewise disparaging Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche is no different than
disparaging Kyabje Phabonkha Rinpoche directly, not to mention diverging
from Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche's own views of HHDL as cited above.
While HHDL must and does take responsibility for his own acts, we should
not forget that HHDL's qualities are also the reflection of the
life-long caring conditioning of his beloved tutors, who were also under
the direct care of Kyabje Phabongkha Dechen Nyingpo Rinpoche. Therefore
when one criticizes the person of HHDL directly, they also criticize the
persons of Trijang and Phabonkha Rinpoches indirectly. And therefore if
one holds one's Yidam-deities as inseparable from Kyabje Trijang and
Phabonkha Rinpoches, it can be concluded that the Yidam cannot be
pleased by activities disparaging HH the Dalai Lama. If we similarly
regard with esteem the views of the current reincarnations of Trijang
and Phabonkha Rinpoches about disrespecting HHDL, this can be checked
very easily with a few telephone calls.
Since by extension of the wider sense of 'dharma-family', it is also
possible to include other Lama disciples of Trijang Rinpoche, such as
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, as a member of Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche's 'family'
and likewise incur the same negative karma of disparaging Kyabje Trijang
RInpoche via criticism of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso.
This is not to say that we must always agree with HHDL or other lamas.
As the late Geshe Ngawang Dhargye said in his commentary on the Fifty
Verses of Guru Devotion, "Examine yourself honestly to see if you can
follow his wishes. If there is no way in which you can comply, do not be
rude or arrogant. Explain politely and with extreme humility what the
difficulty is. Your teacher will not be unreasonable; as a Buddha he is
filled with great compassion." And also, "If your spiritual teacher
gives you advice or asks you to do something, examine yourself to see if
you can comply. If you cannot, then excuse yourself and explain why".
Therefore for best results, those compelled to give their views on such
acts of such lamas, should take care 'not to be rude or arrogant', and
to 'explain politely and with extreme humility what the difficulty is',
combined with a virtuous motivation. Otherwise there is no benefit and
only potential harm from such discourse.
Sincerely in Dharma,
~ani lozang trinlae
Avyorth Rolinson
Lozang Trinlae wrote in message <34894B...@mindless.com>...
>Any disciple or person seeking the blessings of Kyabje Trijang RInpoche
>or Phabonkha RInpoche and any Yidam deities
>The reasoning is thus established:
<long snipper>
>it can be concluded that the Yidam cannot be
>pleased by activities disparaging HH the Dalai Lama
>Therefore for best results, those compelled to give their views on such
>acts of such lamas, should take care 'not to be rude or arrogant', and
>to 'explain politely and with extreme humility what the difficulty is',
>combined with a virtuous motivation. Otherwise there is no benefit and
>only potential harm from such discourse.
>~ani lozang trinlae
Hello LT,
Just a few points in response to your posting.
I hope that I would offer to you and others the same rights that I'd seek
for myself. I acknowledge your right to life and so on, including your right
to free speach. I accept your right to respond to my postings as you will
and that I have the right to reciprocate if I choose to do so. If I find
that you or anyone else posts messages that I find contemptuous then I will
say so. If I find that you preach one thing and yet do another (please note
I use 'you' in an impersonal sense), that you plead for eg 'religious
freedom' yet do everything to stiffle it in the area of life you control
('your' fiefdom), then I hold the right to confront this in whatever way I
believe might be most effective. Although I would not want to remove your
rights in the process - where possible!
Concerning lamas, teachers, monks, nuns and all manner of other 'roles',
'badges', 'uniforms' and so on, I am very clear that, for me, they are only
other people like myself. Any respect, beyond that offered to all people as
people, must as far as I'm concerned be earned. The days of bowing to the
Emperor's New or Old Clothes are over, as far as I'm concerned. This
'disrespectful' attitude of the West, I personally find most worthy of
praise. Whether it's Geshe 'this', or Ani 'that', Dharmachari 'x' or His
Holiness 'y' then they'll get the same 'respect' from me as Fred 'a', Mary
'b' or Zingdomorondo 'z'.
I find your attitude towards the 'spiritual', ie religious, to be
reminiscent of what Piaget called concrete operations - you're concretising
that which is symbolic; worshiping the packaging rather than using the
contents. An example that comes to mind is the superstitious reverence paid
to the printed word of 'dharma' - eg don't step over a dharma book or
you'll ...... I know the arguements about mental imprints, and so on (I was
after all programmed for some years in the NKT) but IMO this is just
rationalisation and not rationality.
Really so much of the arguements (I can't call them debates) are exactly
like two camps of christian fundamentalists throwing biblical quotations at
each other as if they meant something in themselves. Many of us have come to
realise that one can use the bible to justify any action or view. Likewise
with all the sutras, shastras, tantras, etc you can pick and choose whatever
justifies your favourite camp. Alternatively you can believe every word as
'gospel' and be utterly and hopelessly lost.
The bottom line here for me is this: you have chosen HHDL to be IT; Khyenrab
has chosen GKG to be It. You both like to 'kiss ass', as the americans put
it, and you justify it by gilding and sanctifying It. Me, I like to 'kick
ass', as the americans put it.
How wonderful it is to believe that our objects of veneration are at the top
of the league - like football fans whose team wins the xxxx cup, we
vicariously share in some of their glory. So we believe that our teacher,
guru, or whatever is a buddha, and then we bask in his or her radiance,
forgetting that the radiance is our own projection - and in the process
DIS-empowering our real potential, IMO.
For me, as I've posted previously, I believe that buddhism is a 'meme' that
has carried the spark of dharma, and now we have to crack open the shelll
and allow the dharmic seed or kernel to fall into the fertile soil of
postmodern culture. So, pass the nut crackers, love, I've got some gilded
ass to kick! Excuse the mixed metaphor.
Yours in the Dh (ark)
Avyorth
Bosco Ho
In <66efig$4...@neon.btinternet.com>, On Sun, 7 Dec 1997 15:26:28
-0000, "Avyorth Rolinson" <Avy...@btinternet.com> wrote:
(partial omit)
Dear Avyorth -
since you and dear Ani Lozang Trinlae are much knowledgeable than I
am, I m making a fool of myself. However, there are a few points I am
contemplating:
while one may see the buddhadharma from the symbolic perspective
(against what you call Piaget's concrete operation - I must confess
that it has been a couple of decades I read the old chap's work, so I
will take your words for it,) that will be falling into the other
extreme. While my gelug learning is pathetic, I think you will find a
more sophiscated argument in Lama Tsongkapa's The Two Truths.
while the late Ven Buddhadasa's interpretation of karma is attracted a
lot of intention, there are still a lot of buddhists who choose to
interpret buddhadharma from a more tradition perspective. These people
don't go around talking emptiness; rather, they adhere to simple
things like do-good and obstine-from-doing-evil. The reason I bring
this up is that to them, the world is as concrete as it comes.
Spiritual relativity is no better than "concrete operation."
while I admire your courage to kick ass, it is important to know the
right ass to kick, else one will only hurt one's foot like poor Samuel
Johnson trying to disbunk Bishop Berkeley <vbg>. More seriously, there
are a few american (self-styled?) gurus are doing that; unfortunately,
the disillusionment of enlightenment for many is all too evident from
their trail of sufferings.
Of course, while one may accuse Ani Lozang Trinlae having an ax to
grind; however, if we judge her post in entirety, it is not to herald
the glory HH the Dalai Lama as much as to warn the *other* side the
danger of making inneundos about HH the Dalai Lama and the previous
Kyabje Triigang Rinpoche samaya relationship.
Finally, I obviously m not a impartial bystander. However, I find it
hard to say, for example, to love my parents and children are kissing
their asses. Do you?
in Dharma, Bosco
warning: the above contains simulated Dharma and other illogic additives (courtesy Don Martin)
GT
Wow, at last some real good sense !
I like the references to Piaget and Memetics ! No, no, I love it !
I have studied both a lot in the past ! It always come back to my mind
when I read the good Buddhadharma !
I also like to make connections with Chaos Theory and Dynamics systems !
Do you have more information on how to link Memetics and Genetic
Psychology (Epistemology) to Buddhism beliefs ?
GT
Note: do not reply to my userid, I am in the process of changing it !
Avyorth Rolinson wrote:
Avyorth Rolinson
Bosco Ho wrote in message <66enjs$b...@camel15.mindspring.com>...
>Dear Avyorth -
>while one may see the buddhadharma from the symbolic perspective
>(against what you call Piaget's concrete operation - I must confess
>that it has been a couple of decades I read the old chap's work, so I
>will take your words for it,) that will be falling into the other
>extreme. While my gelug learning is pathetic, I think you will find a
>more sophiscated argument in Lama Tsongkapa's The Two Truths.
Dear Bosco,
Greetings. I'm not too sure whether you refer to the extreme of nihilism
when you say 'the other extreme'? If so, then I'm sorry if I've given that
impression.
Lama Tsongkapa - ah, now there's a chap. Bet if he lived in these modern
times he'd not be a tibetan buddhist.
I think that in order to realise the two truths - ie in precis, "form is
emptiness, emptiness is only form" - we have to develop (gulp!) what Piaget
referred to as formal operations, viz the ability to reflect upon symbolic
forms rather than identify with them or treat them as concrete realities.
This ability seems to lead to, or involve, a demythologising of the world.
The symbol is no longer some numinous entity, rather it is a token of
significance. Another way of putting that might be to say that the evocative
power now adheres in the meaning - ie one could quite easily use a dharma
text as a means to stop one's desk from rocking, without abandoning the
Dharma!
As I understand it, gaining formal operations allows us to then develop the
cognitive abilities to 'go forth' in a real sense. I'm not saying that it is
'sequitur', rather that it is a necessary but not necessarily sufficient
condition.
Anyway, Bosco, Robert Thurman in his introduction to "The Central Philosophy
of Tibet" explains it so much better than I could ever do.
>
>while the late Ven Buddhadasa's interpretation of karma is attracted a
>lot of intention, there are still a lot of buddhists who choose to
>interpret buddhadharma from a more tradition perspective. These people
>don't go around talking emptiness; rather, they adhere to simple
>things like do-good and obstine-from-doing-evil. The reason I bring
>this up is that to them, the world is as concrete as it comes.
>Spiritual relativity is no better than "concrete operation."
>
Yes, and no! There's an old tibetan folk tale, or is it Grimms? <g> a
villager finds a large fish floundering on the path one night. Being an
adherent to simple things like 'do good' she picks it up and deposits it in
the village fish pond. Next morning she hears a commotion beside the pond
and going over she finds the villagers beating the large fish to death. On
enquiring as to what's happening, she is told that this fish somehow got
into their fish pond last night, ate all their fish stock and now they're
killing it!
I suppose the point I'm attempting to make is that a genuine spiritual
relativity arising out of formal operations is infinitely more compassionate
(potentially) than simple 'do-gooding' which lacks wisdom. Please don't
understand that I'm saying everything is relative and hence nothing is
better than anything else. What I'm trying to point to is that a view that
sees the interdependence of all and yet includes the discriminatory wisdom
is more able to address suffering effectively.
>while I admire your courage to kick ass, it is important to know the
>right ass to kick, else one will only hurt one's foot like poor Samuel
>Johnson trying to disbunk Bishop Berkeley <vbg>.
Very good point.
>More seriously, there
>are a few american (self-styled?) gurus are doing that; unfortunately,
>the disillusionment of enlightenment for many is all too evident from
>their trail of sufferings.
Exactly! enough of gurus, I say.
>Finally, I obviously m not a impartial bystander. However, I find it
>hard to say, for example, to love my parents and children are kissing
>their asses. Do you?
Not at all. IMO it's perfectly appropriate to love one's parents and
children (everything else being equal), yet I'm sure you don't prostrate to
them, sit them upon a silk embroidered throne, hang upon their
pronouncements as gospel, etc. Equally it's appropriate to listen
respectfully when your physician explains her diagnosis to you, before you
may question her conclusion, etc. In the past authority figures were put
upon 'thrones' eg it just wasn''t the done thing to question your
physician's opinion.
Thanks for your points, Bosco, hopefully I've clarified my meaning a little
more.
Yours in the Dh (ark)
Avyorth
Lozang Trinlae
Dear Avyorth,
Thank you for your post and I appreciate your viewpoints.
Actually I have no axes to grind. I have teachers from all the four
Tibetan sects, and among my root gurus from Gelug background, some (most
now deceased) have been very committed Dorje Shugden practioners, and
while others are not or have been but have given it up. Over the years I
have realized that it is possible to respect and appreciate what they
all have taught me without having to pick and choose between them or
elevate one and denigrate another. That is because rather than blindly
follow a name, when I die, and while I live, it is my own mind alone
that has to deal with what comes up and those teachers can't do it for
me. Each one of us has to work out our own lives for ourselves. As
Buddha said, rely on the dharma and not on the teacher. All those names
Guru, Rinpoche, Ani, Geshe, Mr., Ms., blah blah have to all be given up
at deathtime - they are a mere convenience to identify, that's all. For
respect each person should decide for themselves what is the basis to
give their respect; of those names, only rinpoche really has any meaning
aka 'precious-great-one' or something. For the rest the respect you have
to project it yourself if you want it there, it is not there inherently
in the name-label by default.
The point I have been trying to make is that one can agree and disagree
with various views of others without criticizing or disparaging them.
The post was just some scriptural evidence to support this point in the
case of the Trijang-GKG-HHDL triad. (It is part of the Buddhist
tradition to rely on reasoning and scriptural authority and if that
Buddhism you don't like there is no law you need to accept it- but no
point for vegetarians to go to the Lobster and Steak house to complain
about meat-eating either now is there?)
By the way, I was taught that when we prostrate we prostrate to the
wisdom that a person or object represents and that it is nothing to do
with idol worship of humans or otherwise. No need to do it if you don't
see any value in it. But likewise no need to assume others who do it
hold the same views and likewise get no benefit. Isn't that the
challenge of dharma practice? To extract meaning from our lives for some
benefit to ourselves and others?
Sincerely,
labeled person
Bosco Ho
In <66f8iv$m...@argon.btinternet.com>, On Sun, 7 Dec 1997 22:28:55
-0000, "Avyorth Rolinson" <Avy...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Dear Bosco,
(omited to keep this short)
>Bosco, hopefully I've clarified my meaning a little
>more.
Dear Avyorth -
Thank you for the reply. Yes, I see your points; actually, I ve had a
glimpse of where you are coming from even before the last reply - and
I certainly respect that and truly believe there is a lot of truth in
your attitude. However, you and I obviously ve different outlook. So
instead of discussing with you about the differences point by point,
it is easier for me to write it in one fell scoop. Of course, be
forewarned that while nothing is original, my thinking tends to be
muddled.
When I wrote "The Two Truths," I basically refer to the entire body of
ideas including the Middleway and the 3 Principal Paths. And yes, it
is true that misguided kindness is worse than none at all. In a way, I
think most people understand it when they are actualized in examples
like your fish story. This is what I am after: what is in principle at
the abstract level and what are the instances.
I understand very well your attitude toward gurus. Certainly, it is
your perogative. However, personally, I do feel the importance of "the
transmission of the lamp." Maybe I am a traditionalist. But when we
translate buddhadharma into proper lingos, it may not be that foreign
afterall. Please let me explain.
While Lord Buddha has implored us his followers to use reasons,
different people may have different capacity to reason. For example, I
really don't understand what is Emptiness - and I probably won't
recognize *it* even when I stumble upon it. So what is there besides
reasoning? Experience. Since my experience is unreliable, then I will
need the experience of a reliable person. So I won't dismiss all
teachers simply because there are charlatans or because some people ve
an *utter dependency* for one. Now, some may say it is easier for
people like myself to accept that since I ve been (somewhat)
indoctrinated culturally. In truth, similar postulations are made by
western philosophers also. For example, Prof Stuart Hampshire's Rule
of Thumb (my contemporary british philosophy is getting real rusty and
outdated, so my apology if I ve made the wrong attribution.)
That leads me into your comments about prostrations and silk
embroidered throne. You are absolutely right that we do not do that
sort of things to regular people, even our loved ones. And I am sure
that there are people who are eager to put their teachers on the
pedestal and think that their teachers are out of this world - that
they don't ve needs and that they don't ve to go to the lavatory
<vbg>. However, as Prefesser Coyote (aka Dr Richard Hayes) has pointed
out in the BUDDHIST list awhile back, we are really prostrating to the
robe, the dispenser of buddhadharma.
Personally, even though I may appear to prostrate the teacher; in
truth, it is of selfish intent. You see, when I was younger, I
actually was a rather arrogant person. However, after falling face
down many times, I ve come to the conclusion that my arrogance is
unjustified. So, I take refuge in the 3 jewels. So I prostrate to the
teachers - not only because I am appreciative to their efforts but
also because I need to conquer my attitude.
To be clear, however, I do not disagree with your point about (if I
may paraphase) blindly following an authoritative figure. However, it
is not enough to blindly reject the idea of guru either (you did not
say that, I said it to make a point.)
Finally, I suppose it is ok to achieve the goal of buddhadharma
without using traditional terms. Maybe you think Piaget's theory can
fill the shoe. Or Wittgenstein. Or John Austin. The important thing is
to help others with expedient means. However, it really takes a lot of
mapping to translate one system to another, especially when
buddhadharma has been so diverse by itself. One may argue that all is
mind and therefore spirit is a figment of imagination while another
may say that because of emptiness, everything is possible - including
worldly and enlightened spirits. Since we (generically) come from
different walks of life, some of us may think reasons are enough while
other of us feel "there is reason which Reason doesn't understand."
in Dharma, Bosco
p.s. incidentally, since your original reply was a response to dear
Ani Lozang Trinlae, I should put it the disclaimer that I cannot speak
for her. Incidentally, since she is a physicist by academic training,
I am sure she has a different outlook.
GT
Maybe, just maybe,
an attitude like yours is perfectly OK and safe in a controled
environment where the quality of the teachings and the teachers is
monitored, like in the Old Tibet with it's strong hierachy of controls,
but here, in all our democratic countries where any bozo can take the
good Buddhadharma, change a few things here and there, and use it to
abuse the innocence and aspiration of some people. I think the situation
is different. The internationalization of Tibetan Buddhism (with its
special tools not found in other traditions) demands a rethinking of its
Quality Control Processes and a new reevaluation of the Risks of some of
its most "dangerous" aspects !
I know it should not be like this, but some people might see this as a
growing multinational company, taking advantage of the democracy and
some other loopholes in international laws ! And some other may use this
as an advantage to build a local sect around themselves.
I don't know of any such thing actually existing; but it seems evident
that it will append. Just the fear of it motivates a lot of the
discussion around here.
GT
Hope this is not harmfull to anybody !
Avyorth Rolinson
Lozang Trinlae wrote in message <348ABB...@mindless.com>...
Dear LT,
Keep the posts coming. I find them just about the right 'grittiness' to get
my old blunt axe to about as sharp as it's going to get - the joys of aging!
I loved your wrathful shaking of the NKT the other day - don't they just
deserve it!
>I have teachers from all the four
>Tibetan sects,
I like that - in fact some of the old-timers in the NKT have also had many
teachers (I seem to remember hearing of even!! Nyingma lamas at the old
Manjushri Institute) 'though one wouldn't believe it to hear the NKT now.
I find myself wondering occassionally, "why the obsession with 'purity' -
'pure buddhadharma', 'pure lineage', 'pure teachings'.....?" Is it G kelsang
himself? I know the old dog brooks no equal, or criticism - is it some sort
of 'jealous god' thing? It seems an utter betrayal of everything that
Tsongkhapa stood for eg independent thinking, innumerable teachers.
>The point I have been trying to make is that one can agree and disagree
>with various views of others without criticizing or disparaging them.
Interesting point - must be my karma (chuckle!) to have gotten involved with
two orgs (FWBO and NKT) that are very exclusive and brook no other
view-points - you won't find anybody but an FWBOer teaching at a FWBO Centre
in my experience, even more so with the NKT.
The other tendency is, of course, to see all views and beliefs as equally
valid (as long as they're warm and squidgy). Kind of the new age campers.
I suppose what I look towards is some balance between discrimination and
inclusion - please note I'm not claiming to have achieved or found it
myself. The balance would need to include the contemplative and empirical
disciplines, sort of spirituality and science if you like. You may have
detected a hint of unease around scriptural reliance with me?
Seriously, though, I really don't see any hope for a spirituality that is
unwilling to pass through the refining fire of scriptural, historical and so
on, analysis. In other words it has got to acknowledge postmodernism - the
whole history of Western rational and scientific development. I think that
is what I challenge in your postings. I like your 'heart' as it were, and
your concrete mental skills are very impressive (IMO), but your rootedness
in pre-modernism/traditionalism .......ARGH!!!!!!
No, being rooted is fine! But for god's sake, let the shoots come out of the
ground into the clear light of day (ie the 21st century)!! Let's bring
together eg neurophysiology and meditation, cognitive sciences and lorig.
>no point for vegetarians to go to the Lobster and Steak house to complain
>about meat-eating either now is there?)
>
Chuckle! I like it. Nevertheless as I've tried to point out before, to use
your analogy, we're the lobsters. Great, if you lobster-eating guys and gals
were on Venus and we lobsters were on Mars, no problem! But buddhism is a
meme (to use that analogy) that is seeking to infect the Western mind and
breed there. Buddhism is not like train-spotting - it has ideas of social
order, behaviour and a million other things, and it obviously seeks to
implant these in the world. The NKT, FWBO and SGI (as examples) spend
millions of Łs/$s attempting to propagate themselves (infect themselves into
the minds of humans the world over). To the best of my knowledge
train-spotters do not.
>By the way, I was taught that when we prostrate we prostrate to the
>wisdom that a person or object represents and that it is nothing to do
>with idol worship of humans or otherwise.
Yep, me too. But come on why prostrate? It's a bit like doffing your hat
everytime you meet a woman, or touching your forelock when you meet the lord
of the manor. An out-of-date social custom that comes with some deeply
entrenched ideological implications. Also, in my experience it does
cross-infect. Really, just observe people around any idol whether lama,
guru, pop/film star, royalty. IMO it does actually encourage infection with
the germs of personality worship and the development of
sectarianism/cultism.
>no need to assume others who do it
>hold the same views and likewise get no benefit.
Now that's something I definately don't hold - the difficulty for me is the
sort of benefit that I've seen people get out of these 'old fashioned ways'.
Yours in the Dh (ark)
Avyorth
>labeled person
>
Don Martin
In article <66j3gn$a...@argon.btinternet.com>,
Avy...@btinternet.com ("Avyorth Rolinson") wrote:
> Buddhism is not like train-spotting -
****** I'm not so sure. ;-)
Trainspotters have their anorak uniform, similarly
the Dharma crowd need their maroon skirts, shirts,
trousers or even just socks to show that they belong.
Spotting trains/watching thoughts:- "...7624...got it...
7624 again....7624..boring......hello whats this coming?
56672....dont belong on this line.....wow a 4-6-2...
I bet Julie hasnt seen one of them.....I dont believe
it..a 2-10-0.....look folks I've seen a 2-10-0 .....
honest follks all on my own....a *ing 2-10-0....I
think I'll write a book about my 2-10-0....I'm probably
ready for another platform now.
Trouble with trainspotters is that they do tend to firmly
encamp in either the steam (the real macoy) or the post-steam
era. Some of the post-steam enthusiasts do acknowledge
their debt to the pioneers of the steam era, but for the
most part the two sets of enthusiasts seem to hardly
speak to each other...after all what on earth has a dirty
smelly old deisel got in common with a dirty smelly old
steam engine? It's not as if they run along the same lines
or end up going to the same destination is it? Totally
different vehicles if you ask me.
Don, Trying to live like a sword
The Born-Again Buddhist. in water, but behaving more
(....and again and again) like a thick plank.
Richard St. Clair
Avyorth Rolinson wrote:
> Lozang Trinlae wrote ...
> >By the way, I was taught that when we prostrate we prostrate to the
> >wisdom that a person or object represents and that it is nothing to do
> >with idol worship of humans or otherwise.
>
> Yep, me too. But come on why prostrate? It's a bit like doffing your hat
> everytime you meet a woman, or touching your forelock when you meet the lord
> of the manor. An out-of-date social custom that comes with some deeply
> entrenched ideological implications. Also, in my experience it does
> cross-infect. Really, just observe people around any idol whether lama,
> guru, pop/film star, royalty. IMO it does actually encourage infection with
> the germs of personality worship and the development of
> sectarianism/cultism.
Dear Avyorth,
At least you could have put an IMO or smiley in those comments - that's
pretty harsh and opinionated. Westerners are so quick to express an
opinion. Part of eastern wisdom is to suspend judgement and await
enlightening influences. It's why I prefer Buddhism to any other faith
or belief system.
You suggest that prostrations are somehow wrong - yet what about gassho?
What about chanting the three refuges? What about reading sutras? Where
does it stop?
I'm not a big fan of prostrations, but for a time when I was active with
a Tibetan group in Boston I did them. First of all, prostration is to
me a way of setting aside ego. That's very hard for us westerners to do,
especially when we've gone through the secular education system with its
frank contempt for religion and its 'refuge' in the so-called
'sciences.'
However, much though I prefer not to do prostrations anymore (for
reasons I won't go into at this time), I can appreciate that others
regard it as part of their practice, and they regard it as a living
process, not obeisance to some shopworn convention that they naively
bought into. I heard a lama talking about prostrations once. Though I
don't totally resonate with the idea I can make room in my mind to
appreciate it: he said that doing prostrations is purifying the ground
underneath us. At least it's no sillier than holy water or chanting
mantras. It's just another practice. If people find it to be useful and
meaningful, I say let them go with it. Who am I to judge, and what do I
know anyway? If nothing else, practices keep us mindful of the Buddha,
which may be the main point in the last analysis.
Take care,
Rick St. Clair
Lozang Trinlae
*note to politics ng: some off-topic sections here-sorry*
Avyorth Rolinson wrote:
> >
> The other tendency is, of course, to see all views and beliefs as equally
> valid (as long as they're warm and squidgy). Kind of the new age campers.
No need or desire for that (mistaken=unmistaken) stance! What's the old
saying, 'jack of all trades and master of none'?? Privately at least, we
shouldn't be ashamed to analyze and face up to our views. It seems
pathological to try to hide something from one's own mind.
> I suppose what I look towards is some balance between discrimination and
> inclusion - please note I'm not claiming to have achieved or found it
> myself. The balance would need to include the contemplative and empirical
> disciplines, sort of spirituality and science if you like. You may have
> detected a hint of unease around scriptural reliance with me?
Inclusion is kind of scary, since it implies some outer group alliance,
doesn't it? View, belonging to ourselves as rational persons, should be
an inner phenomena. While peer pressure can be healthy in some
instances, it can also be a good excuse to be lazy avoid the analysis
necessary to form one's conclusions. We shouldn't ignore education in
other disciplines and I personally find my training in physics helpful
to me all the time, particularly in 'dharma studies' via the numerous
analytical tools and also knowledge of the material world theoretical
and experimental.
Your point is also a good reason to study science. There are a lot of
people walking around who still don't really understand the technology
of television reception and transmission or the solar system or how/why
the seasons appear. Until the past 100 years or so common people (not
priests or nobles) were illiterate and there was no choice but to accept
or be ignorant of 'scriptures' that claimed things about the material
world such as the earth was flat. So I think comparatively it is quite
revolutionary that there is now a growing global population of 'common'
people educated to some extent, and it is an insult to our ancestors to
proceed in our personal political or religous undertakings ignorantly.
Isn't voluntary ignorance more often an apparent cause of divisiveness
than pluralistic education?
>
> Seriously, though, I really don't see any hope for a spirituality that is
> unwilling to pass through the refining fire of scriptural, historical and so
> on, analysis. In other words it has got to acknowledge postmodernism - the
> whole history of Western rational and scientific development. I think that
> is what I challenge in your postings. I like your 'heart' as it were, and
> your concrete mental skills are very impressive (IMO), but your rootedness
> in pre-modernism/traditionalism .......ARGH!!!!!!
What is "it" that has to do the acknowledging? Is it a non-specific
objective label like 'spirituality' or actual persons and a specific
ethnographical context? Just because I may not find it skillful or
relevant under a particular circumstance to bring in my science (B.Sc.
Physics-Magna Cum Laude/high-energy experimental physics) is not to say
I deny or repress it, nor that my science background isn't well
integrated with my dharma background and that there is some conflict!
(I've been known to post in the alt.energy.renewable ng too, among
others to which I subscribe!)
I think your apparent assumptions about my rootedness is very
interesting and underestimates my experimentalism with respect to
Buddhadharma (and politics and life generally for that matter), besides
being potentially inaccurate (I'm not sure if I understand your use of
the term 'rootedness'). You might consider if the appearances in which
your assumptions are based are reliably established.
>
> No, being rooted is fine! But for god's sake, let the shoots come out of the
> ground into the clear light of day (ie the 21st century)!! Let's bring
> together eg neurophysiology and meditation, cognitive sciences and lorig.
Reliability of roots depends on if the roots are (or can be) growing in
the garden of your own mind or one has to grope around outside in which
case anything could feel like a root. While there is much benefit to be
gained from the sciences we must also be realistic and recognize the
boundaries and limitations. If we can do that then there is no end to
the benefits we can reap. You may be interested to know that I have been
working to bring a modern science education into the monastery schools
of the young monks (and future Geshes) at Sera and Ganden since 1991
(and even taught physics at Sera), and am translating a physics book
into Tibetan, having secured the copyright from the original author (who
was enthusiastic about the effort). Unfortunately the state of education
in their schools is quite far from where it could be and requires
comprehensive improvements to get to the point where monks finishing
their monastery schools and entering their debating/Geshe programs will
have the benefit of a quality education in the sciences. (See
http://www.tiac.net/users/adweiss/EVAM/ for [entirely non-political and
non-religious] efforts in this area).
I have a lot of thoughts on how science can complement Buddhadharma but
I won't go into them here.
>
> >no point for vegetarians to go to the Lobster and Steak house to complain
> >about meat-eating either now is there?)
> >
> Chuckle! I like it. Nevertheless as I've tried to point out before, to use
> your analogy, we're the lobsters....
That's ok. But please bear in mind that my use of scriptural quotation
was not in an address to *all* the meat-eaters, just the momo-eaters.
(It can be easily seen that it was not a spam-post!)
>
> Yep, me too. But come on why prostrate? It's a bit like doffing your hat
> everytime you meet a woman, or touching your forelock when you meet the lord
> of the manor. An out-of-date social custom that comes with some deeply
> entrenched ideological implications. Also, in my experience it does
> cross-infect. Really, just observe people around any idol whether lama,
> guru, pop/film star, royalty. IMO it does actually encourage infection with
> the germs of personality worship and the development of
> sectarianism/cultism.
Sorry to the politics, etc. ngs for this is more arbt material, but I
respectfully disagree. The best purpose (IMO) for prostrations in
addition to spiritual imprints of doing physical exercise for spiritual
benefit, is physical exercise. Anyone who has done meditation retreat
will know the (often sorry) state the back and body generally can enter.
Extended periods (20 minutes or so) of regular prostration practice can
be very, very helpful. If you consider the neuro-science (I did
undergrad psychobiology as well as graduate neural science by the way),
what is getting exercised the most in (long/full) prostration practice
(other than ego which can be also exercised in numerous other ways too)
is the central nervous system. The spinal cord and all the ganglia
extending out from it are all exercised, not to mention the brain and
all the cells and neurotransmitter making up the material parts of the
system we call "ourselves" or "buddha-to-be" or "post-modern buddha to
be" or whatever. It is an underestimation of Buddhism to pre-suppose
that the sophisticated understanding of psycho-biological basis and
benefits of practices such as prostrations did not motivate the practice
in the first place and presume that the only role is for some
ego-slimming, however noble that mere goal is alone. Is it just a mere
coincidence that popular traditions advise 100,000 or so of them to
prepare for embarking on 3 years of meditation retreat?
>
> >no need to assume others who do it
> >hold the same views and likewise get no benefit.
>
> Now that's something I definately don't hold - the difficulty for me is the
> sort of benefit that I've seen people get out of these 'old fashioned ways'.
>
Now you may not *see* the benefits; that's the problem! They may not be
apparent for you personally, or they may occur at a time and place other
than which permits you to be the witness. There are plenty of phenomena,
material alone, which are known to exist but which cannot be seen with
the eye.
I can think of a technology, mobile-limb-designated CAT-scanning, for
example, which could be used in experimental tests of the effects of
prostrations on the brain. (As one way for example) Science isn't
interested in this sort of testing much yet however, and the equipment
would cost big bucks, if it were invented/available yet. A cheaper
method could be brain wave analysis, if the extraneous signal could be
filtered out. But do you doubt the cardio-vascular benefit of
prostration practice? Can you not deduce theoretically any benefit to
dedicating some cario-vascular benefit to spiritual purpose/something
other than worldly goals?
Of course, what I suspect is the problem, is not the prostrations but
any (potential) lack of discrimination in choice to do them by
practioner. Each practioner only needs to convince him or herself of the
benefits, (& not usenet bystanders) and should not fail to do so. Like a
scientific experiment they should experiment (over some extended
time-period to establish statistical integrity) under the various
conditions (dharma centers/statues/teachers/home alone) and try doing
and not doing and check the benefit or lack thereof and decide
accordingly. This is the kind of advice Buddha gave and while it may be
pre-modern still applies today (post-modern or whatever you call it).
Maybe that is why the plant of dharma derived from the root of Buddha
Shakyamuni is still growing!?!
-some person:who cares?
Avyorth Rolinson
GT wrote in message <348B0370...@cam.org>...
>Wow, at last some real good sense !
>
>I like the references to Piaget and Memetics ! No, no, I love it !
>I have studied both a lot in the past ! It always come back to my mind
>when I read the good Buddhadharma !
>I also like to make connections with Chaos Theory and Dynamics systems !
>
>Do you have more information on how to link Memetics and Genetic
>Psychology (Epistemology) to Buddhism beliefs ?
Greetings GT and apologies for not responding sooner!
Well, I know very very little indeed about memes. I was reading
Csikszentmihalyi's "The Evolving Self" recently in which he discusses memes,
and I thought what a useful conceptual tool for looking at belief systems eg
buddhism. The following is really just some wild meme-outburst - perhaps
you'd care to apply the necessary anti-viral agent to it?
I'd read some Sociobiology years ago and found the idea of 'gene-wars'
underlying social intercourse and general behaviour helpful. When it comes
to the biosphere, sociobiology's theories are enlightening. But when it
comes to the noosphere (de Chardin's term for the domain of mind) then I
think the simple influence of genetics fades out, and what do we put in its
place? Buddhist ideas of mind are excellant when talking of the subjective
or inner aspect of mind, but of the objective or outer idea of mental life?
So, when I came across the idea of memes, wow! this is really really
interesting.
The idea that the fertile territory of mind is a battlefield for,
almost-autonomous, mental entities (analogous to the gene-wars idea of
genetics) throws some very interesting light on eg the current war between
HHDL and GKG. The happy breeding ground for tibetan buddhist memes in Tibet
has been taken over by that big bruvver of a meme, Marxism. So, if tb is
going to survive it's going to have to infect the Western mind real well.
Shades of 'Alien' and the genre of SF, no?
Now, tibetan buddhism has, by and large, seemed quite a (relatively) benign
meme as far as agrarian-based memes go. But perhaps in the introduction of
it into the Western (post?) industrial mental pastures - ie big, wide and
liberal, and lacking the social, economic, etc constraints of the
Traditional tibetan mind we'll see more and more difficulties. There may
well be cross-contamination by agrarian-based meme remnants in the minds of
Westerners (eg christianism). The fundamentalist/intolerant streaks of
Pabongka seem to have found support in this way - witness the NKT.
We in the West have benefitted from several hundred years of anti-viral/meme
agents such as Voltaire, the Age of Enlightenment, science. These agents
have enabled us to gain some 'distance' from or autonomy over agrarian-based
memes. Of course, like all organisms, the agrarian-based memes have mutated
ever-seeking the chink in the armour of our rational defence-mechanisms.
'Foreign' memes/viruses sometimes seem to have a better chance of
penetrating 'home' defences, at least in the short-time - witness such
foreign-derived viruses as Theosophy's "Star of the East and Krishnamurti".
My response to this threat would be to call for the anti-'agrarian meme'
agents of modernism and postmodernism. The sooner that buddhism is subjected
to historical/textural/etc analysis the better. Bit like the infection of
the 'Ancient Egyptian' meme into the western mind in the 18th & 19th
centuries (mark you it's one hellova resilient meme - witness the
ever-recurring pyramidology) - historical/archeological/textural analyses
eventually brought the infection under control.
Now, bringing in some Piaget and Chaos Theory, there seems to be a process
of mental development that occurs when the autonomy of a meme is creatively
inhibited and a strange or chaotic attractor (?) appears, causing some shift
up the ladder of complexity or development - is this what we call
'evolution', I wonder? Eg concrete operations shifts to formal operations.
Or the incorporation of (pre-)mitochondria, (pre-)golgi bodies, etc into a
higher order agent viz a cell.
I suspect that Siddhartha Gautama was one such 'strange/chaotic' attractor
appearing in the agrarian-based society of the Indus-Ganges Valleys region.
Unfortunately the socio-economic base of the culture was unable to support
the massive shift he seems to have envisaged and the memes he introduced
collapsed (by and large) back down into mythic-agrarian ones, albeit higher
order ones. It does seem that with the development of the
post-industrial/informational global village we have the chance to re-create
and actually maintain these 'Sid Gautama' memes.
This is where I'd want to bring in the idea of Dharma ('liberational
strategies'). Dharma seems to be a sort of 'strange attractor' that
continually draws living organisms further onwards into ever-more complex
and inclusive states. Witness the process of shift from blood/tribal to
belief-system/mythic to individual/rational based cultures in the world.
Each step seems to encompass more - to be less intolerant of differences. I
suspect that within mythic-based buddhism there's some very useful
'genetic'/memetic encoded-information, eg contemplative methodologies,
waiting to be released. Hence the call, "Pass the nutcrackers, let's
crack-open buddhism and feast upon the dharma!"
Yours in the Dh (ark)
Avyorth
>
>GT
>
Avyorth Rolinson
Bosco Ho wrote in message <66form$o...@camel12.mindspring.com>...
>When I wrote "The Two Truths," I basically refer to the entire body of
>ideas including the Middleway and the 3 Principal Paths. And yes, it
>is true that misguided kindness is worse than none at all. In a way, I
>think most people understand it when they are actualized in examples
>like your fish story. This is what I am after: what is in principle at
>the abstract level and what are the instances.
Greetings Bosco,
Thank you for your lucid response. I'd like to try to clarify some of the
confused points in my previous postings now that you've encouraged me to be
a little more reflective.
I also have the greatest respect for much of the Middle Way and 3 Principle
Aspects of the Path stuff.
My main point could be summarised in that old dharma saying, "you've got to
be somebody, before you can be nobody." And this is where Western
psychology, sociology, etc comes in. Until we move from concrete operations
to formal operations, we'll never get a crack at post-formal operations ie
the spiritual or liberational operations. (ala Piaget and the
neo-Piagetians!) So much of traditional buddhism seems, IMO, to be fixated
in concrete operations ie where mental objects are taken concretely. A
perfect example is the D Shugden thing. Not everyone is stuck in this way,
for sure, but buddhism (vs Dharma) seems to encourage it, perhaps
Westerners also get hooked into the exotic-ness of it all.
This is partly because contemplative methodologies have not been
differentiated (IMO) from political, social, or empirical scientific fields
of knowledge. So, often people will quote scripture or 'authority' figures
as if that 'proved' the truth of the issue. The actual personages are still
mixed up with the instructions. Another way of putting this might be the
failure to separate the medium from the message.
Buddhism lacks any developmental theory that covers the span from conception
to adulthood (as far as I'm aware). Likewise it doesn't address the issues
of possible psychopathologies. This is possibly because it developed in a
non-reflective agrarian society with its 'given' social norms. Perhaps in
such a society the structures and strictures are solid enough to
compensate - mark you the buddha did seem rather phased when women wanted to
join in the fun. His response to the question certainly now seems rather
misogynist and paternalistic.
Please don't misunderstand that I want to equate the achievements of Sid
Gautama and J Piaget!
>I understand very well your attitude toward gurus.
<snip>
>So I prostrate to the
>teachers - not only because I am appreciative to their efforts but
>also because I need to conquer my attitude.
Firstly, I differentiate teacher from guru (eg as in the term guru yoga) -
the teacher is a fellow traveller, whereas the guru is my buddhanature in a
symbolic (not external) form. Secondly, isn't the confusion and conflation
of these two the source of much of the disfunctionality of religion in
general? Surely we can work to transform our 'attitudes' without promoting
feudalistic kowtowing?
Developmental psychology helps me to understand that the more narcissistic
or self-cherishing attitudes are the precursors of more compassionate
attitudes. Hence, IMO, it's better to say 'transform' than 'overcome'. So
often buddhism and other so-called spiritual activities seem to attract
those already overburdened with guilt, self-loathing and the likes - ah how
wonderful the doctrine of no-self appears to such!
Wishing you luck in overcoming 'overcoming' itself <g>!
Yours in the Dh (ark)
Avyorth
>in Dharma, Bosco
Avyorth Rolinson
Don Martin wrote in message <19971209....@rainbows.demon.co.uk>...
>In article <66j3gn$a...@argon.btinternet.com>,
> Avy...@btinternet.com ("Avyorth Rolinson") wrote:
>
>
> > Buddhism is not like train-spotting -
>
> ****** I'm not so sure. ;-)
Most excellant, Don. IMO it conveyed an important idea in a most humourous
format. I've read it several times and chuckled most heartily. Thank you.
Yours, spotting in the Dh (ark),
Avyorth
Avyorth Rolinson
Lozang Trinlae wrote in message <348D87...@mindless.com>...
>*note to politics ng: some off-topic sections here-sorry*
I've remeved the pol.ng.
Hello again LT,
I enjoyed your posting and do find your responses to my postings most
helpful - so if you have the time and energy do keep them coming! Wanted to
pick-up one or two points to perhaps clarify my meaning a little more:
>Inclusion is kind of scary, since it implies some outer group alliance,
>doesn't it?
What I meant by 'inclusion' here was more in the sense of maintaining some
sort of consistency or coherence - bit like 'right views'. Perhaps
'integrity of view' would be closer?
>What is "it" that has to do the acknowledging? Is it a non-specific
>objective label like 'spirituality' or actual persons and a specific
>ethnographical context?
Sorry, sloppy and casual language! I'm referring to the context within which
we, 'actual persons', hold our views. How well are our spiritual/religious
views, beliefs, and activities integrated with our eg scientific, political,
social or other realms of knowledge and action?
>While there is much benefit to be
>gained from the sciences we must also be realistic and recognize the
>boundaries and limitations. If we can do that then there is no end to
>the benefits we can reap.
Absolutely! But I'm wondering whether you're not (perhaps?) conflating
'science' and 'technology'?
You may be interested to know that I have been
>working to bring a modern science education into the monastery schools
>of the young monks (and future Geshes) at Sera and Ganden
This is brilliant - I 'prostrate' to your efforts and compassion; really I
do.
>
> meat-eaters, just the momo-eaters.
>spam-post!)
Meat-eaters! Spam! Are you getting enough quality protein in your diet? <g>
...and what's a 'momo-eater'?
>The best purpose (IMO) for prostrations in
>addition to spiritual imprints of doing physical exercise for spiritual
>benefit, is physical exercise.
I've no problem with the theory, LT. But the social context of prostration
and general kowtowing is another thing altogether. Sure, visualise your
buddhanature before you and then get on with your step-dancing - no
problemo!
>Now you may not *see* the benefits; that's the problem!
<snip>
>Of course, what I suspect is the problem, is not the prostrations
I've no problem with prostration as a psycho-physical activity -it's the
socio-political kowtowing aspect.
>Maybe that is why the plant of dharma derived from the root of Buddha
>Shakyamuni is still growing!?!
Ah, dear LT, perhaps there are other plants derived from less salubrious
roots thriving as much as, perhaps even more so, than buddism. The hindu
caste system is one that comes to mind. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to
be a correlation between the longlevity of a meme and its compassionate
content. Witness the longlevity of the shark genotype.
>
Yours in the Dh (ark)
Avyorth
>-some person:who cares?
But then Gui and co obviously care - why else do they spend such great
effort?
John La Grou
On Sat, 13 Dec 1997 13:42:17 -0000, "Avyorth Rolinson"
<Avy...@btinternet.com> wrote:
...edits
>Traditional tibetan mind we'll see more and more difficulties. There may
>well be cross-contamination by agrarian-based meme remnants in the minds of
>Westerners (eg christianism). The fundamentalist/intolerant streaks of
>Pabongka seem to have found support in this way - witness the NKT.
Since when is Xn faith considered "agrarian?" Perhaps a critical
look at world population will show Bdsm more tightly aligned with
agrarian societies? Besides, what's wrong or backwards about
agrarianism (land ownership, peaceful use of land for agricultural
purposes?) Avyorth, do I smell a decomposing Marx?
(I always chuckle at these little stabs of denigration towards
authentic Xn faith as intolerant/fundamentalist while raising Bdst
ideals to peaks of lofty elegence and grace. Intolerance crosses
all boundaries, folks. The moment you've polarized yourself as
the "tolerant" one, WRT those awful "intolerant" one's, you're
smack dab in the thick of what you've tried to avoid..)
>This is where I'd want to bring in the idea of Dharma ('liberational
>strategies'). Dharma seems to be a sort of 'strange attractor' that
>continually draws living organisms further onwards into ever-more complex
>and inclusive states. Witness the process of shift from blood/tribal to
>belief-system/mythic to individual/rational based cultures in the world.
>Each step seems to encompass more - to be less intolerant of differences. I
>suspect that within mythic-based buddhism there's some very useful
>'genetic'/memetic encoded-information, eg contemplative methodologies,
>waiting to be released. Hence the call, "Pass the nutcrackers, let's
>crack-open buddhism and feast upon the dharma!"
>
>Yours in the Dh (ark)
>Avyorth
Please provide some examples of modren *cultures* which
Bdst practice has evolved from "blood" to "mythic" to "rational."
All the best,
JL
Robin Faichney
I dropped a couple of ng's I consider irrelevant, and added
alt.memetics.
To me the most interesting aspect of the collision of Buddhism and
memetics is to view Buddhism as a method of controlling memes. The
prime example of a meme that needs, in almost all of us, to be put
under control is "the self". Buddhism helps us realise that as just a
concept, just a meme. To really believe in the self is to be in
thrall to the meme, whereas to view it as sometimes useful, but having
no actual referent, nothing "out there" to which it corresponds, is to
have control over it -- its use is limited to situations in which it
is helpful. In more general terms, Buddhism can help us awaken from
the conceptual dream to non-conceptual reality, in other words to gain
control over all our memes, so that they they get no more of our
resources than they deserve (from our point of view, that is, not
their's!) and ultimately, ideally, only those that are genuinely
symbiotic, and beneficial to us, rather than parasitic, can survive.
Not that that will happen soon, but perhaps we can move towards it.
If religions in general (but not only religions of course) are memetic
viruses, then Buddhism, though it spreads by the same methods, is an
anti-viral agent, and it also wipes out itself when its job is done --
there is no Buddhism in nirvana!
I'm currently working on a website about such stuff, which probably
will have an associated maillist. I'll post an announcement when it's
ready to be seen, and the list is operative, probably in a couple of
months. (But the list could be started sooner if there's enough
interest.)
Robin Faichney
GT
More WOW,
I agree, IMOM it is a memes war, and only that. War among different
flavors of the same memes, until it purifies itself by natural selection
(the result of their karma).
And Buddhism is the supreme memes (Memetics), and a strange attractor
(Chaos Theory), because of its power enable someone to transcend itself
(go above all small mondain problems and illusions; to get to the truth
fast) (personal development) and to bring all spirits together
(sociology). So as you said, karma is a successful memes, because is is
probably a natural strange attractor (i.e. is sort of "coded" from the
start of the universe, and naturally developing as a stable meme). it
was just a matter of time and complexity for it to appear and develop.
Sometime I think that the memes (or something very close to that) are
the only thinks surviving our bodies (equivalent of karma) and that it
is the part that Buddha was talking about when he was referring to what
is migrating from life to life, and from body to body. If it is the
case, then the only way to purify this part (eliminate bad karma) is to
get rid of all bad memes; and this can only be done if it is done
globally. That means there is no absolute nirvana without liberating
everybody (all sentient beings) ... we are all linked by this process
(memes). The result is like the "Noosphere", but even more universal. Of
course, someone may develop anti-virus to fight, in his own spirit, most
of bad memes attacks (bodhisattvas); but that is not enough. he soon
realizes that he has to liberate everybody, otherwise his memes might
get lost.
About Piaget, sometimes I think his theory of evolution based on
assimilation-accomodation (the core of its theories) explains the same
thing as the 12 conditioned links (Principle of conditionally); it
explains how we develop concepts, limited models of our environments,
their problems, how we get to consciousness, etc. It is a fractal
process (starting with the very basic components of the universe), that
we can extrapolate up to the nirvana.
In brief, I think, more and more, science is catching up with some of
Buddha's observations. In my mind, they cannot contradict one another;
both are based on finding the truth. About, the difficulty of TB to
penetrate western civilizations. The methods to get to that truth are
very different in western or eastern countries, but both use some
"lying" to motivate people to work together so more and more people
would get closer to this truth. Those techniques (or traditions,
politics, tantras) are all going to fade away as one get closer to the
truth. Until then, some lies don't mix together (as you said); it is the
war of anti-virals agents.
I also agree and will participate in the nutcrackers festival. Nothing
beats pure dharma.
I will work more on it in a while, for the moment I am trying to
concentrate on learning more of the Buddha's view.
(For the kids out there, don't take any of this as cash ! It is, as
another said, only simulated dharma !)
GT
To reply: remove the "z" from my email address if you want to respond
directly
(this is to avoid spam emails).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avyorth Rolinson wrote:
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With metta, GT
I am here to be used by others.
--
To reply: remove the "z" from my email address if you want to respond
directly
(this is to avoid spam emails).
Mick_G
Robin:
I hate to show my feet of clay but what is a meme? What is memetics? I
looked it up in a dictionary and could find neither.
Mick
Robin Faichney wrote in message <3492d447...@lorne.stir.ac.uk>...
GT
MINOR CORECTIONS
GT wrote:
> More WOW,
>
> I agree, IMOM it is a memes war, and only that. War among different
> flavors of the same memes, until it purifies itself by natural
> selection
> (the result of their karma).
>
> And Buddhism is the supreme memes (Memetics), and a strange attractor
> (Chaos Theory), because of its power enable someone to transcend
> itself
> (go above all small mondain problems and illusions; to get to the
> truth
> fast) (personal development) and to bring all spirits together
> (sociology). So as you said, karma is a successful memes, because is
> is
................not karma but DHARMA ...
Jim McCulloch
In article <66uc36$q...@argon.btinternet.com>, "Avyorth Rolinson"
<Avy...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Well, I know very very little indeed about memes.
Well, that didn't stop you from sitting down at your keyboard and typing
about 800 quick words, each glowing with enthusiasm for a silly
pseudodarwinian metaphor whose only reasonable claim to truth (or more
appropriately, in its own terms, our attentions) might be the survival
against all odds of its catchy rebundling of several old and IMO
discredited ideas, not least of which is social darwinism.
> The idea that the fertile territory of mind is a battlefield for,
> almost-autonomous, mental entities (analogous to the gene-wars idea of
> genetics) throws some very interesting light on eg the current war between
> HHDL and GKG.
Does it? It throws light on some memes--you notice I didn't use plain
English and call them obsessions--that have infected your own mind, on
behalf of which you have been writing a great quantity of detailed prose to
international newsgroups like talk.religion.buddhism about utterly
parochial concerns. Such as, "old lady cruelly deprived of her tv by
power-mad tibetan monks." Well, your deployment of this meme, in another
thread, (now enabling it to live on, for a moment at least, in this one)
has activated (I'll bet) the immuno-meme called the "what does this have to
do with Buddhism? meme" among Buddhists around the planet.
Here's another meme (may it infect your mind):
Give it a rest.
--Jim McCulloch
GT
On Memetics
- Memetics publications on the web
- Some pointers and a short introduction to memetics
- THE WORLD OF RICHARD DAWKINS
- WWWL General Memetics
- Journal of Memetics
- The memetic basis of religion
- THOUGHT CONTAGION How Belief Spreads Through Society: The New Science of Memes
- Virus of the Mind
- alt.memetics
On Noosphere
Club Web
--
GT
Bosco Ho
In <66uc3h$q...@argon.btinternet.com>, On Sat, 13 Dec 1997 16:11:42
-0000, "Avyorth Rolinson" <Avy...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Greetings Bosco,
Greeting Avyorth,
[I bow down to Lord Buddha, Socrates and all other one-gone-thus, and
all my teachers of the 3 times]
>Thank you for your lucid response. I'd like to try to clarify some of the
>confused points in my previous postings now that you've encouraged me to be
>a little more reflective.
1st, please do not confuse me for someone who may actually know
something about anything <g>
>I also have the greatest respect for much of the Middle Way and 3 Principle
>Aspects of the Path stuff.
>My main point could be summarised in that old dharma saying, "you've got to
>be somebody, before you can be nobody."
I ve no qualm with this; as a matter of opinion, I'd argue the same
>And this is where Western
>psychology, sociology, etc comes in. Until we move from concrete operations
>to formal operations, we'll never get a crack at post-formal operations ie
>the spiritual or liberational operations. (ala Piaget and the
>neo-Piagetians!) So much of traditional buddhism seems, IMO, to be fixated
>in concrete operations ie where mental objects are taken concretely. A
>perfect example is the D Shugden thing. Not everyone is stuck in this way,
>for sure, but buddhism (vs Dharma) seems to encourage it, perhaps
>Westerners also get hooked into the exotic-ness of it all.
I really don't have much of an opinion. Piaget's weltanschauung seems
to work for many people; however, he too was criticized as mixing
prescription with description (memory is hazy, so apology if I confuse
him with someone else.)
Having said that, I agree with you completely that regardless of the
nature and status of DS and others, it can be dangerous to introduce
it without supplying the whole framework. As an analogy, the western
*health food* craze is another prime example. The health food
operators introduce various herbs, in condensed and concentrated form,
simply they ve certain properties. Of course, the real herbal doctors
- be they chinese, tibetan or indian - would say this is crazy,
because these herbs should be used in proper proportion and
combination. There is a chinese saying, "mediocre doctors hurt
society!"
>This is partly because contemplative methodologies have not been
>differentiated (IMO) from political, social, or empirical scientific fields
>of knowledge. So, often people will quote scripture or 'authority' figures
>as if that 'proved' the truth of the issue. The actual personages are still
>mixed up with the instructions. Another way of putting this might be the
>failure to separate the medium from the message.
>Buddhism lacks any developmental theory that covers the span from conception
>to adulthood (as far as I'm aware). Likewise it doesn't address the issues
>of possible psychopathologies. This is possibly because it developed in a
>non-reflective agrarian society with its 'given' social norms. Perhaps in
>such a society the structures and strictures are solid enough to
>compensate - mark you the buddha did seem rather phased when women wanted to
>join in the fun. His response to the question certainly now seems rather
>misogynist and paternalistic.
There are many poignant issues raised in the last two paragraphs and I
don't pretend to be able to deal with even one. One thing I feel is
certain is that we are not the 1st or last one to raise and have to
deal with these issues. That makes buddhadharma a living Dharma [note:
I'd imagine this applies equally well to all other forms of
philosophy.]
I agree that we should not quoting scripture or invoking historical
authority as proof of validity *blindly*.
It may be true that people can confuse the msg with the messenger, but
we must also be careful not to leave the messenger out either;
otherwise, the msg is quite meaningless. The reason I say this is more
of my bias towards the totality and against lifting the msg out of
context. I'd imagine this is in compliance to the worldview of
dependent arising.
Having said that, I m not certain of the purpose of your comment about
Buddhism lacking any developmental theory spanning... etc.
Buddhadharma is not developmental psychology, although ignorance of
the former has some family resemblance of the concept of egocentricism
of the latter. Whether one has or not the understanding of the Dharma,
one still has to eat or to move the bowel.
In a way, maybe there is some truth that buddhism, like most other
institutions, is paternalistic from the historical perspective. And it
is also true that it is difficult to overthrow such historical
cultural tyranny. Some people choose to attack the fortess from
without while others dedicate themselves to change (uh, transform)
from within. However, there is an american saying "do we want to throw
the baby out with the bathwater?" That is the question
>Please don't misunderstand that I want to equate the achievements of Sid
>Gautama and J Piaget!
I understand.
>>So I prostrate to the
>>teachers - not only because I am appreciative to their efforts but
>>also because I need to conquer my attitude.
>Firstly, I differentiate teacher from guru (eg as in the term guru yoga) -
>the teacher is a fellow traveller, whereas the guru is my buddhanature in a
>symbolic (not external) form. Secondly, isn't the confusion and conflation
>of these two the source of much of the disfunctionality of religion in
>general? Surely we can work to transform our 'attitudes' without promoting
>feudalistic kowtowing?
>Developmental psychology helps me to understand that the more narcissistic
>or self-cherishing attitudes are the precursors of more compassionate
>attitudes. Hence, IMO, it's better to say 'transform' than 'overcome'. So
>often buddhism and other so-called spiritual activities seem to attract
>those already overburdened with guilt, self-loathing and the likes - ah how
>wonderful the doctrine of no-self appears to such!
1st a disclaimer, I am not qualified to talk about guru yoga;
therefore, I try to stay away from that topic. However, it is said
that there are the outer and inner gurus, so maybe the unqualified use
of the word 'guru' can cause a lot of confusion.
While one can treat one's teacher as a spiritual friend, one has to
view it from the cultural perspective. While I don't know tibetan
(gang-la?) the chinese (same as the japanese 'sensei') essentially
means that who has achieved birth prior [to oneself.] Of course, time
is a-changing! Anyway, before I leave this [sub]topic, IMHO, I do feel
that the traditional (?) guideline of spending 9 or more years to
observe each other before entering into a guru/disciple relationship
may at least help to slow down the impulsiveness of human nature.
You ve mentioned about the "attitude." I think there is a lot to be
said about it. Similar outward action (extension) can have different
inward support (intension.)
As I ve said before, I ve forgotten most of my acquired knowledge and
theories about developmental psychology decades ago; however, while it
may be good to know modern social, political and psychological
theories to support the furtherment of Dharma practices (afterall, one
version of the 4 measureables includes "dharmas is numerous, but I vow
to learn them all." In this context, I suppose it can either mean a)
including all worldly dharmas; b) 84,000 teachings and/or c) skilful
means.
The use of the word 'tranmsforming' is indeed a lot more appealing
than 'overcoming.' However, it is a matter of semantics to me for now.
I don't know how to transform anger or lust or ignorance; so, I am
happy if I ve less of these affliction. I understand this is probably
not the best of all possible worlds, but it is a beginning for me.
Advance practitioners like yourself may ve past that stage; however,
ordinary Dharma practitioners like myself should really learn to walk
before trying out the marathon! From that perspective, instead of
following or dictating the shape of the world according to one's
worldview, maybe it is better to start from the basic and follow the
dictum "nosce te ipsum."
>Wishing you luck in overcoming 'overcoming' itself <g>!
Thank you. As I conclude this response, it is funny that we come a
full circle when I type 'nosce te ipsum', so maybe it is good to know
oneself 1st before one is to *lose* oneself [to the great expand of
buddha activities.]
>Yours in the Dh (ark)
>Avyorth
in Dharma, Bosco
Bosco Ho
In <671e6f$l...@camel19.mindspring.com>, On Sun, 14 Dec 1997 20:06:49
GMT, wbos...@pipeline.com (Bosco Ho) wrote:
(snip)
>As I ve said before, I ve forgotten most of my acquired knowledge and
>theories about developmental psychology decades ago; however, while it
>may be good to know modern social, political and psychological
>theories to support the furtherment of Dharma practices (afterall, one
>version of the 4 measureables includes "dharmas is numerous, but I vow
>to learn them all." In this context, I suppose it can either mean a)
>including all worldly dharmas; b) 84,000 teachings and/or c) skilful
>means.
[oops, endless digression tends to have the strange side effects of
having thought half written down... maybe insertion the following
immediately after the above quote would help to close the gapping hole
:-)]
I do not know if the modern social, political and/or psychological
theories are any better than that of the past - and their relationship
with buddhadharma. I may be guilty of putting words in the mouths of
others, but I don't know if one has a easier or harder if one knows
Piaget's theory, or the Heidegger's, or the Frankfurt School. Of
course, obviously I too m influenced by these and others [outside of
conventional buddhist worldview] - and therefore m equally biased.
Ultimately, one has to look at the lifestories of the great masters.
For example, Lama Tsongkhapa's choice of Umapa. One can take it
literally as historical event or one can see it as a metaphor. Either
way, there is a lesson to be learned.
>in Dharma, Bosco
Avyorth Rolinson
Bosco Ho wrote in message <6726te$e...@camel21.mindspring.com>...
>In <671e6f$l...@camel19.mindspring.com>, On Sun, 14 Dec 1997 20:06:49
>GMT, wbos...@pipeline.com (Bosco Ho) wrote:
Hello Bosco,
Your earlier message to which this is an insertion has not yet appeared on
my server, so I'm replying only to the insertion.
>I do not know if the modern social, political and/or psychological
>theories are any better than that of the past - and their relationship
>with buddhadharma.
Why limit the question only to 'social ....theories'? What about
cosmological theories? Flat iron disk earth vs spherical earth;
devolutionary theory of the four ages vs evolutionary theory; and so on. But
that's just content, isn't it? The thing about the modern/postmodern view is
the willingness (ideally!) to hold these things as working premises, until
further clarification is gained. No sacred scriptures in science (I hope!).
And hopefully also with the developing social sciences.
We also have a historical (Nietzsche's 'genealogy') perspective, of the
development of both inner and outer event/idea, that our ancestors lacked.
Our world, again both inner and outer, has moved on and on.
I may be guilty of putting words in the mouths of
>others, but I don't know if one has a easier or harder if one knows
>Piaget's theory, or the Heidegger's, or the Frankfurt School.
Well, IMO, if one doesn't at least know of the ideas of developmental,
existential, etc theorists then one's thinking is much more likely to be
concrete. An example might be of the recent response of our young friend K
to someone suggesting that karma was a useful concept - K adamantly replied
that karma was not a concept but a universal law (I'm quoting from memory
here).
Now I think that someone with a modern/postmodern education would be much
less likely to hold the concept of the law of cause and effect (kamma
vipaka) as a concrete 'thing'. Surely they'd understand the relativity or
provisional nature of ideas and theories?
Also the socio-political implications of view are much more likely to be
understood by someone with a modern/postmodern stance. Who, having read the
feminists, marxists, JS Mill and innumerable others, would hold with Sid
Gautama's prescription for women's role and place in the spiritual life?
I suppose my point could be summarised: let's have Buddha and Heidegger,
Jesus and Piaget, and so on. I do believe that Sid Gautama (if he actually
existed in the first place, and the ideas ascribed to him were actually held
by him) quite probably gained what is hypothesised as enlightenment.
Nevertheless he would have taught within a social-political-historical
context. IMO if we don't take that into account we'll fall back into what
Jean Gebser called the Mythic worldview
>For example, Lama Tsongkhapa's choice of Umapa. One can take it
>literally as historical event or one can see it as a metaphor. Either
>way, there is a lesson to be learned.
Bosco, in my ignorant state, I'm afraid I don't know what 'Umapa' is, so may
be a bit off target here. The point, for me, would be that only if you'd
gained Piaget's formal operations would you have a choice of how to take it.
In the West, many of us now have the mental freedom to understand that the
biblical stories are a conflation of 'history', myth, political propaganda,
and some wisdom. Modernism has given us the means of winnowing the grain
from the chaff. We also have the political freedom to sink ourselves back
into yet another confused and confusing mythic worldspace ie budd-ISM! Hence
the Voltairian cry, 'pass the nutcrackers, love, I'm going to feast on the
Dh (ark)!'
Bosco Ho
In <673557$m...@argon.btinternet.com>, On Mon, 15 Dec 1997 11:28:57
-0000, "Avyorth Rolinson" <Avy...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Hello Bosco,
>Your earlier message to which this is an insertion has not yet appeared on
>my server, so I'm replying only to the insertion.
(snip)
Dear Avyorth -
I am about to leave to go to work, so pardon the hurried (and harried
<vbg>) style.
While I think you and I may agree that western theories and new
udnerstanding/synthesis can do very well compliment the core of
buddhadharma, what I was trying to suggest, in my clumsy way, is that
your view of modern theories and methodologies can be equally
problematic. To make this short, there are two nonbuddhist essays we
may want to read "Ontological Relativity" and "Two Dogmas of
Empiricism" both by Prof Willard VO Quine. While I am not a quinean,
what I ve been suggesting is that "different stroke for different
folks." Should one be less vigilant in critique? No. OTOH, to assert
that "if one doesn't at least know of the ideas of developmental,
existential, etc theorists then one's thinking is much more likely to
be concrete" is equally a disguise of forcing one's worldview onto
others.
To many tibetan buddhists, Karma is indeed the foundation. Obviously,
as i ve mentioned before, there are a lot of enthusaism about the late
Ven Buddhadasa's treatment. Ultimately, IMHO, one cannot detach Karma
(be it a concept or universal law) without examining the whole
framework. Otherwise, we are simply stitching the dragon's head to the
body of a snow lion.
Umapa (sp?) was Lama Tsongkhapa's guru of Mahamudra. Allegedly, the
former was a sheperd with little education. And in a way, this theme
seems to have a persistent recurrence in buddhist history. The 6th
Patriarch of Ch'an Bodhisattva Hui Neng and Jetsun Milarepa, among
others.
In concluding this thread, I certainly do not dispute the development
of bodhicitta outside of a traditional buddhist education. In fact, I
do believe there are a lot of charitable social service organizations
who can help our buddhist practice, like the Samaritans in the UK.
Also, I agree it may be defeating for the newcomers (westerners) to
copy everything tibetan, or chinese, or japanese, since there is quite
a lot of cultural add-ons. However, I do not want to make
*concreteness* a dirty word without looking at the whole system - even
though I am not a concrete type of person.
in Dharma, Bosco
Robin Faichney
I sent this via email but it didn't get through, so now I'm
posting it. Sorry it's a bit off-topic for these groups.
Well, entirely off-topic, actually, but perhaps the reply
(if any) could by email?
Jim McCulloch wrote:
>
> In article <66uc36$q...@argon.btinternet.com>, "Avyorth Rolinson"
> <Avy...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, I know very very little indeed about memes.
>
> Well, that didn't stop you from sitting down at your keyboard and typing
> about 800 quick words, each glowing with enthusiasm for a silly
> pseudodarwinian metaphor whose only reasonable claim to truth (or more
> appropriately, in its own terms, our attentions) might be the survival
> against all odds of its catchy rebundling of several old and IMO
> discredited ideas, not least of which is social darwinism.
Hi Jim, this intrigues me, could you please explain the connection
between memetics and social darwinism?
Robin
Jim McCulloch
>I sent this via email but it didn't get through, so now I'm
>posting it. Sorry it's a bit off-topic for these groups.
>Well, entirely off-topic, actually, but perhaps the reply
>(if any) could by email?
>
>Jim McCulloch wrote:
>>
>> In article <66uc36$q...@argon.btinternet.com>, "Avyorth Rolinson"
>> <Avy...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Well, I know very very little indeed about memes.
>>
>> Well, that didn't stop you from sitting down at your keyboard and typing
>> about 800 quick words, each glowing with enthusiasm for a silly
>> pseudodarwinian metaphor whose only reasonable claim to truth (or more
>> appropriately, in its own terms, our attentions) might be the survival
>> against all odds of its catchy rebundling of several old and IMO
>> discredited ideas, not least of which is social darwinism.
>
>Hi Jim, this intrigues me, could you please explain the connection
>between memetics and social darwinism?
>
>Robin
I suppose I could claim that some of the ideas of the social
darwinists were like viruses that lay dormant until they infected
Dawkins, but I actually don't believe that. There is a certain
congruence whereby social darwinian notions--like a supposed greater
fitness of this or that moral concept enabling such a concept to
differentially survive--could be mapped onto notions of memetic
fitness without any loss of information.
On the other hand, memeticicts don't necessarily believe that superior
memes confer any biological advantage to the organisms they replicate
in. In that respect memetics differs from social darwinism.
The reason I mentioned social darwinism is that memetics is absolutely
capable of being used, as social darwinism was used, to justify, on
grounds of "fitness" or other false notions of ineluctability, the
supposedly inevitably (but actually merely after-the-fact) triumph of
certain ideas we believe in but do not want to defend intellectually.
I can see why memetics appeals to buddhists. The idea of a swarm of
idea-things inside our biological selves is by itself a metaphor that
any buddhist, including me, can put to use. The notion that the
entities in this swarm of idea-things are somehow independently
self-replicating, subject to a kind of natural selection (memetic
fitness, like social darwinist fitness, is very much a post hoc
thing), is not so useful, IMO. What does it tell us, really?
Nothing.
It can be used for various nefarious ideological purposes however, not
necessarily Herbert Spencer's, but, uh, *replicating*, in some ways,
Spencer's arguments.
--Jim McCulloch
Avyorth Rolinson
Robin Faichney wrote in message <3497B7...@delete.stirling.ac.uk>...
>Jim McCulloch wrote:
>> In article <66uc36$q...@argon.btinternet.com>, "Avyorth Rolinson"
>> <Avy...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Well, I know very very little indeed about memes.
>>
>> Well, that didn't stop you from sitting down at your keyboard and typing
>> about 800 quick words, each glowing with enthusiasm for a silly
>> pseudodarwinian metaphor whose only reasonable claim to truth (or more
>> appropriately, in its own terms, our attentions) might be the survival
>> against all odds of its catchy rebundling of several old and IMO
>> discredited ideas, not least of which is social darwinism.
>
>Hi Jim, this intrigues me, could you please explain the connection
>between memetics and social darwinism?
What's happened to my server - haven't seen the original yet?
Anyway, could be an interesting POINT you have there, Mr McCulloch, but as
we all know, points have position but no size. So perhaps you'd be so kind
as to draw out your LINE of arguement for us? And so we have an idea as to
where you're coming from would you provide a means for us to TRIANGULATE
your view? Again, triangles are merely two-dimensional, so how's about
......... Interesting meme, geometry !
How's about Mr Jim McCulloch dashing off his 800 quick words on the social
darwinism of geometry? Looks like he may well have an interesting old bag of
memes stuck between his ears.
Yours in the Dh (ark)
Avyorth
>
>Robin
G. M. Attem
Dear Jim,
Social darwinism discriminate on the basis of physical characteristics
(the result of genes) (race, sex, etc. - like Nazism) !
Meme-ism would discriminate on the result of memes, that is ideas, like
beliefs, philosophy, political parties, ordinary habits, scientific
orientations, etc. - so you see it is well going on every day)
What is good about memetics, is that it gives people who like to
understand Truth from a conceptual point of view, a tool to analyze the
way ideas evolve in societies. It explain, for example, why good ideas
like democracy and the quest for the truth, are successful memes. It
explain why memes like communism are dying.
It might be useful when studying Buddhism because it might explain it's
evolution, it's success and survival !
I also think that it is sort of like karma and that it is a creation of
the same clear light, pure learning "thing" that has created the
universe, particles, molecules, life, consciousness, etc. It is just at
another organizational level, and could be used to understand emptiness,
the true nature of mind at the conceptual level. It is a bridge between
non-reductionist science and buddhism, two ways of trying to reach the
truth (two memes by themselves).
By the way, there is absolutely no link between Dawkins and social
darwinism ! You are afraid because you don't understand the true nature
of memes (which is emptiness of course) :-)
Memes are like shared sankhara ! There must be an equivalent of The
Wheel of Life & Dependent Origination for them. or maybe it is just the
same, applied as a fractal process at different levels of abstractions
(i.e. the "clear light, knowing" stuff seen from different point of
view) .
Jim McCulloch wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Dec 1997 11:29:21 +0000, Robin Faichney
> <r.j.fa...@delete.stirling.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >I sent this via email but it didn't get through, so now I'm
> >posting it. Sorry it's a bit off-topic for these groups.
> >Well, entirely off-topic, actually, but perhaps the reply
> >(if any) could by email?
> >
> >Jim McCulloch wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <66uc36$q...@argon.btinternet.com>, "Avyorth Rolinson"
> >> <Avy...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Well, I know very very little indeed about memes.
> >>
> >> Well, that didn't stop you from sitting down at your keyboard and
> typing
> >> about 800 quick words, each glowing with enthusiasm for a silly
> >> pseudodarwinian metaphor whose only reasonable claim to truth (or
> more
> >> appropriately, in its own terms, our attentions) might be the
> survival
> >> against all odds of its catchy rebundling of several old and IMO
> >> discredited ideas, not least of which is social darwinism.
> >
> >Hi Jim, this intrigues me, could you please explain the connection
> >between memetics and social darwinism?
> >
--
Mark Dunlop
In article <mcculloch-ya024080...@newshost.cc.utexas.edu
>, Jim McCulloch <mccu...@mail.utexas.edu> writes
>
>about 800 quick words, each glowing with enthusiasm for a silly
>pseudodarwinian metaphor whose only reasonable claim to truth (or more
>appropriately, in its own terms, our attentions) might be the survival
>against all odds of its catchy rebundling of several old and IMO
>discredited ideas, not least of which is social darwinism.
>
>> almost-autonomous, mental entities (analogous to the gene-wars idea of
>> genetics) throws some very interesting light on eg the current war between
>> HHDL and GKG.
>
>English and call them obsessions--that have infected your own mind, on
>behalf of which you have been writing a great quantity of detailed prose to
>international newsgroups like talk.religion.buddhism about utterly
>parochial concerns. Such as, "old lady cruelly deprived of her tv by
>power-mad tibetan monks."
'Think of others in solitude whom no-one aids.' (Padmasambhava)
> Well, your deployment of this meme, in another
>thread, (now enabling it to live on, for a moment at least, in this one)
>has activated (I'll bet) the immuno-meme called the "what does this have to
>do with Buddhism? meme" among Buddhists around the planet.
>
>Here's another meme (may it infect your mind):
>
>Give it a rest.
>
And here's another: Keep on truckin', Avyorth!
>--Jim McCulloch
Any relation to the chainsaw family?
--
Mark Dunlop
Mick_G
G.M.:
Only one small idea. memetics is like all of reality only made up. It has no
inherent substance. Consequently what is more important in Buddhism is to
have a jaundice eye towards all concepts. Not to bring a new system of
concepts to the practice of Buddhism.
Mick
G. M. Attem wrote in message <34982D62...@cam.org>...
>> >> In article <66uc36$q...@argon.btinternet.com>, "Avyorth Rolinson"
>> >> <Avy...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Well, I know very very little indeed about memes.
>> >>
>> >> Well, that didn't stop you from sitting down at your keyboard and
>> typing
>> >> about 800 quick words, each glowing with enthusiasm for a silly
>> >> pseudodarwinian metaphor whose only reasonable claim to truth (or
>> more
>> >> appropriately, in its own terms, our attentions) might be the
>> survival
>> >> against all odds of its catchy rebundling of several old and IMO
>> >> discredited ideas, not least of which is social darwinism.
>> >
Mick_G
Mick
>> >> > Well, I know very very little indeed about memes.
>> >>
Jim McCulloch
On Wed, 17 Dec 1997 14:52:02 -0500, "G. M. Attem" <met...@cam.org>
wrote:
>Meme-ism would discriminate on the result of memes, that is ideas, like
>beliefs, philosophy, political parties, ordinary habits, scientific
>orientations, etc. - so you see it is well going on every day)
I notice you equate memes and ideas. Most of us discriminate on the
basis of ideas, and did so even before memetics.
>What is good about memetics, is that it gives people who like to
>understand Truth from a conceptual point of view, a tool to analyze the
>way ideas evolve in societies. It explain, for example, why good ideas
>like democracy and the quest for the truth, are successful memes. It
>explain why memes like communism are dying.
I am afraid I don't see how memetics explains anything of the kind.
Please elaborate on this.
>It might be useful when studying Buddhism because it might explain it's
>evolution, it's success and survival !
So, memetics is post hoc discovery that what is, is successful ? I
hope you don't necessarily believe that what is successful is
consequently good. That would sound a little like social darwinism.
But that can't be what you mean.
>I also think that it is sort of like karma and that it is a creation of
>the same clear light, pure learning "thing" that has created the
>universe, particles, molecules, life, consciousness, etc. It is just at
>another organizational level, and could be used to understand emptiness,
>the true nature of mind at the conceptual level. It is a bridge between
>non-reductionist science and buddhism, two ways of trying to reach the
>truth (two memes by themselves).
I had thought, perhaps wrongly, that I understood a little of
memetics, and a little of buddhism. But I must not understand enough,
because the paragraph above confuses me. Are you are saying the memes,
these little self-replicating idea-oids, contain particles of divine
light? I don't necessarily discount the idea, but dawkins's memes
didn't as far as I know have this mentalist pantheism about them. A
later development I guess. I haven't kept up.
>By the way, there is absolutely no link between Dawkins and social
>darwinism !
You will notice, if you read my words (quoted in your post), that I
said as much.
>You are afraid because you don't understand the true nature
>of memes (which is emptiness of course) :-)
True. I haven't understood that yet.
>Memes are like shared sankhara ! There must be an equivalent of The
>Wheel of Life & Dependent Origination for them. or maybe it is just the
>same, applied as a fractal process at different levels of abstractions
>(i.e. the "clear light, knowing" stuff seen from different point of
>view) .
Gosh, you lost me there. I understand the buddhist concepts, to some
extent, but I don't see what memetics has to do with what you just
said.
--Jim McCulloch
Mick_G
G.M.:
Only one small idea. memetics is like all of reality only made up. It has no
inherent substance. Consequently what is more important in Buddhism is to
have a jaundice eye towards all concepts. Not to bring a new system of
concepts to the practice of Buddhism.
Mick
G. M. Attem wrote in message <34982D62...@cam.org>...
>Dear Jim,
>
>Social darwinism discriminate on the basis of physical characteristics
>(the result of genes) (race, sex, etc. - like Nazism) !
>
>Meme-ism would discriminate on the result of memes, that is ideas, like
>beliefs, philosophy, political parties, ordinary habits, scientific
>orientations, etc. - so you see it is well going on every day)
>
>What is good about memetics, is that it gives people who like to
>understand Truth from a conceptual point of view, a tool to analyze the
>way ideas evolve in societies. It explain, for example, why good ideas
>like democracy and the quest for the truth, are successful memes. It
>explain why memes like communism are dying.
>
>It might be useful when studying Buddhism because it might explain it's
>evolution, it's success and survival !
>I also think that it is sort of like karma and that it is a creation of
>the same clear light, pure learning "thing" that has created the
>universe, particles, molecules, life, consciousness, etc. It is just at
>another organizational level, and could be used to understand emptiness,
>the true nature of mind at the conceptual level. It is a bridge between
>non-reductionist science and buddhism, two ways of trying to reach the
>truth (two memes by themselves).
>
>By the way, there is absolutely no link between Dawkins and social
>darwinism ! You are afraid because you don't understand the true nature
>of memes (which is emptiness of course) :-)
>
>Memes are like shared sankhara ! There must be an equivalent of The
>Wheel of Life & Dependent Origination for them. or maybe it is just the
>same, applied as a fractal process at different levels of abstractions
>(i.e. the "clear light, knowing" stuff seen from different point of
>view) .
>
>Jim McCulloch wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Dec 1997 11:29:21 +0000, Robin Faichney
>> <r.j.fa...@delete.stirling.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >I sent this via email but it didn't get through, so now I'm
>> >posting it. Sorry it's a bit off-topic for these groups.
>> >Well, entirely off-topic, actually, but perhaps the reply
>> >(if any) could by email?
>> >
>> >Jim McCulloch wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <66uc36$q...@argon.btinternet.com>, "Avyorth Rolinson"
>> >> <Avy...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Well, I know very very little indeed about memes.
>> >>
Avyorth Rolinson
Jim McCulloch wrote in message
<3497f88e....@newshost.cc.utexas.edu>...
>Your server is defective, or my meme has failed to replicate on it
>thru its own inadequacy. You decide.
Ok, I'll call 'heads'.
>In addition, I append, after that, my reply to Robin, which I hope
>fulfils your request that I add new dimensions to the discussion.
>Does it? It throws light on some memes--you notice I didn't use plain
>English and call them obsessions--that have infected your own mind, on
>behalf of which you have been writing a great quantity of detailed
>prose to
>international newsgroups like talk.religion.buddhism about utterly
>parochial concerns. Such as, "old lady cruelly deprived of her tv by
>power-mad tibetan monks."
Hello Jim,
Personally I don't really know what you seek to hide within the term 'plain
English', perhaps you'll explain?
Ok, so the suffering of an 'old lady' is a parochial issue for you. Big
deal. Perhaps on an 'international newsgroup' I should discuss more
important issues?
>Well, your deployment of this meme, in
>another
>thread, (now enabling it to live on, for a moment at least, in this
>one)
>has activated (I'll bet) the immuno-meme called the "what does this
>have to
>do with Buddhism? meme" among Buddhists around the planet.
Exactly, Jim, you feel able to speak for buddhists around the planet - how
does it feel to be so important? Anyway what does the suffering of one old
lady at the hands of mahayans buddhists have to do with buddhists around the
planet?
>Here's another meme (may it infect your mind):
May all old ladies be happy (may it infect your mind, unlikely as it is)
>Give it a rest.
On the ontolgical assumption that 'it' could ever receive a rest, certainly.
Pity that you're incapable of introducing another dimension into the
discussion. Perhaps social darwinism could offer some sort of
rationalisation for your behaviour? Any idea for someone able to pick up
social darwinism and run?
BTW, your 'criticism' of mimetics below could so easily be applied to that
great buddhist mainstay of 'karma', so what?
Yours in the sDh (ark)
Avyorth
>--Jim McCulloch
>
>===========================
>in reply to robin:
Jim McCulloch
In article <679mms$6sr$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>, "Avyorth Rolinson"
<Avy...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Ok, so the suffering of an 'old lady' is a parochial issue for you. Big
> deal. Perhaps on an 'international newsgroup' I should discuss more
> important issues?
Of course it's parochial. The internal politics of the Manjushri Center,
or even its larger organization, is accurately described by that word. Does
that mean I approve of the way the management of that organization has
deprived an elderly resident of her accustomed tv? No. Your inference
that I think so is understandable, if only because of the unfortunate tone
of my post, but is nevertheless incorrect.
Look, let's approach this differently. By now, everyone who reads this
newsgroup (these newsgroups, actually) has formed an opinion, pro or con,
or who cares, concerning what they by now regard as your vendetta or,
alternately, your righteous crusade, against this group. Do you really
expect your continued harping on it will change anybody's mind? I guess
you do. May I disagree with that?
Illustrative case: Although I usually meditate in my house, I occasionally
meditate with a group at a small theravada temple here in Austin, Texas,
USA. Suppose that some sort of rift occurred between the two sayadaws who
run this temple, and I reported the rift in all its details, even down to
who got to watch tv, to people all over the world, as if this had something
important to do with, well, Buddhism. Maybe for a while that would be
useful. But endlessly?
--Jim McCulloch
G. M. Attem
After meditation on the subject, I agree with you !
I will not talk about this subject on Buddhist Newsgroups anymore !
I can see now that it had the effect of attracting (and amusing) more
"mud suckers" in my little corner at the bottom of the Sea of
Conditions !
Thanks
GT
Mick_G wrote:
> ---
> >
> >With metta, GT
> >
> >I am here to be used by others.
> >
> >--
> >To reply: remove the "z" from my email address if you want to respond
>
> >directly
> >(this is to avoid spam emails).
> >
> >met...@cam.org
> >
> >
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avyorth Rolinson
Mick_G wrote in message <679ghe$4...@chile.earthlink.net>...
>G.M.:
>Only one small idea. memetics is like all of reality only made up. It has
no
>inherent substance. Consequently what is more important in Buddhism is to
>have a jaundice eye towards all concepts. Not to bring a new system of
>concepts to the practice of Buddhism.
Dear Mick,
A some points in response to your criticism of memetics.
These days most of us have some sort of idea of the role that genes play in
creating, maintaining and sometimes destroying our bodies. There's also some
evidence to show that our genes have some sort of influence upon our mental
functioning. Most of us just tend to accept the genes we have - we engage
in behaviour that's likely to propagate them eg romantic candle-lit dinners,
and so on. We do this or that with little thought to the genetic programming
that is driving much of our behaviour.
But not all are like us. Some people have spent a great deal of time,
effort, money (dedicated their lives, we could say) to understanding the
little blighters of our genes. Consequently we are now on the verge of a
genetic revolution in our culture, which may well change our understanding
of who we are beyond our wildest dreams (and perhaps nightmares). The
effects of the Industrial Revolution may well pale into insignificance in
comparison. In fact genetic engineering might well change the very face of
the earth and all the critters on it beyond anything we know. Scary or what?
Likewise with our minds and their contents. Most of us are happy enough to
be driven by the ideas, emotions, and so on that, for one reason or another,
get into our minds. Whether the idea is 'king and country' or 'enlightenment
or burst' we go through our lives driven by these ideas, and often driven to
propagate them - so instead of candle-lit dinners, we might have a buddhist
group where we would 'explain' the dharma or buddhism to other people (ie
try to infect their minds with 'our' ideas). Of course we probably wouldn't
be aware what 's motivating us, we might see ourselves as motivated out of
compassion, or respect for our spiritual guide. Likewise the man or woman
setting the table for the candle-lit dinner isn't likely to be thinking
about genetics.
Now, if I understand memetics even a little, its about trying to understand
how ideas, concepts, beliefs and all the paraphernalia of our minds work to
ensure their survival and propagation, ie the mental equivalent of genetics.
Why do particular ideas catch on and propagate in our minds, whilst others
fail? Is it possible to memetically-engineer our minds so that particular
ideas (eg freedom, responsibility, compassion) have a better chance to
survive?
Now one might think, 'this is what buddhism, christianity, (or whatever your
favourite meme-system might be) is about.' Sure, but such systems might be
compared to animal husbandry or plant breeding before the discovery and
developments of genetics, ie primitive and only moderately successful. Just
think of a system of memetics with the depth of knowledge and skill that
genetics is reaching. Scary or what? Who's going to be engineering our
minds?
Now if those who have some ethical, spiritual or philosophic (ie
wisdom-loving) awareness ignore the development of memetics, out of some
(misplaced?) dedication to the founder of their favoured meme-system, who's
going to benefit. 'Memetics' will almost certainly IMO become a major
science and technology. Hopefully the meta-meme that drives it will be
'skillful means', 'dharma', 'prajna' or whatever we care to call it.
Hopefully those who develop memetics will incorporate contemplative or
'wisdom-loving' activities in their technologies. But, IMO, if this is going
to happen then dharma, skillful means, or whatever must be stripped of its
'out-of-date' cultural accretions, and a new form appropriate to a
global -village, informational age found. There's no way that the world will
be converted to buddhism, buddhism must be converted to the world, and the
world of the 21st century - all IMO.
An important question for me would be, 'am I a philosopher (wisdom-lover) or
a buddhist?' Because, IMO, they are not necessarily one and the same thing,
and memetics is just one way, perhaps, of teasing these apart.
Robin Faichney
Jim McCulloch wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 Dec 1997 11:29:21 +0000, Robin Faichney
> <r.j.fa...@delete.stirling.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >Hi Jim, this intrigues me, could you please explain the connection
> >between memetics and social darwinism?
> >
> >Robin
>
> I suppose I could claim that some of the ideas of the social
> darwinists were like viruses that lay dormant until they infected
> Dawkins, but I actually don't believe that. There is a certain
> congruence whereby social darwinian notions--like a supposed greater
> fitness of this or that moral concept enabling such a concept to
> differentially survive--could be mapped onto notions of memetic
> fitness without any loss of information.
I didn't know that social darwinism encompassed the
fitness of concepts. To that extent, there is obviously
a similarity. However:
> On the other hand, memeticicts don't necessarily believe that superior
> memes confer any biological advantage to the organisms they replicate
> in. In that respect memetics differs from social darwinism.
That "necessarily" is misleading. In fact, assuming that
"memeticist" implies someone who has a clue about memetics,
such people necessarily believe that memes do not
necessarily confer any biological advantage to their
carriers. In fact, one of the main arguments for
considering memes as entities that replicate independently
of genes, is that some of them are positively deterimental
to genetic survival. In fact (again), that's really the
only reason to believe in them. You won't like this if
you prefer always to retain an element of subjectivity, of
human freedom and dignity, but if you can let go of that,
at the level of theoretical analysis at least, then memes
are an incredibly elegant mechanism for explaining all of
the things we do that are inexplicable in genetic terms.
> The reason I mentioned social darwinism is that memetics is absolutely
> capable of being used, as social darwinism was used, to justify, on
> grounds of "fitness" or other false notions of ineluctability, the
> supposedly inevitably (but actually merely after-the-fact) triumph of
> certain ideas we believe in but do not want to defend intellectually.
Perhaps (a distorted version of) memetics could be used
that way, but then chainsaws can be used as weapons too,
can they not? :-)
> I can see why memetics appeals to buddhists. The idea of a swarm of
> idea-things inside our biological selves is by itself a metaphor that
> any buddhist, including me, can put to use. The notion that the
> entities in this swarm of idea-things are somehow independently
> self-replicating, subject to a kind of natural selection (memetic
> fitness, like social darwinist fitness, is very much a post hoc
> thing), is not so useful, IMO. What does it tell us, really?
> Nothing.
I think genetics+memetics (+ maybe physics) could become Western
buddhism's 5 skandas/heaps/aggregates -- explaining everything
without reference to any "self". Nothing, indeed! :-)
Robin
Mick_G
Avyorth:
I take it you are either not a Buddhist, or are new to the subject? I've
noticed that you always spell Buddhism with a small letter? You missed my
point, all system are a projection of mind. If you can fully realize that,
you are no longer contained, confined if you will by things like genes, at
least when we are talking about how your mind works. Someone, could have
been you sent me an interesting article on the subject of 'Memetics'. The
article was interesting, but it really didn't show that there was anything
in this other than vague concordance between different assumptions. From the
article it appears to be like most of modern psychology. A lot of
coincidences but almost zero science. One thing to remember this was just a
technique for writing a science fiction novel. If we even consider for a
moment any of the sciences, quantum mechanics for instance, the words that
describe phenomena are only ways to visualize what is happening. No one
really knows what an atom looks like.
Also it is just not realistic to compare the practice of Tibetan Buddhism
with other religions. Buddhism has as its foundation developing a healthy
mind. Buddhism if you will is psychology. Your goal is to transcend all your
fears and learn to be compassionate to the entire world. The concept, and it
is only a concept is by its very meaning beyond labels and systems.
You have again brought up in the following:
"Hopefully the meta-meme that drives it will be
'skillful means', 'dharma', 'prajna' or whatever we care to call it.
Hopefully those who develop memetics will incorporate contemplative or
'wisdom-loving' activities in their technologies. But, IMO, if this is going
to happen then dharma, skillful means, or whatever must be stripped of its
'out-of-date' cultural accretions, and a new form appropriate to a
global -village, informational age found. There's no way that the world will
be converted to buddhism, buddhism must be converted to the world, and the
world of the 21st century - all IMO."
You have now done what I could easily do myself. Which is to say my way is
the only way to understand the world we live in, which is all you have said
with your statement. Just because you have found a world view that seems to
guide you through confusion, dose not make it any more right than my view.
That and that alone is the reason we have religious strife in this world.
People trying to say, cast off your antiquated thinking and start using my
thinking Dujour. We all have to learn acceptance and tolerance for all the
religions of the world.
Mick
Avyorth Rolinson wrote in message <67b6s6$knl$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>...
>
>Mick_G wrote in message <679ghe$4...@chile.earthlink.net>...
>>G.M.:
>>Only one small idea. memetics is like all of reality only made up. It has
>no
>>inherent substance. Consequently what is more important in Buddhism is to
>>have a jaundice eye towards all concepts. Not to bring a new system of
>>concepts to the practice of Buddhism.
>
>
Jim McCulloch
>
>> On the other hand, memeticicts don't necessarily believe that superior
>> memes confer any biological advantage to the organisms they replicate
>> in. In that respect memetics differs from social darwinism.
>
>That "necessarily" is misleading. In fact, assuming that
>"memeticist" implies someone who has a clue about memetics,
>such people necessarily believe that memes do not
>necessarily confer any biological advantage to their
>carriers.
True, but memeticists, at least some of them, certainly do posit that
some meme complexes confer biological advantage on their bearers, and
some confer disadvantage. The meme complex of the california comet
people this summer may have altogether extinguished itself with the
departure of its biological hosts. An autotoxic meme can be toxic to
its hosts, as we saw. On the other hand, the meme complex of the
Roman Catholic Church has by and large correlated well with biological
proliferation of its bearers.
But again, what does such jargon tell us, that English does not?
>In fact, one of the main arguments for
>considering memes as entities that replicate independently
>of genes, is that some of them are positively deterimental
>to genetic survival. In fact (again), that's really the
>only reason to believe in them. You won't like this if
>you prefer always to retain an element of subjectivity, of
>human freedom and dignity, but if you can let go of that,
>at the level of theoretical analysis at least, then memes
>are an incredibly elegant mechanism for explaining all of
>the things we do that are inexplicable in genetic terms.
I have never felt obliged to explain everything in genetic terms
anyway. Why should I? Memetics is not the only alternative to
genetic determinism. In fact I see no reason to think memetics is
anything at all, other than a reconfiguration of what we can already
speak about perfectly well, or even in some cases explain, in normal
English.
Does focusing on the alleged automatic self replicating features of
ideas, as opposed to, say, the consciousness features of ideas, add
anything to what we already know?
In addition, the biological analogy privileges inferences that can't
necessarily be supported by close reasoning--that there was some sort
of mechanistic inevitability, for one example, to the Jim Jones cult
mass suicide. This is just post hoc foolishness. To dress it up in
the language of memetics by saying the Jones Cult memes were autotoxic
doesn't mean much, or fool anyone.
To say, as a memeticist might, that NKT zealots are membots, thereby
making them seem more like machines, is kind of silly.
>I think genetics+memetics (+ maybe physics) could become Western
>buddhism's 5 skandas/heaps/aggregates -- explaining everything
>without reference to any "self". Nothing, indeed! :-)
Something that explains "everything" is suspect in my book. With or
without reference to any "self".
--Jim McCulloch
Robin Faichney
I'd normally email this sort of response, but I've had problems
emailing Jim, so...
On Thu, 18 Dec 1997 20:50:39 GMT, mccu...@mail.utexas.edu (Jim
McCulloch) wrote:
>[.....]
You win, Jim! :-)
Season's greetings,
Robin
Keith Henson
Avyorth Rolinson (Avy...@btinternet.com) wrote:
snip
Excellent posting! In my opinion you have an good grasp of the subject.
Of course, replicators interact, genes and memes can point in the same
direction, oppose each other (at least for a while) or be at nearly
right angles to each other's interest. And the physical limits of the
world (economics) imposes conditions as well. The study is almost
endlessly varied and the interactions complicated. My particular
interests tend to run to meta memes, that is memes which impose large
selection presures on other memes, and in the psychological mechanisms by
which some memes gain near total control over an individual to the
exclusion of his/her reporductive success. Evolutionary psychology has a
lot to say about this topic.
Anyway, thanks, Keith Henson
Robin Faichney
I lost track of the message in this thread that said
maybe one of the main Buddhism-Memetics links is that
it's our memes that survive death. Could whoever
suggested that -- or anyone else, for that matter --
please let me know, so I'm not tempted in future to
claim that the idea's mine? :-)
Robin