Re: Hollywood Lee's Koo-Koo-Ka-Choo (was Re: Bhikkhu Nanananda's Koo-Koo-Ka-Choo)
DharmaTroll
> Bodhidumba wrote:
> > "halfawake" <epstein...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:hbfeoj$jg2$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >>Bodhidumba wrote:
>
> >>>"halfawake" <epstein...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > [...]
>
> >>>>Well I don't know if we will all agree on what it means, but I'll say one
> >>>>thing - I want that book!
>
> >>>>What's the title of the damn thing anyway?
>
> >>>================
>
> >>>The above quotes are from #15 and #17 of Nanananda's online "Nibbana
> >>>Sermons" series - there's a lot there, 25 sermons. All the quotes I've
> >>>posted are from that. Lee provided the link originally:
>
> >>>http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/clm_main1.asp
>
> >>>it's here, too -
>
> >>>http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books8/Bhikkhu_Nanananda_Nibbana_Se...
>
> >>>The book by Nanananda that Lee mentioned is "The Magic of the Mind".
>
> >>>I wonder a bit about the context in which Nanananda uses the word
> >>>"psychological". The word is mentioned a few times in the above Nibbana
> >>>Sermons - in #14, #17, #18, #19. If you want to take a look, I'd be
> >>>interested in what you think about his use of the word there.
>
> >>> - Bodhidumba
>
> >>Looking at the use of "psychological" in 14 for starters, it is a quite
> >>subtle and interesting implication. His overall point is that liberation
> >>is of the mind, not the body, that liberation is a matter of mental
> >>transformation. That is the sense in which he uses "psychological." The
> >>reason the implications are subtle, is that he does make clear, at least
> >>in the opening passages, what is transformed by this realization. He does
> >>say that one is liberated from death and rebirth here and now through the
> >>mind's realization. But there is nothing said one way or the other as to
> >>whether he means that *literal* rebirth etc. is ended by psychological
> >>liberation, or whether one discovers that *rebirth* is also a substrate of
> >>the mind, and not a physical reality.
>
> >>But as far as what "psychological" means to Nanananda, it is clear that he
> >>means "of and within the mind," that nibbana, liberation, etc., are mental
> >>phenomena.
>
> > ===========================================
>
> > Thanks for looking into that. What you said directly above is exactly where
> > I have trouble with Nanananda's use of the word "psychological", in
> > particular as it relates to these quotes from his Nibbana Sermon 21;
>
> > "......Those who posed these [previously discussed] questions had the
> > presumption that the word Tathàgata implied a truly existing being or a
> > person. But the Buddha pointed out that the concept of a being or a person
> > is fallacious."
>
> > So I wonder if the Buddha, even if he could have known what we know today
> > about brain function, would have agreed that Nibbana is entirely a mental /
> > psychological phenomena, as Nanananda says it is. I don't see how he could,
> > since from his state of Nibbana the Buddha says that even "the concept of a
> > being or a person is fallacious" - so how could any word pertaining to a
> > person, such as "psychological", even apply at all? It would be irrelevant,
> > it seems to me. IMO this implies that something beyond the physical is
> > actually experienced / realized in the state of Nibbana. (ok - Mahayana
> > woo-woo alert! :-)
>
> > But if it's insisted that Nibbana really is an entirely brain based /
> > psychological phenomena, then it seems to me that it would also have to be
> > seen truly as a state of delusion if someone in it denies even the concept
> > of a person (as the Buddha did) since Nibbana couldn't 'exist' / couldn't
> > even be experienced in the first place except by a (physical) person.
>
> > So I wonder if when Nanananda says that Nibbana is a "psychological"
> > phenomena, he means it in the sense of "relative reality", as he discusses
> > below...
>
> > "Though it is fallacious [the concept of a being or a person, as discussed
> > above], for the worldling living in an illusory unreal world, it has its
> > place as a relative reality. Due to the very fact that it is grasped, it is
> > binding on him. Therefore, when a worldling uses such terms as `I' and
> > `mine', or a `being' and a `person', it is not a mere way of expression. It
> > is a level of reality proper to the worldling's scale of values."
>
> > I haven't seen anywhere where Nanananda says that he means Nibbana is
> > psychological in this sense of "relative reality", but I think it would be
> > more reasonable if that were the case. But if he means that Nibbana is
> > absolutely a psychological phenomena, and that's as true as it gets, then
> > he's asserting a 'reality' to the concept of a person that (even he says)
> > the Buddha stated is fallacious. So who would be the deluded one then,
> > Buddha or Nanananda? :-0
>
> This is tricky territory, as to what "the concept of a being or person"
> being illusory means. Does it mean that persons seem to exist but do
> not? Or that persons do in fact exist, qua an actual physical reality,
> but that they are not entities in the "psychological" sense that they
> think they are. If the latter, then Dharmatroll is right, and
> liberation consists of eradicating false concepts that cause suffering.
> Of course that is at least part of the path, the question is whether
> it is all of it or not. When I challenged DT that if nibbana was
> 'merely' psychological it was on the same level as any other
> psychological, and not a higher spiritual path, he rightly stepped
> forward and asserted that it is different from psychology because it
> entails a "complete eradication" of greed, hatred and delusion.
>
> Well, once you've said that, even if you don't believe that such an
> eradication is of the woo-woo kind, but is still confined to psychology,
> you have indeed distinguished Buddhism from ordinary psychology of every
> kind, and asserted a kind of pragmatic mystical standpoint that would
> only come out of the mouth of a Buddhist. So in a sense when I called
> on DT to show his cards, he showed genuine Buddhist credentials, even if
> we don't see eye to eye on the ultimate woo-woo of it all. And I'm
> impressed. Why do I say that? Because no scientist or psychologist in
> the world, who was not a devout Buddhist, would ever admit of the
> possibility of what DT said was the goal: complete cessation of greed,
> hatred and delusion. That is psychologically and physically impossible
> by any ordinary practice or discipline. It is only within Hinduism or
> Buddhism or Taoism that such a state of complete cessation of negative
> arisings is even possible. Wouldn't a neuropsychologist laugh his teeth
> out [sic] if you told him you had a method for stilling and balancing
> the reactions of the thalamus and the limbic system? That you could
> overcome attraction and revulsion and remain in a neutral place of peace
> in the face of unexpected events? They'd all have a good laugh at your
> expense.
>
> So on this point I have to say that DT has met me in the middle and we
> can agree on this "special psychology" that Buddhism promises: a
> complete release from psychological suffering, from what the special
> meaning of kamma is in the cycle of DO - that is, psycho-emotional
> reactivity that causes, maintains and then feeds the fire of
> mental-emotional sufferings. DT is right in saying that this is not in
> the pop-psychology realm of Dr. Phil and his cheeseburger-munching
> colleagues.
>
> Best,
> Robert
>
> = = = = = = = =
This post, Robert, with a seemingly authentic desire to listen to the
position I'm stating and the evidence I'm presenting, and 'meet me
half way' is the paradigm case of the kind of discussion I'd like to
have around here with the serious posters. However, only the very next
day, you responded to my wanting clarification by going on an
emotional rampage, and just insulted me and had a hissy fit without
discussing the issue at all. What's going on, Robert? The fact that
you can be level-headed and discuss these issues seriously here
doesn't mesh with the wild emotional outbursts.
--DharmaTroll
"Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for
knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by
examination of the best available evidence and always subject to
correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence. What's
left is magic. And it doesn't work."
-James Randi
Appledog
Ahh so this is why herb and rob are calling you a troll. Because
you're sane. :-)
-
DharmaTroll
Well this is true, my sanity and sharp critical thinking, backed by
references, is why the nutters, such as Keynes the Priest of
Prevarication and his alterboy herbzet call me a troll. Robert usually
has the highest respect for me, but has hissy fits when he gets
emotionally attached to my descriptions of my experiences of his
beliefs.
As for your (Appledog) interactions with Robert, though I just glance
at them, it seems to me that you don't try to bring out the best in
Robert and intentionally try to provoke him. While I do that with the
nutters, Robert is capable of amazingly insightful and intelligent
conversation, and I don't see you trying to have that with him. But
then, on these lists people tend to pick others with differing points
of view to be their personal nemesis, so that they can define
themselves by pushing off of that nemisis. Maybe that's what you guys
are doing. (Tang is the GrandMaster of that game, btw.)
What I like to do is to express my emotional reaction to other
posters' writings and claims. I'm wrongly accused of 'twisting',
'lying', 'snipping', 'straw-manning', and so forth, mostly by the
nutters, but Robert accuses me as the nutters do when Robert is having
one of his fits.
Indeed, Robert employs the same form of descriptions of his emotional
reactions. His "Dr. Phil" label expresses his emotional response to a
naturalized empirical Buddhism is to see it as lobotomized or bleached
of crucial essential feelings, so that it comes across to him as only
the superficial (though marginally helpful) pop-psychology of Dr.
Phil. Robert isn't really claiming that I am espousing Dr. Phil's
worldview, just expressing that what I've written so far shows up to
Robert this way. This led me to clarifying that unlike the bubble-gum
pop-psych Dr. Phil, I'm claiming that the Buddha posited a radical
irreversible uprooting of all craving, aversion, and delusion. When I
then stated this, Robert dropped his objections and suggested that we
now have common ground on which to proceed.
However, when I express my own emotional reactions to Robert's posts,
rather than say "aha, this is how my framework shows up when seen
through DT's framework", he instead sometimes gets defensive and
throws hissy fits and accuses me of willfully distorting him, when
really I was only expressing my emotional intuitive reaction to his
post.
Case in point. Robert associates nibbana while alive to include the
cessation of consciousness. I don't think this is the case, and it's
only the kind of consciousness that 'spills-over' or leans into the
future that is abolished, but that the arahant is still conscious in
the normal sense. Robert, on the other hand, makes an interesting
suggesting that normal consciousness ceases, and then a Transcendental
kind of Awareness takes over in it's place. Now here is what I
experienced reading Roberts post asserting this.
I imagined Robert, achieving nibbana, to fall to the ground
unconscious, as the aggregate of consciousness ceases in Robert's
view. I visualize Robert now becoming a zombie and rising to his feet,
his arms twitching a bit. His eyes open, and they now glow extra white
(like the possession by a Go'uld symbiant in the sci-fi TV show
"Stargate") and Robert speaks, but his voice is multi-harmonic, with
some reverb added. The possessed glowing-eyed zombie Robert now chants
a magic spell, such as "NAM-MYOHO-RENGE-KYO" in his multi-harmonic
voice, and suddenly space distorts in front of Robert, and a worm-hole
vortex opens up, about 10 feet in diameter, swirling counter-
clockwise. Robert is partially sucked into the portal and instantly
and in toto groks Plato's Realm of Forms, and a serene look of bliss
comes over his face and glowing eyes.
Now perhaps I should be verbose like this, as that's exactly the
scenario that came into my head when reading Robert's post. Robert non-
chalantly says that he has no problem with adding the Transcendental.
But in my framework, instead of discussing something real, and
something having to do with our practice and ending of suffering and
the uprooting of craving, aversion, and delusion, Robert's post, from
my perspective has gone off the woo-woo deep end, and he's now
describing a monstrous spirit-possession zombie that opens wormholes
into the realm of Absolute Truth or Undifferentiated Nondualism, or
Plato's Logos. Which takes us out of Buddhism for me and into a Harry
Potter movie, or worse.
The problem for me is when Robert responds with frustration and
igdignation and name-calling when I describe my experience. He knows
very well that I don't think that he believes in zombies, spirit
possession, or wormholes into other Realms. Nor do I think that he
believes I think the Buddha was merely a Dr. Phil wannnabe. However,
these images are how our views show up through the lens of each
others' frameworks. At times, Robert is able to take my description of
my experience of his post as a description of my experience of his
post; at other times, he takes things personally and thinks I'm
belittling him or insulting him. However, since compared to most of
the woo-woo crackpots and nutters around here, Robert is one of the
most thoughtful and insightful posters this list has to offer, I'll
take what I can get.
--DharmaTroll
Appledog
I've been asking myself many times if I want to change how I deal with
people here and I'm not really sure I want to. I think my work may lie
in another area. It's difficult to say but I may be able to do more
effective work in another way. I recall the joy I felt while feeding
the homeless today, when I shared my dinner with some of the kids in
the cram school where I teach. I gave away 4 of my 6 chicken nuggets
and half my fries. (My wife cooked this for me). Those kids, when they
said thank you, connected me to this world. I mean, of course, we're
always connected, but we might not recognize it and as such may not be
able to take advantage of it. The people here might be a lost cause.
That's probably what's stopping me. They just don't want it. They
didn't ask and they are unlikely ever to. I suppose that's why I came
here, to really test that out and see if it was true. This is, after
all, a public forum.
-
halfawake
>>>presumption that the word Tath�gata implied a truly existing being or a
Sorry I'm a week behind and may stay that way, but as far as I'm
concerned the difference in my response has to do with whether I am
being accused of nonsense, or have a partner to meet halfway and have
that "decent discussion." If you want the answer, look at what you said
about me in that other post and it will be obvious.
Best,
Robert
= = = = = = = = =
halfawake
>>>presumption that the word Tath�gata implied a truly existing being or a
This is also the kind of discussion I want to have, but if you go off
and start making up stories based on a single word, I'm going to object.