Buddhism - A matter of spiritual direction for the suffering Mind
Dharmasala
eyes without to much friction on his topic.
Buddhism, as it originally is, shines as such before the corruption of
the secular thought of postmodernism. it serves indeed the spirit of
the one taking complete refuge in its light and seals the promise from
the great ones to those whom dare enter its very core of the
Buddhadharma.
It is indeed that power, once encountered as such, that by proper
discipline (dhyana) and right view preliberates the profound [Mind]
from the mundane [phenomena]and ascends it through several stages
towards a direct recollection of what it is and certainly what it is
not.
It is to my experience a way of the Mind to find, or more correctly
recall, its own true nature beyond the skandhic veil that is there as
a mere artificial ghost of precise and prederminative ideations. These
ideations are as such a precise synthesis of countless desires, that
through the Minds grace are allowed to tap their own apparent
existence from the very awareness power of the primordial unborn mind,
the One Mind, the dipankara Buddha [the tathagata].
Here when practised as such and indeed in conjunction with the proper
feedback from the very incorruptable source of transmission, the
buddhadharma and noble wisdom of the primordial, Buddhism emerges
immediately as direct knowledge, a sort of anamnetic
self-enlightenment to the spirit of man. What spirit can truly know
anything about its true nature if it is enslaved by the shadowlike
nature of its own karmic formations? It can create notions about
Buddhas intentions and what buddhism is but if it still remains
ignorant about the potential power of its own spirit how can it but
abide in a well dressed suite named hypocrisis.
Here only a free and self-enlightened spirit, a Mind whom have turned
the lamp of the Buddhadharma around towards its very nature and thus
instantly illuminated and free from beginningless habitual bondage
towards the lower ideations, can truly soar over to the other shore in
nirvanic joy and in accordance with its direct communion with the
inexhaustable awareness power of the absolute.
It is indeed sad that Buddhism of today is highly embodied and in many
cases equalled to the often misinterpreted notion that the Buddhas
meant the buddhadharma to equal emptiness and utter self-extinction
and it is equally sad that most of what I have seen on the Usenet are
empirical battles on matters of what Gautama said or did not say.
From my own spiritual experience, Gautama did not actually say a
singel word. To none. There was only direct and undivided awareness,
offered as such to any mind that desired entrance into the profound
principle of the Absolute, the Dharmakaya, and henceworth instant
emancipation.
This is merely my view on Buddhism and especially Chán Buddhism as I
myself practise since many years.
Best regards
Dharmasala
Green Eddie
"Dharmasala" <dharmas...@yahoo.com.hk> wrote in message
news:5f5023f4.03062...@posting.google.com...
Welcome. Good luck with your sensible approach among the hooligans in here.
Jonathan Jennings
"Dharmasala" <dharmas...@yahoo.com.hk> wrote
> I am new here...
Well, I hope that's true, because the Buddha had it about people that would
tell a deliberate lie that there is nothing (ethically) that they wouldn't
do.
Jonathan
> ...and I hope that what I have to say may find some good
jhayati
> Buddhism, as it originally is, shines as such before the corruption of
> the secular thought of postmodernism.
I have a problem with this. I guess I like to think of Buddhism as
being somewhat consistent with all sorts of schools of thought,
including postmodernism, which to me is an interesting over-reaction
to naive realism.
Sounds to me like you are more into bashing the present culture, even
though you present yourself as positively expressing Buddhism.
> through the Minds grace are allowed to tap their own apparent
> existence from the very awareness power of the primordial unborn mind,
> the One Mind, the dipankara Buddha [the tathagata].
This sounds to me identical to the Catholic "Divine Grace from God"
claim.
> Buddhism emerges immediately as direct knowledge, a sort of anamnetic
I've only heard frothing-at-the-mouth evangelists use the term
'anamnetic'. And claims to 'direct knowledge' puzzle me and sound
dubious at best. I'm not even sure what direct knowledge could be, or
what would be an example of it.
> From my own spiritual experience, Gautama did not actually say a
> singel word. To none. There was only direct and undivided awareness,
Well, I don't suppose that any of us have directly experienced the
Buddha talking, as he died 2500 years ago. However, you seem to be
claiming that all the sutras are false, and all the monks who
memorized them and passed them down are liars. If this were the case,
then none of us, especially you, could know anything at all about the
Buddha. So the claim seems to self-destruct. I have heard that the
Buddha remained silent at times in specific crucial situations, such
as with the flower sermon or when asked speculative metaphysical
questions, but that's a much different story.
> This is merely my view on Buddhism and especially Chán Buddhism as I
> myself practise since many years.
>
> Best regards
>
> Dharmasala
I mean no disrespect to your practice, and I wonder how if you reject
all sutras as not the Buddha's words how you would even call this a
view on Buddhism, or of Chan Buddhism in particular. Sounds to me
like you are taking your own metaphysical speculations and labeling
them as Buddhist arbitrarily. Or perhaps you mean to say that your
particular meditation practice comes from Buddhism, but you ignore all
the teachings, sort of as yoga classes are often taught at the spa.
-j
Mark McHugh
thanks for your posting to this newsgroup. A free expression based on your
experience. It is a great shame that there are not more like you here.
I would not be too worried that this newsgroup somehow represents the
Buddhism of today. I also have been practising for more than a few years,
Vipassana and more recently Zen, and in my experience of Dhamma talks or
Teisho over the years, I have never heard a Buddhist teacher discus issues
of doctrine or engage in a doctrinal dispute of the kind that often appears
here.
This week in the Zendo, we had full moon ceremony and everyone was invited
to talk about their understanding and experience of the first precept.
Everyone who spoke did so from the heart, directly from their experience.
There was not a word that could be called doctrinal. I think this is more a
reflection of real Buddhism today than the kind of thing that goes on on
this group.
I am not saying that this newsgroup has no place, however it is more in the
realm of the study of Buddhism rather than the practice of it.
I saw a documentary a few years ago where an anthropologist went into the
Amazon rainforest and met a group if Indians that had had little contact
with outsiders. In order to study them, he dressed like them, lived with
them, took part in their lives, ceremonies etc. I think that no matter what
he did, while he was studying them, he could never be them. He would always
stand apart.
This is what I feel about most of the posts (that I read) on this newsgroup.
It has not something to do with Buddhism, but it stands apart from the
reality of Buddhist practice.
Shibayama Roshi said something about the study of versus the practice of in
the introduction to his Mumonkan Teishos.
Mark.
Dharmasala
> dharmas...@yahoo.com.hk (Dharmasala) wrote in message news:<5f5023f4.03062...@posting.google.com>...
>
Thank you for your interesting response. It is understandable and I
myself used to have the same views. However I do not in any way claim
to bash anything, I merely express a standpoint on the current status
of secular buddhism today.If you desire to read more in my message
then what the content expresses, you are of course welcome to do so.
This is as I have been told a forum of open, and many times, very
interesting views on Buddhism which are always welcome.
> Sounds to me like you are more into bashing the present culture, even
> though you present yourself as positively expressing Buddhism.
>
> > through the Minds grace are allowed to tap their own apparent
> > existence from the very awareness power of the primordial unborn mind,
> > the One Mind, the dipankara Buddha [the tathagata].
>
> This sounds to me identical to the Catholic "Divine Grace from God"
> claim.
I understand your interpetation and of course my point on this matter
could easily be understood in such a fashion although I meant
something quite opposite.
Once we are able to face our Minds primordial nature, beyond words,
opinions and lectures of worldly "authorities", I can assure you that
one will face something quite profound yet not the least "divine". In
fact a very ordinary Mind that in its capcity to shine as simply such
is far beyond the impeeding limitations it suffers from habitually
having been clinging and identifying itself with the skandhic veil
that distorts its direct knowledge of its own true nature.
> > Buddhism emerges immediately as direct knowledge, a sort of anamnetic
>
> I've only heard frothing-at-the-mouth evangelists use the term
> 'anamnetic'. And claims to 'direct knowledge' puzzle me and sound
> dubious at best. I'm not even sure what direct knowledge could be, or
> what would be an example of it.
>
My english is not the best but I will try to make it better :)as I
understand that some on this forum are quite versatile handling this
tool of divided communication. I meant anamnetic as in the ancient
term anamnesis, that is recollection/remebrance of that which is
initself unborn, unbound and profundly shining as simply "thus". This
direct and unobstrued recollection of ones primordial nature is hence
in a way direct knowledge of the primordial Mind not to forget it
nirvanic power of being originally undivided and highly dynamic.
> > From my own spiritual experience, Gautama did not actually say a
> > singel word. To none. There was only direct and undivided awareness,
>
> Well, I don't suppose that any of us have directly experienced the
> Buddha talking, as he died 2500 years ago. However, you seem to be
> claiming that all the sutras are false, and all the monks who
> memorized them and passed them down are liars. If this were the case,
> then none of us, especially you, could know anything at all about the
> Buddha. So the claim seems to self-destruct. I have heard that the
> Buddha remained silent at times in specific crucial situations, such
> as with the flower sermon or when asked speculative metaphysical
> questions, but that's a much different story.
I did not imply that the sutras are false. In fact they are quite true
(with some slight amendments and modifications during the passed
millenia). What I meant was that once you discover what "undivided"
awareness power (bodhi) is you will see that not a singel word was
uttered by Buddha, yet certainly by Gauatama whom served as the
composed tool of expressing the profound towards those suffering minds
clinging to the artificial and divided generated by the vibrating
composition of the skandhas. This everchanging synthesis of energy on
a subatomic level is solely, once you properly investigate it by
directing the mind inwardly on the matter, mere energy, in various
spectral "formations". All such "formations" are on an apparent and
probable level, interacting and changing mode and "function" depending
what their "master" (Mind) creates in terms of desire will, memory and
direction of the afore mentioned. It may sound metaphysical to you,
and I bet it does, yet it is of course simply my view point on the
more intricate levels on the Mind and its fantastic nature.
Feel free to refute it as pure nonsense or investigate the matter
properly. But wether you choose to see and accept what is as such or
deny the fact of this sheer absolute reality of the Mind, the
undivided awareness power of your own Mind will still shine,
indiscriminate of any opinion your wordly artificial consciousness and
"memory bank of artificial knowledge" might have.
Any mind, by ignorance of its own true nature has by various
incalculable reasons made itself dependant upon the strong desire to
use its direct access to this awareness power and distort it/divide it
to generate the artificial reflection of its own desires, fears and
other sensations that prevents it to simply reverse itself towards
what it truly is; unborn and non-composed, deathless, higly dynamic
and directly able to create any phenomenon whatsoever once the
conditions for the desired are proper. I know that perhaps many here
have a clear understanding of this and even a better description on
the matter from direct experience and not endless quotes of something
experienced by "others" seen as proclaimed authorties on the matter...
In the end each Mind that experiences dissonance in any form by the
experience it has through the acting and dependanceupon its body
consciousness, needs to free itself by its own effort in accordance
with the buddhadharma that lies beyond the written or foretold. In
this most need some kind of "teacher" of guide yet the work of
remebering ist own true nature has to been initiated and finished by
its own choice and right effort or it will have to face the
consequences of perpetuating its suffering through the ignorance of
what it truly is. One has to climb to the top of the Buddhas mountain
in order to have a new vantage point in seeing things of the "past",
present and probable futures (karma).
>
> > This is merely my view on Buddhism and especially Chán Buddhism as I
> > myself practise since many years.
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Dharmasala
>
> I mean no disrespect to your practice, and I wonder how if you reject
> all sutras as not the Buddha's words how you would even call this a
> view on Buddhism, or of Chan Buddhism in particular. Sounds to me
> like you are taking your own metaphysical speculations and labeling
> them as Buddhist arbitrarily. Or perhaps you mean to say that your
> particular meditation practice comes from Buddhism, but you ignore all
> the teachings, sort of as yoga classes are often taught at the spa.
>
> -j
I do not speculate kind sir, I do honestly express my experience from
many years of deep Pikuan (dhyana)combined with wordly participation.
If what I have expressed can perhaps find some reckognition by those
of same experience on this forum that is fine and most joyful to
behold, if not well, then at least I used my composed
usenet-priviligies to type on a computer and yet manage to not utter a
single word that makes sense to the present :).
Best regards
Dharmasala
Tang Huyen
Dharmasala wrote:
> Any mind, by ignorance of its own true nature has by various
> incalculable reasons made itself dependant upon the strong desire to
> use its direct access to this awareness power and distort it/divide it
> to generate the artificial reflection of its own desires, fears and
> other sensations that prevents it to simply reverse itself towards
> what it truly is; unborn and non-composed, deathless, higly dynamic
> and directly able to create any phenomenon whatsoever once the
> conditions for the desired are proper. I know that perhaps many here
> have a clear understanding of this and even a better description on
> the matter from direct experience and not endless quotes of something
> experienced by "others" seen as proclaimed authorties on the matter...
Vely intelesting, my fliend. To you, mind is:
"unborn and non-composed, deathless, higly dynamic and directly able to create any phenomenon whatsoever once the
conditions for the desired are proper".
On one hand mind is "directly able to create any phenomenon whatsoever", on the other it can only do so "once the
conditions for the desired are proper".
Say, the Tibetans want to get rid of the Chinese and govern themselves. Are they "directly able to create any phenomenon
whatsoever", in their case create freedom and independence for themselves and vanish the Chinese presence in Tibet
entirely, or can they do so only "once the conditions for the desired are proper"?
You get me into a hopeless loop with your divine logic. Please untangle for my sake.
Tang Huyen
Dharmasala
Hello Mark,
Thank you for your kind response. I feel much like you on this subject
and I do genuinly believe that this forum have many "silent" readers
whom perhaps are new to buddhism and would not mind to read about
experiences from those whom have decided to enter that way that, once
properly walked, leads the Mind to recall its own true nature beyond
doctrine and opinions.
The latter is of course as inevitable as physical breathing and heart
beats of our decaying bodies yet even opinions change and decay with
time as the body does.
Considering the way of things in this brave new world, it is after all
pity to engage in doctrinal suppositions over matters that ultimately
are empty in themselves in terms of self-existing reality. This makes
me recall "Platos cave"
and what takes place as long as one views shadows on the wall and not
the fire preceeding the shadows with its own intricate and
illuminating power.
In any case I believe that it doesnt harm this forum to recieve some
contributions that, in terms of content, may provide something small
yet essential to those whom are tired to read about the ongoing
doctrinal battle between self-proclaimed "friends and foes of the
dharma".
Best regards
Dharmasala
> > Best regards
> >
> > Dharmasala
cupcake
Tang wrote:
well, Tang, that's my big objection to these sleeze-bag
Vajrayanis -- ie. they're always trying to peddle
tantric sex and magical powers in the back rooms, after
their so called "dharam talks"
> Tang Huyen
>
Dharmasala
Currently it is miraculously transformed into quite a cynic I believe.
And I do believe you yourself have created quite the proper conditions
for that. You have but to trace this complex composition you have
become today backwards in time and the thread will reveal where things
went wrong the first time.
Pity. I do honestly believe you have offered much to this forum and
not recieved proper appriciation for your effort. I hope that your
ordinary life is more beneficial to you. You seem to be a very
knowledgeable and kind mind beneath that artificial surface your
putting up.
Best regards
Dharmasala
Tang Huyen <tang_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3EF467C8...@yahoo.com>...
Dharmasala
> "Dharmasala" <dharmas...@yahoo.com.hk> wrote in message
> news:5f5023f4.03062...@posting.google.com...
> > This is merely my view on Buddhism and especially Chán Buddhism as I
> > myself practise since many years.
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Dharmasala
>
> Welcome. Good luck with your sensible approach among the hooligans in here.
Well as I am probably going to be completely "slaughtered" by their
very rigid interpretations of the buddhadharma, I might have time to
convey some personal experiences to those whom read but do not speak,
before this ship becomes torpedoed and sunk in the name of genuine
usenet-awareness & usenet-compassion :)
Best regards
Dharmasala
Ch'an Fu
Please understand, as should Jen, that when you
go outside or remap commmonly used words and
such, they will not automatically be mapped by
others. It's your responsibility to do this, not their's
Successful teachers speak in the idiom of their
students, in everyday words. They don't use terms
and words that have no correspondence in listner's
minds.
You can't read their minds - that's already been
proven. Why should you expect them to read yours?
Using new words and terms and verbal constructs
is only about your own attachment to such things -
to your 'self'. Your words should be simple,
understandable by everyone.
Why make your 'self' into an a priori martyr?
Isn't that just more 'self'? Your years of practice don't
seem visible. If you wish them to be, you should
learn to speak plainly and easily. Otherwise, it's
all just ego - speaking for itself.
jhayati
> jha...@msn.com (jhayati) wrote in message news:<2e4552bb.03062...@posting.google.com>...
> > dharmas...@yahoo.com.hk (Dharmasala) wrote in message news:<5f5023f4.03062...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> Kind sir,
>
> Thank you for your interesting response.
>
> It is understandable and I myself used to have the same views.
I suppose I haven't really expressed to many of my views yet; I was
just asking for clarification about yours, because I didn't understand
them very well. Thank you for clarifying more. Then again, I still
don't understand them very well.
> However I do not in any way claim
> to bash anything, I merely express a standpoint on the current status
> of secular buddhism today. If you desire to read more in my message
I'd rather have you share your experiences; my guesses were requests
for clarification to get a meaningful thread going. You said, "before
the corruption of the secular thought of postmodernism," and I read
"corruption" as a bashing of something that is bad, i.e., corrupt.
Maybe you could relate your experience of an example of something you
find to be postmodern and corrupt, and what Buddhism before this has
to offer, and maybe how they differ or how they interrelate.
> > > through the Minds grace are allowed to tap their own apparent
> > > existence from the very awareness power of the primordial unborn mind,
> > > the One Mind, the dipankara Buddha [the tathagata].
> >
> > This sounds to me identical to the Catholic "Divine Grace from God"
>
> I understand your interpetation and of course my point on this matter
> could easily be understood in such a fashion although I meant
> something quite opposite.
Ok. I guess I was asking "how does this differ from Catholic Grace"?
> Once we are able to face our Minds primordial nature, beyond words,
> opinions and lectures of worldly "authorities", I can assure you that
> one will face something quite profound yet not the least "divine".
That I can relate to. This morning - a special day, the solstice - I
got up after sitting at sunrise and walked in the woods and looking at
the sunrise and some ordinary leaves and trees, I experienced
something quite profound and not the least "divine", and certainly
primordial nature, beyond words, opinions and lectures of worldly
"authorities". If that is what you meant, then I fully understand,
and those moments I cherish, and they are a great incentive for me to
continue and deepen my meditation practice.
If this experience you meant, then I understand, but you used a lot of
confusine and abstract words, and so it wasn't clear to me if you were
describing the thought-free and profound experience that I felt this
morning. Were you?
> In fact a very ordinary Mind that in its capcity to shine as simply such
I don't understand that, or why "Mind" is capitalized (I figure you
mean God when you capitalized it). There was no Mind or mind in my
experience, just the experiencing and the colors and smells and feel
of the morning breeze. After that, there were pleasant thoughts about
how beautiful it was. At that point, I guess there was 'mind', but
that's ok, because the profound experience had dissolved by then,
lasting only a few seconds at most.
> is far beyond the impeeding limitations it suffers from habitually
> having been clinging and identifying itself with the skandhic veil
> that distorts its direct knowledge of its own true nature.
I don't get any of that abstract intellectual stuff. I just know that
after I sat, there was a moment or two of awe and profound experience,
and then afterwards thoughts again, including clinging ones that
wanted the experience to come back and continue or repeat, such as
"I'll have to do this again tomorrow morning if the weather is good".
> > > Buddhism emerges immediately as direct knowledge, a sort of anamnetic
> >
> > I've only heard frothing-at-the-mouth evangelists use the term
> > 'anamnetic'. And claims to 'direct knowledge' puzzle me and sound
> > dubious at best. I'm not even sure what direct knowledge could be, or
> > what would be an example of it.
>
> My english is not the best but I will try to make it better :)as I
> understand that some on this forum are quite versatile handling this
> tool of divided communication. I meant anamnetic as in the ancient
> term anamnesis, that is recollection/remebrance of that which is
> initself unborn, unbound and profundly shining as simply "thus".
Ok. I'd say each moment can be like that, and then we add thoughts.
Which can often be a good thing, but we do it too much, and then tend
to avoid the simple raw experience, such as what I felt for a second
or two before more thoughts bubbled up again.
> This direct and unobstrued recollection of ones primordial nature is
> hence in a way direct knowledge of the primordial Mind
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. This abstract talk of
"primodial Mind" sounds like God to me. It doesn't make any sense to
me, and the raw primordial experience I had this morning didn't
contain such an abstraction (as far as I could tell). Again, I may
just be misinterpreting what you are saying because I just don't
understand the big words or terms like "primordial Mind". I don't know
what that means or how it realates to my experience. But you did very
accurately describe my experience when you said, "unborn, unbound and
profundly shining as simply 'thus'." That's what I felt.
> nirvanic power of being originally undivided and highly dynamic.
Now that one, "nirvanic power", doesn't make any sense to me at all.
I have thought of nirvana or nibbana as the lack of thoughts and
conditioning - a kind of open receptive stillness - and experiencing
directly whatever is present. Talk of powers sounds to me like magic
or something supernatural, which doesn't have anything to do with the
simple profound experience I described before thoughts and reflection
on the experience came into play. Also, I don't know how divided or
undivided, or dynamic or static would come into play here. That
sentence confuses me.
> > > From my own spiritual experience, Gautama did not actually say a
> > > singel word. To none. There was only direct and undivided awareness,
> >
> > Well, I don't suppose that any of us have directly experienced the
> > Buddha talking, as he died 2500 years ago. However, you seem to be
> > claiming that all the sutras are false, and all the monks who
> > memorized them and passed them down are liars. If this were the case,
> > then none of us, especially you, could know anything at all about the
> > Buddha. So the claim seems to self-destruct. I have heard that the
> > Buddha remained silent at times in specific crucial situations, such
> > as with the flower sermon or when asked speculative metaphysical
> > questions, but that's a much different story.
>
> I did not imply that the sutras are false. In fact they are quite true
Well, then the Buddha not only said at least a single word, but the
guy seemed to talk constantly a lot of the time, if even just a
portion of what the Pali Canon ascribes to him is accurate. There is
as much talk from the Buddha as there is in the writings of Voltaire!
> What I meant was that once you discover what "undivided"
> awareness power (bodhi) is you will see that not a singel word was
> uttered by Buddha, yet certainly by Gauatama whom served as the
> composed tool of expressing the profound towards those suffering minds
> clinging to the artificial and divided generated by the vibrating
But the Gautama was the Buddha. "The Buddha" is a title for Gautama.
They are the same human being. Now you're saying that Gautama wasn't
the Buddha? That sentence sounds to me like by the Buddha you mean
"God" and Gautama was like Moses receiving the Commandments, or a
Crystal Channeler doing a seance. Too abstract and intellectual and
metaphysical for my tastes, if that's what you are saying.
> composition of the skandhas. This everchanging synthesis of energy on
> a subatomic level is solely, once you properly investigate it by
> directing the mind inwardly on the matter, mere energy, in various
I see a lot of words there, but now you are making a quantum physics
claim about subatomic stuff and energy. Would you please produce the
physics equations? (I have friends who are physicists who can explain
them to me.)
> spectral "formations". All such "formations" are on an apparent and
> probable level, interacting and changing mode and "function" depending
> what their "master" (Mind) creates in terms of desire will, memory and
> direction of the afore mentioned. It may sound metaphysical to you,
> and I bet it does, yet it is of course simply my view point on the
> more intricate levels on the Mind and its fantastic nature.
Such intellectual abstract fantasy stuff is fine to speculate about,
don't get me wrong, but it doesn't seem to me to have anything to do
with what I call mindfulness practice, which is letting go of those
abstract thoughts and views and simply experiencing my breath or the
sunrise or whatever is going on, without all the extra stuff.
> Feel free to refute it as pure nonsense or investigate the matter
Well, I can't refute it, any more than I can refute alien abduction
stories, and I have no right to call it pure nonsense, or even corrupt
nonsense: I can only say that it is something that isn't needed with
respect to mindfulness and sitting on my cushion, paying attention to
experiences coming and going.
> deny the fact of this sheer absolute reality of the Mind, the
Again, that sounds frighteningly like Evangelist talk, about denying
absolute reality of God - the same form but with Eastern metaphysical
content. The form doesn't relate to my experience regardless of its
content. That is, when you talk about "the fact" and "sheer absolute
reality" and "Mind", this is as far removed as it gets from real
experience, sitting on the cushion or breathing in and out. Whereas
my practice leads more often to "don't know" and awe and wonder, and
not to big words and claims about "absolute" or "fact".
Sounds to me like you may have a strong need to be certain and know
you have the truth. I have that need too, and I notice it showing up
a lot. I prefer to simply get to know that need and pay attention to
it. For me, that is a crucial step in Buddhist practice. We just have
different styles, I suppose. My style I've found to be very helpful
to me.
> Any mind, by ignorance of its own true nature has by various
> incalculable reasons made itself dependant upon the strong desire to
> use its direct access to this awareness power and distort it/divide it
That is a very common intellectual protection against rebuttal, e.g.,
you may say, "if you disagree with me, then you are ignorant of your
own true nature and use your direct access to this awareness power and
distort it/divide it" and so forth. That is called question-begging.
One starts with the assumption that one's own views are true and
certain, then one interprets anything contrary as denial or delusion.
I'm not saying that this is your intention, only that you are setting
yourself up to defend your views with this kind of claim which is
'closed' and has an answer to all opposing views. But stirring up
more and more mud never lets one see the fish wiggle in a still forest
pool, does it?
Btw, if I just sit on the cushion and see all of this as just more
thoughts, such thought often lose their bite and dissolve along with
the other chatter. At least that happens for me. Then the leaves
look extra pretty again.
> I do not speculate kind sir, I do honestly express my experience from
So far, I honestly haven't heard from you any experiences at all yet,
but rather the most abstract speculation imaginable. Only in content
do you sound different from a Christian Evangelist, in fact, but I
mean that only as a description of how you sound to me, not in any way
to belittle any of your beliefs or practices. I actually would like
to hear about your experiences, if you would care to share them or
describe your practice and how it has helped you become more kind or
intimate or caring, etc. in your daily life.
> If what I have expressed can perhaps find some reckognition by those
> of same experience on this forum that is fine and most joyful to
That could very well mean "it is most joyful to find someone who
believes the same dogma so that together we can rejoice that we are
right and certain and have the truth". On the other hand, I've found
that poetry conveys shared experiences more adequately than does
endless abstracting and pontificating. Ever read the old sage Rumi?
He's fantastic. I highly recommend Rumi. And sunrises.
-j
Ch'an Fu
And sunsets... ;)
BWZ
To get the right view on zen however, put all this aside.
Have a look at this site of Gileht, it should help.
www.gileht.com/index.html#chan
Sean
--
I'm enlightened and all I got was this lousy t-shirt.
"Dharmasala" <dharmas...@yahoo.com.hk> wrote in message
news:5f5023f4.03062...@posting.google.com...
BWZ
what exactly is not the reality of Buddhist practice? Where does the
Buddha mind fail to reach?
Sean
--
I'm enlightened and all I got was this lousy t-shirt.
"Mark McHugh" <mch...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:BB1A5032.6A6C6%mch...@ozemail.com.au...
Mark McHugh
We are already enlightened, so there is no need to do anything ?
Dharmasala
> You're a clever fellow Dharmasala, most likely university educated.
> To get the right view on zen however, put all this aside.
>
> Have a look at this site of Gileht, it should help.
> www.gileht.com/index.html#chan
>
> Sean
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> I'm enlightened and all I got was this lousy t-shirt.
>
>
>
Thank you kind sir.
I have already studied many of the great ones mentioned on Gileht愀
fine site of which Lin-chi is indeed one of my favourite dharma
teachers.
Yet, all this study of the apparently spoken, the expounded in any
form, the experience of even the greatest sages comes to nothing if
one does not implement the advice and discipline the way requires in
the beginning.
Best regards
Dharmasala
I惴 not enlightened and all I got is this lousy Universe :)
Dharmasala
>
Thank you for clarifying more. Then again, I still
> don't understand them very well.
I will try to express myself in a more clarifying way kind sir.
>
> > However I do not in any way claim
> > to bash anything, I merely express a standpoint on the current status
> > of secular buddhism today. If you desire to read more in my message
>
> I'd rather have you share your experiences; my guesses were requests
> for clarification to get a meaningful thread going. You said, "before
> the corruption of the secular thought of postmodernism," and I read
> "corruption" as a bashing of something that is bad, i.e., corrupt.
What I meant was that all phenomena are by their nature corruptable.
This is what birth,existence and death means. It is as much appliable
to your minds own emotions, thoughts, as to thuis very unuiverse and
any dharma in it. It goes likewise with every religion or philosophy
once ignited by any founder.
But as always that which creates this has always a way to plant new
seeds for the benefit of that which still suffers.
> > > > through the Minds grace are allowed to tap their own apparent
> > > > existence from the very awareness power of the primordial unborn mind,
> > > > the One Mind, the dipankara Buddha [the tathagata].
> > >
> > > This sounds to me identical to the Catholic "Divine Grace from God"
I do not know anything about what westerners refer to as "God".
If they mean that this "God" is a spiritual entity that governs the
all,
then I would kindly refute this fact.
The Tathagata is not a spiritual entity, but indeed the word great
mind or great spirit is the only suitable word I can find. It is a
power, a force of nature, by which no words can describe it. They can
only function as metaphors that brings meaning and direction. This is
initself not a matter of religion or beliefe its is about remembrance
of what is as such and has been so even before your parents were born,
as one old sage expressed it once in a koan.
> I can assure you that
>one will face something quite profound yet not the least "divine".
>
I experienced
> something quite profound and not the least "divine", and certainly
> primordial nature, beyond words, opinions and lectures of worldly
> "authorities". If that is what you meant, then I fully understand,
> and those moments I cherish, and they are a great incentive for me to
> continue and deepen my meditation practice.
>
> If this experience you meant, then I understand, but you used a lot of
> confusine and abstract words, and so it wasn't clear to me if you were
> describing the thought-free and profound experience that I felt this
> morning. Were you?
I am happy for your experience kind sir. However the thought-free
state is but one of many dhyana/samadhi states. I do hope you will
have the great joy of emerging through them all.
>
> > In fact a very ordinary Mind that in its capcity to shine as simply such
>
> I don't understand that, or why "Mind" is capitalized (I figure you
> mean God when you capitalized it). There was no Mind or mind in my
> experience, just the experiencing and the colors and smells and feel
> of the morning breeze. After that, there were pleasant thoughts about
> how beautiful it was. At that point, I guess there was 'mind', but
> that's ok, because the profound experience had dissolved by then,
> lasting only a few seconds at most.
>
Mind is simply mind kind sir. Yet this ordinary mind is not the
composed consciousness you presently "feel" and act through. Ordinary
mind precedes this consciousness as simply mind. Therefore it is
called ordinary or everyday mind (it illuminates the "every day" of
the walking, the eating, the sleeping and so on).
Ever read the old sage Rumi?
> He's fantastic. I highly recommend Rumi. And sunrises.
>
> -j
A sunrise is wonderful, kind sir. But what precedes the sunrise
itself, is an experience beyond words. I do highly recommend you to
contemplate this when you see a sunrise again.
Best regards
Dharmasala
Meandwarf
trap, and stickier than most...
--
it's all good
"Mark McHugh" <mch...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:BB1B8804.6A870%mch...@ozemail.com.au...
jhayati
> > Thank you for clarifying more. Then again, I still
> > don't understand them very well.
>
> I will try to express myself in a more clarifying way kind sir.
>
> This is what birth,existence and death means.
Well, I'm not sure what you mean by that. What I say is that
everything changes and is impermanent, and comes and goes. That's
rather simple, but we complicate things when we act as if things can
be permanent, and then we get disappointed and suffer.
> > > > > through the Minds grace are allowed to tap their own apparent
> > > > > existence from the very awareness power of the primordial unborn
> > > > > mind, the One Mind, the dipankara Buddha [the tathagata].
> > > >
> > > > This sounds to me identical to the Catholic "Divine Grace from God"
>
> I do not know anything about what westerners refer to as "God".
> If they mean that this "God" is a spiritual entity that governs the
> all, then I would kindly refute this fact.
You can't refute that, nor can you prove it.
> The Tathagata is not a spiritual entity, but indeed the word great
> mind or great spirit is the only suitable word I can find. It is a
> power, a force of nature, by which no words can describe it.
You've already lost me in abstract fantasizing here.
An 'entity' has properties, so present the mass, shape, color, etc.,
or else don't use a word like 'entity'. If it's a force of nature,
then present the equations for this force, as Newton did with gravity.
I note that you dropped the 'quantum-state and forces' talk when I
asked you to present the equations. It's fun to use science terms to
create magical realms, isn't it?
> They can only function as metaphors that brings meaning and direction.
There's no meaning if it isn't grounded in experience, and the
direction is way out in left field. You have yet to once say
something having to do with your own experience, not even something as
simple and direct as "when I sat, there was pain in my knee".
> This is
> in itself not a matter of religion or beliefe its is about remembrance
> of what is as such and has been so even before your parents were born,
Only a few old folks are alive that remember before my parents were
born. Again, rather than describe your actual memories, you repeat
yet another fantasy and abstraction that you've read in books or were
taught by spiritual authorities. I'd like some honesty please, not
talk of memories before my parents were born. Unless you're an
extremely old geezer, you don't have any memories before my parents
were born. Why aren't your own experiences good enough to share, that
you have to repeat this wizard talk instead?
> > I experienced
> > something quite profound and not the least "divine", and certainly
> > primordial nature, beyond words, opinions and lectures of worldly
> > "authorities". If that is what you meant, then I fully understand,
> > and those moments I cherish, and they are a great incentive for me to
> > continue and deepen my meditation practice.
> >
> > If this experience you meant, then I understand, but you used a lot of
> > confusine and abstract words, and so it wasn't clear to me if you were
> > describing the thought-free and profound experience that I felt this
> > morning. Were you?
>
> I am happy for your experience kind sir. However the thought-free
> state is but one of many dhyana/samadhi states. I do hope you will
> have the great joy of emerging through them all.
I have shared with you something real, an experience of mine; you have
replied with intellectual abstractions about states you believe in
which are part of your abstract belief system, while you haven't
shared a thing. I feel a bit frustrated that there is no
communication going on here.
> > I don't understand that, or why "Mind" is capitalized (I figure you
> > mean God when you capitalized it). There was no Mind or mind in my
> > experience, just the experiencing and the colors and smells and feel
> > of the morning breeze. After that, there were pleasant thoughts about
> > how beautiful it was. At that point, I guess there was 'mind', but
> > that's ok, because the profound experience had dissolved by then,
> > lasting only a few seconds at most.
> >
> Mind is simply mind kind sir. Yet this ordinary mind is not the
> composed consciousness you presently "feel" and act through. Ordinary
> mind precedes this consciousness as simply mind.
Again, you haven't said anything real, and are once again abstracting
away. You may as well say "Angels precede your experience of chopping
wood." We still aren't having a bilateral conversation. "Mind" is
more of a verb to me, a bundle of thoughts, sensations, memories
bubbling up, feelings, emotions - all constantly changing. What
precedes these thoughts and feelings this moment were more thoughts
and feelings a moment ago. That isn't just from some book: I say that
after sitting on my cushion. That is, there is no experience of
"simply mind" any more than there is "simply river" or "pure river"
without running water; adding an extra entity like "pure primordial
river" doesn't have to do with my experiences, but the idea of a river
as a thing can be added make it easier to to talk about. Similarly,
'mind' is a useful term for a changing collection of experiences.
Then again, Plato created abstractions much the way you do, and I
suppose that you are (intentionally or not) a student of Plato. I
have always been surprised how so much of the Indic philosophy
resembles Plato. There have been many schools of thought that make
such claims. And they are fascinating to read about. There is much
to be said for Plato. But when we bring them down to our actual
experience, the "primordial pure rivers" never seem to hold water: the
water just flows. Perhaps, if you're not going to share any of your
experiences, you may consider simply pointing out the school or source
of your beliefs from which you quote all these big words, and we could
compare and contrast various philosophical systems and their theories
and abstract ideas. Doesn't do much for me in terms of Buddhist
practice, but I love reading about various schools of thought and how
various philosophers and mystics looked at the big picture.
I think a common spiritual trap, particularly with Eastern mystical
and esoteric systems, is to become so busy thinking about one's
abstractions and beliefs that one doesn't really appreciate the
sunrise when one sees it, so one imagines that there are magical
mystical states and beings and powers if only one could get past the
mundane illusion of the boring sunrise. Rather than delving deeper
into one's own abstractions and beliefs about magical experiences that
conveniently can't be described to mortals, there is an alternative,
and a Buddhist one at that: try to look more into why you put down
real experiences and have to dwell on abstractions. I ask the same of
friends who buy pornography: why do you avoid real women with real
emotions who have real relationships, and instead dwell on abstract
air-brushed images with whom you can fantasize?
> > Ever read the old sage Rumi?
> > He's fantastic. I highly recommend Rumi. And sunrises.
> >
> > -j
>
> A sunrise is wonderful, kind sir. But what precedes the sunrise
> itself, is an experience beyond words.
Every experience is beyond words! Words can be skillfully used to
convey a rough description. For example, before the sunrise, there
was darkness, with stars and the moon, followed by dawn. Poetry can
often capture even more of the texture of the experience. That's why
I suggested Rumi. You didn't respond to that. Perhaps by talking
about "experiences beyond words" you can cover up a failure to have
direct genuine experiences in actual moment-to-moment living. I hope
you don't feel that poetry is nonsense that is too mundane to be
bothered with by one seeking "primordial Mind"! That would be a
shame, as you'd be missing out on so many wonderful things in life.
-j
Meandwarf
"jhayati" <jha...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:2e4552bb.03062...@posting.google.com...
> dharmas...@yahoo.com.hk (Dharmasala) wrote in message
news:<5f5023f4.03062...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > jha...@msn.com (jhayati) wrote in message
news:<2e4552bb.03062...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Thank you for clarifying more. Then again, I still
sipsnipsnip
>
> Every experience is beyond words! Words can be skillfully used to
> convey a rough description. For example, before the sunrise, there
> was darkness, with stars and the moon, followed by dawn. Poetry can
> often capture even more of the texture of the experience. That's why
> I suggested Rumi. You didn't respond to that. Perhaps by talking
> about "experiences beyond words" you can cover up a failure to have
> direct genuine experiences in actual moment-to-moment living. I hope
> you don't feel that poetry is nonsense that is too mundane to be
> bothered with by one seeking "primordial Mind"! That would be a
> shame, as you'd be missing out on so many wonderful things in life.
>
> -j
Well jhayati I think you're wasting your time, but it's yours to waste as
you see fit. I do enjoy reading your posts, so maybe I shouldn't say
anything : ). Personally, when I sit my foot falls asleep and I stagger like
a drunk for 5 minutes afterwards...
jhayati
> > convey a rough description. For example, before the sunrise, there
> > was darkness, with stars and the moon, followed by dawn. Poetry can
> > often capture even more of the texture of the experience. That's why
> > I suggested Rumi. You didn't respond to that. Perhaps by talking
> > about "experiences beyond words" you can cover up a failure to have
> > direct genuine experiences in actual moment-to-moment living. I hope
> > you don't feel that poetry is nonsense that is too mundane to be
> > bothered with by one seeking "primordial Mind"! That would be a
> > shame, as you'd be missing out on so many wonderful things in life.
> >
> > -j
>
> Well jhayati I think you're wasting your time, but it's yours to waste as
> you see fit. I do enjoy reading your posts, so maybe I shouldn't say
> anything : ). Personally, when I sit my foot falls asleep and I stagger like
> a drunk for 5 minutes afterwards...
Well, to some extend I write for myself, to clarify my own ideas, so
I'm not that disappointed if I get ignored or insulted or
misunderstood, and your enjoyment is a welcome bonus!
As for your foot falling asleep, that's the sciatic nerve you're
pressing that does that. There are two ways to deal with this. One
is to simply include the experience in your practice. I've had my
feet fall asleep during sittings for years. I feel all sorts of
interesting emotions when that happens, such as a sense of fear and
panic and anxiety when the pringles start up, and I get to pay
attention to them and get to know those feelings in a safe context.
Then when I'm in the staggering phase I always take the opportunity to
do some traditional walking meditation, as the extra sensations and
pringles force me to go really slowly and pay attention to balance, so
it's all the easier to be mindful of lifting and stepping and placing
each foot after the other.
The other thing I've done is to buy a meditation bench. I find that
not only do my feet not fall asleep as often, but I can sit straight
without my back aching for much longer with a bench than with a zafu.
I take both a bench and zafu with me on retreats so that I can
alternate them.
You can get a meditation bench for about $40 from:
http://www.samadhi-meditation.com/get_category.php/benches.html
but maybe you can find something cheaper if you shop around.
They also sell traditional zafus, as well as these New-Age designer
zafus. They have colorful descriptions such as "Our Half-Moon kapok
zafu in Khaki with a faux cheetah center top and bottom comes
autographed by Lama Rinpoche". Ok, I made up the autographed part.
Maybe those funky cushions would work too, but I have a feeling those
are more for use as living room 'chick magnets'.
-j
Dharmasala
> > > Thank you for clarifying more. Then again, I still
> > > don't understand them very well.
Kind sir,
It seems that you can only relate to anything viewed through the body
consciousness (skandhas). Thus to you the image of the sun is a
depicted image of what your consciousness senses as "real".
If you were genuinly interested in Zen buddhism you would practise and
see the limits of this consciousness for yourself instead of acting
with responses and a reference frame that does not go beyond it.
Because this is what I read from your responses I can understand your
requirement for empirical proof. But I am not here to present such,
nor am I one proper to present such proof in form of for example sutra
quotations on the nature of the Buddha mind. I am acting and
describing my views on the matter on a merely ontological view point.
Ontology and empiricism have never been able to verify eachothers
position nor will they ever do (to the full satisfaction of each
side).
What you choose in what you refer as "the moment" determines your
temporal reality, which is if you investigate it properly, highly
illusive and artificial. A mere rapid series of sensations experienced
by your brain as "time and space". Deeming your response that your
reality of watching sunrising from a motorcycle is more real and
recommendable then the reality of one whom practises dhyana on various
levels as depicted by the Buddha is indeed ignorant talk and of course
your free choice to be convinced of that fact.
> Again, you haven't said anything real,
once again you are asking for empirical values to agree with your own
reference frame. what you deem to be "real" in relation to your own
memory, impressions in this life and of course stored knowledge.
Yet you fail to see the true nature of that power that even makes your
very fingers type your minds responses. Can you absolute claim with
utter certainty from a precise introspection of your own faculties
that this power is blind fanatasies? is it there or not and what
controls it? Is it muscles and energy in conjunction or is it
something beyond even energy and muscles? Is it controlling your
consciousness or is your consciousness controlling it?
Mind" is
> more of a verb to me, a bundle of thoughts, sensations, memories
> bubbling up, feelings, emotions - all constantly changing.
If you really believe that the true nature of the mind is all this
then you have many pleasant and unpleasant surprises, in what you deem
life, to look forward to. Yet I wish you of course the best.
>
> Then again, Plato created abstractions much the way you do, and I
> suppose that you are (intentionally or not) a student of Plato.
Your understanding of Plato is quite amusing. Plato did not create
abstractions. He merely pointed out the ones like you whom defined
abstractions as absolute reality thinking a shadow on the wall was
more real then the fire that enable its appearance in the
consciousness of the bewitched.
> > > Ever read the old sage Rumi?
> > > He's fantastic. I highly recommend Rumi. And sunrises.
This sufi sage is quite good.
To enjoy his readings you have to enjoy the ontological J which in
Rumi is God and the absolute reality of God. Do you enjoy God J or do
you simply enjoy nice flowing poetry and pretty paintings on the wall
of your artificial and composed consciousness (your brain).
> > >
> > > -j
> >
I hope
> you don't feel that poetry is nonsense that is too mundane to be
> bothered with by one seeking "primordial Mind"!
Poetry is as wonderful as the Mind that enjoys it. The question
though in this forum I believe is what is true and ultimately real?
The Mind or the poetry enjoyed by the Mind.
Do you honestly know by experience or do you want to continue in your
life guessing every time life becomes highly unpleasant.
Best regards
Dharmasala
Ch'an Fu
in case you cared,
"It turns out that the numbness, tingling and paralysis caused by mild, temporary nerve compression is not due to the
compression of the nerve per se, but is rather due to cutting off the blood supply to the nerve. Cutting off the blood
supply to an area of the body is called ischemia. Ischemia is about the worst thing that can happen to a body part. Since
that part recieves no new blood, it doesn't get oxygen, it doesn't get food (glucose) and it doesn't get its wastes
(carbon dioxide, lactic acid, whatever) carried away. Nerves are particularly succeptible to ischemia because it takes a
lot of metabolic energy to transmit nerve impulses.
Fortunately, the circulatory system of a nerve is specially designed to protect it from reduced blood supply, say from a
blocked artery. Unlike most tissue, every nerve actually has 2 interconnected systems which deliver blood to it. This
means that if the circulation to a body part (for example your arm) is greatly reduced, the nerves will still get enough
blood to adequately function. The other specialization nerves have is that they normally receive much more blood than
they need to function. This large safety zone means that even if circulation is impaired, the nerve will probably get
enough blood to work well. In critical situations, a nerve
can even work for some time by absorbing oxygen and glucose from surrounding muscles!
All of these back up systems mean nothing, however, if the nerve itself is compressed. A nerve is made up of the axons of
neurons and connective tissue. The blood vessels which supply the nerve run in the connective tissue that surrounds the
axons. So, these blood vessels are actually in the nerve. Thus, if the nerve is compressed, the blood vessels are also
compressed, and blood supply to the axons is cut off. Ischemia sets in.
A series of very thorough experiments by Merrington and Nathan in the late 1940's showed that it is the lack of blood
supply, and not the pressure on the nerve itself, that causes the sensory and motor symptoms. They also showed that the
sensory effects that occur when compression is released are not due to blood reentering the body part, or due to
activation of sensory receptors in the body part. The paraesthesias originate in the nerve itself. This is perhaps most
dramatically shown when a nerve is compressed in a person with an amputated arm. They report tingling in their
nonexistent fingers and hand!"
-- http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec96/850996021.Ns.r.html
if your foot "falls asleep",
change positions or risk nerve damage.
fixing on a 'position' for meditation is
as compulsive and silly as drinking your
tea only from cups with no handles.
Meandwarf
--
it's all good
"Ch'an Fu" <cha...@removeyoursandals.metta.lk> wrote in message
news:3EF62AD5...@removeyoursandals.metta.lk...
> jhayati wrote:
>
> > "Meandwarf" <Mean...@twistedpsyches.org> wrote in message
news:<FtmJa.73231$sm5....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
> > > "jhayati" <jha...@msn.com> wrote in message
> > >
snipsnipsnip
> -- http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec96/850996021.Ns.r.html
>
> if your foot "falls asleep",
> change positions or risk nerve damage.
> fixing on a 'position' for meditation is
> as compulsive and silly as drinking your
> tea only from cups with no handles.
>
>
Oh my.
I prefer the below link, though, as it's more apt to my own level of
intellectual development.
"And it's not that you've kept the blood from going to your foot and cut off
your circulation, either. Instead, it's your nerves that are to blame."
http://kidshealth.org/kid/talk/qa/foot_asleep.html
If my foot gets necrotic and falls off... well, I guess I'll be missing a
foot.
Meandwarf
*PLONK*
jhayati
> Kind sir,
>
> It seems that you can only relate to anything viewed through the body
> consciousness (skandhas). Thus to you the image of the sun is a
> depicted image of what your consciousness senses as "real".
Yes, I am relating only to experience and not to belief and
abstraction.
> If you were genuinly interested in Zen buddhism you would practise and
> see the limits of this consciousness for yourself instead of acting
No. Not only do I not have to swallow your magic and wizardry and
abstract endless pontification to be interested in Zen Buddhism, but
the practice specifically involves letting go of all that baggage and
being present to what is.
> Because this is what I read from your responses I can understand your
> requirement for empirical proof. But I am not here to present such,
Yes, I am aware that your wizardry and Dungeons'n'Dragons rambling has
nothing to do with actual experience or empirical grounding, and that
all you can do is repeat your ungrounded abstractions and add more and
more jargon and big words as a smokescreen. We've already established
that.
> Ontology and empiricism have never been able to verify each others
> position nor will they ever do
Actually, they go together quite nicely. As you claim endlessly about
primodial Minds and you claim to remember things before my parents
were born, yet you can't name one, no wonder you claim that truth and
experience can't verify each other. On the other hand, if you let go
of the smokescreen and pay attention, you might come back down to
Earth and change your mind.
> What you choose in what you refer as "the moment" determines your
> temporal reality, which is if you investigate it properly, highly
> illusive and artificial.
Try putting your hand on a hot stove and then tell me it's illusive.
> Deeming your response that your
> reality of watching sunrising from a motorcycle is more real and
> recommendable then the reality of one whom practises dhyana on various
> levels as depicted by the Buddha is indeed ignorant
I've never been on a motorcycle in my life. I was sitting in my
backyard.
You must have me confused with that novel, Zen of Motorcycle
Maintenance. Not everyone that practices Zen has a motorcycle, you
know.
But at least you've finally shared one thing in your experience, that
when someone else doesn't share your abstract wizardry and endless
beliefs, you label them as 'ignorant'. That's the most real comment
you've made.
> Yet you fail to see the true nature of that power that even makes your
> very fingers type your minds responses. Can you absolute claim with
> utter certainty
To claim to be certain is the surest sign of ignorant. I'm certain
about nothing, including being certain that I'm certain about nothing.
And frankly, I'm not interested in certainty or permanence. I would
bet that gravity will function tomorrow as it did today and I'll see
another sunrise tomorrow, but I'm not certain of it. I understand,
however, that if you need to be certain, creating a fantasy world that
can't be tested is the way to go.
> > Then again, Plato created abstractions much the way you do, and I
> > suppose that you are (intentionally or not) a student of Plato.
>
> Your understanding of Plato is quite amusing. Plato did not create
> abstractions. He merely pointed out the ones like you whom defined
> abstractions as absolute reality thinking a shadow on the wall was
> more real then the fire that enable its appearance in the
Well, that parable of the cave in The Republic is the most quoted by
idealists. By claiming the existence of a heaven of forms, Plato then
claimed that this world was an illusion. In your case, you can escape
the world by creating a fantasy, and then calling the fantasy
"absolute" or "ultimate", granting yourself the permanence you crave
while dismissing reality as "illusion". But I called that one right,
about your being a diciple of Plato.
> This sufi sage is quite good.
>
> To enjoy his readings you have to enjoy the ontological J which in
> Rumi is God and the absolute reality of God. Do you enjoy God J or do
> you simply enjoy nice flowing poetry and pretty paintings on the wall
> of your artificial and composed consciousness (your brain).
I don't interpret Rumi through your Platonic lens, and I enjoy Rumi
immensely because of his beautiful expression of the interconnection
of all things and his love of life.
Now let me get this last comment straight: you think I'm not a human,
and that I literally have an 'artificial brain'? You seriously think
I'm a cyborg? Or an android? Wow. That's really out there with the
absolute fantasy stuff. Data to Enterprise: ready to beam up.
-j
jhayati
> in case you cared,
>
> "It turns out that the numbness, tingling and paralysis
> caused by mild, temporary nerve compression is not due to the
> compression of the nerve per se, but is rather due to cutting
> off the blood supply to the nerve. Cutting off the blood
> supply to an area of the body is called ischemia. Ischemia
> is about the worst thing that can happen to a body part.
> Since that part recieves no new blood, it doesn't get oxygen,
> it doesn't get food (glucose) and it doesn't get its wastes
> (carbon dioxide, lactic acid, whatever) carried away. Nerves
> are particularly succeptible to ischemia because it takes a
> lot of metabolic energy to transmit nerve impulses.
Wow. I didn't know that. Thanks.
> if your foot "falls asleep",
> change positions or risk nerve damage.
> fixing on a 'position' for meditation is
> as compulsive and silly as drinking your
> tea only from cups with no handles.
I'll check this out, and if so, I'll change positions every 15 or 20
minutes. I've found though, that it's much more helpful not to change
positions if there is pain or itching, etc., unless it is really
strong. Otherwise it's a huge distraction, and when I simply watch
the sensations, the desire to move and get rid of them disappears
after a while, or if it doesn't, I get to me mindful of the aversion.
It's not compulsive to not react to sensations but simply watch the
desire to move. If the pain is intense, or in this case if there
could be physical damage, then I agree not moving is compulsive and
silly.
But thanks for this info -- I've never heard this before and for years
I've been dealing with the pringles almost every sitting I do for 45
min or longer. I certainly wouldn't want to do anything unhealthy, so
maybe I'll make it a habit to shift my position once or twice during
sittings. Thanks.
-j
Ch'an Fu
position really doesn't matter,
sitting, standing, walking, doing the dishes...
it's not about that (unless it's yogurt).
it's about...well, you already know what
it's about. body and mind aren't separate.
and body's just part of the 'world' - there's
really no space between them all...
Tang Huyen
jhayati wrote:
> As you claim endlessly about
> primodial Minds and you claim to remember things before my parents
> were born, yet you can't name one, no wonder you claim that truth and
> experience can't verify each other. On the other hand, if you let go
> of the smokescreen and pay attention, you might come back down to
> Earth and change your mind.
One striking thing about lots of people who go into Buddhism, whether within a native mode or a converted mode, is that
they fly off the intellectual handle, get lost in abstractions and take them for reality, reality more real than our
daily reality.
Recently we saw the learned Geshe Michael Roach doing it, and here Dharmasala in Hong-Kong is doing it.
The Buddha says: "In the seen there will be just the seen", and "What and what they think it, it is otherwise".
He also says that all views come from contact.
It seems that those lowly (hiina) teachings of his never register, and many Buddhists go in the exact contrary
direction altogether. They follow speech to chase realities.
Dà zhì dù lùn, T, 25, 1509, 164a18-19: “Now on the basis of the five aggregates there arises the word ‘living being’.
The unwise follow speech to chase realities.”
Tang Huyen
jhayati
> jhayati wrote:
>
> > As you claim endlessly about
> > primodial Minds and you claim to remember things before my parents
> > were born, yet you can't name one, no wonder you claim that truth and
> > experience can't verify each other. On the other hand, if you let go
> > of the smokescreen and pay attention, you might come back down to
> > Earth and change your mind.
>
> One striking thing about lots of people who go into Buddhism,
> whether within a native mode or a converted mode, is that they
> fly off the intellectual handle, get lost in abstractions and
> take them for reality, reality more real than our daily reality.
Well, that was my criticism here. I don't ever want to discourage
anyone's practice, nor insult the particular person. But this is an
interesting phenomenon. We start with daily reality, then posit a
fantasy about the "absolute" and "ultimate", and then take that for
real and trash the original reality. The result is we get to feel
one-up, we justtify our alienation from nature and our body and we get
to discount all our experiences, appealing to abstractions "beyond
senses" and unspeakable, a retreat into one's private fantasy world.
The idea is of course totally Western, and I sort of want to blame
Plato for all this kind of wizardry. I would think that meditation
would be a cure for this - but meditation seems to make dogmatic
practitioners more convinced of their dogma and gives agnostics a
stronger don't-know mind, so that doesn't do it either. Maybe it's
just a different personality type.
> Recently we saw the learned Geshe Michael Roach doing it,
> and here Dharmasala in Hong-Kong is doing it.
I don't know anything about Geshe Michael Roach.
> The Buddha says: "In the seen there will be just the seen", and
> "What and what they think it, it is otherwise".
>
> He also says that all views come from contact.
What exactly is contact?
> It seems that those lowly (hiina) teachings of his never register,
> and many Buddhists go in the exact contrary direction altogether.
I have a hard time accepting that talk about "ultimate" this and
"absolute" that and "certainty" and "primordial Mind" has any place in
any Buddhist context, and I usually here that in Hindu and New Age and
Theosophical talk instead. But there do seem to be a whole lot of
Platonic Buddhists around here. The Zen and Theravadin meditators I
know personally never use those terms, though they throw around talk
of 'energy' and 'chi', but usually in respect to something tangible,
like their last acupuncture or massage and reiki sessions.
> Dŕ zhě dů lůn, T, 25, 1509, 164a18-19: ?Now on the basis of
> the five aggregates there arises the word ?living being?.
> The unwise follow speech to chase realities.?
>
> Tang Huyen
I try to listen to everyone, but but I can't help think that talk of
primodial Minds and denying that brains are conscious is like
denouncing Newton and claiming that Angels still push the planets
around.
-j
BWZ
Dogen Zenji asked the same question as you in so many words.
My answer would be that yes, there is something to practice, but that
practice should never extend beyond looking inside of yourself . Zen centres
are all good and well, and teachers can inspire confidence, but ultimately,
it just boils down to this. Here's an extract below that I think you'll
enjoy.
Zen teachings of Master Lin-Chi
http://www.gileht.com/Chan/rinzai.htm
"Followers of the Way, here and there you hear it said that there is a Way
to be practiced, a Dharma to become enlightened to. Will you tell me then
just what Dharma there is to be enlightened to, what Way there is to
practice? In your present activities, what is it you lack, what is it that
practice must mend? But those little greenhorn monks don't understand this
and immediately put faith in that bunch of wild fox spirits, letting them
spout their ideas and tie people in knots, saying, 'When principle and
practice match one another and proper precaution is taken with regard to the
three types of karma of body, mouth, and mind, only then can one attain
Budhahood.' People who go on like that are as plentiful as springtime
showers. (i.e. Those who have blind faith in some path and become
sectarians.)
"A man of old said, 'If along the road you meet a man who is master of the
Way, whatever you do, don't talk to him about the Way.' Therefore it is
said, 'If a person practices the way, the Way will never proceed. (i.e. If
one grasp at his path, then he is missing the whole point, and just
developping more attachment to some pseudo-absolutes.) Instead, ten thousand
kinds of mistaken environments will vie in poking up their heads. But if the
sword of wisdom comes to cut them all down (i.e. Cutting down tha attchments
to those paths, bu still using them but also seeing their real nature, their
emptiness of inherent existence. By seeing that they are just adapted
skillful means, dependently arisen.), then even before the bright signs
manifest themselves, the dark signs will have become bright (i.e. Then the
raft will because efficient instead of just another obstacle). Therefore a
man of old said, 'The everyday mind--that is the Way.' (i.e. The
Buddha-nature is already pure. A mind with or without thoughts has the same
nature. It is already pure. There is nothing to add (or produce), nothing to
substract (or drop). There is no absolute right and wrong, no absolute
skillful and unskillful, no absolute wholesome and unwholesome. No absolute,
only adapted skillful means.)
Sean
"Mark McHugh" <mch...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:BB1B8804.6A870%mch...@ozemail.com.au...
jhayati
I agree with all that. However, when this body slows down, this mind
slows down as well; when there is less kinaesthetic motion in the
body, the brain follows and is more still. With me in particular, if
I'm thinking about something or planning an idea, I get up and start
walking, or even pacing if indoors, and just as thoughts stir the
body, sitting meditation has the effect of calming the mind. Walking
and doing the dishes are also excellent times to be mindful, but
sitting meditation is helpful to me simply because I am alert and
awake and still.
> and body's just part of the 'world' - there's
> really no space between them all...
Well, there is and there isn't. Sometimes we need to make the space.
-j
BWZ
What do you hope to achieve by practice Dharmasala? Do you doubt that you
already posess the Buddha nature?
What discipline would you possibly need? This is called putting a head above
your own.
Sean
"Dharmasala" <dharmas...@yahoo.com.hk> wrote in message
news:5f5023f4.03062...@posting.google.com...
Ch'an Fu
Very true. It'd be quite a 'miracle' to (be in) 'jhana'
while eating a bowl of cereal, but I bet there are
folks who would claim it.
> > and body's just part of the 'world' - there's
> > really no space between them all...
>
> Well, there is and there isn't. Sometimes we need to make the space.
Sure. Some of the 'world' passes through 'us'
faster than others. I like to (feel/explore) the intersections
of dependent origination. Breathing, eating, seeing and
thought objects are just a few of them. But as you've
observed, the body/brain/mind intersection is very
interesting too. By the way, your posts are refreshing
and insightful - welcome to the shithouse and may the
walls gain some new grafitti that's fun reading.
Pema
everything is a moment of intersection of dependant orgination. they
are very subtle and easy to miss, but it's ALL change.
stay well,
Pema
Mark Dunlop
<jha...@msn.com> writes
>> the secular thought of postmodernism.
>
>being somewhat consistent with all sorts of schools of thought,
>including postmodernism, which to me is an interesting over-reaction
>to naive realism.
I'm curious as to what you think postmodernism is, and how it is an
interesting over-reaction to naive realism.
Postmodernism to me basically means Marcel Duchamp, so I'm not sure why
you might see his work as an over-reaction to naive realism.
There again, postmodernism probably means something completely different
to you, such is the nature of postmodernism.
--
Mark Dunlop
jhayati
Well, to tell you the truth, Mark, I've never heard of Marcel Duchamp,
nor do I know very much about postmodernism. I categorize
postmodernism as claims that there is no real world, and there are
only "texts" and "interpretations". I think of popular claims such as
that "truth" is not determined by evidence or empirical data but by
social "power" relationships. Or that "physical `reality', no less
than social `reality', is at bottom a social and linguistic
construct". Run out across an interstate highway, and you'll be hit
by something a lot more real than a linguistic construct!
Such views seem to counter the naive realism idea that we see things
actually as they are, ignoring our own subjectivity and views and
interpretations, and how much we are conditioned and how we filter the
world through our conditioning and interpretations. So I see the
truth as somewhere in between.
When people try to claim that everything is made up of words and
nothing is real, usually what this means to me is that such people are
only spewing words that don't refer to anything substantial - that is,
their claims apply to themselves, but not to the universe. I tend to
think of talk like that as 'postmodernist'. Since I haven't studied
postmodernism, I know I don't have a clue as to what the most serious
and profound of postmodernists have to say. Feel free to point me in
the right direction.
While meditation is really helpful, often people use Buddhism to go
off on all sorts of fantasies and make every absurd claim imaginable.
In physics, there is all sorts of weirdness, but you have to be kept
honest because you are always grounded in reality, and you can't just
keep making up more abstract words and adding more magical realms.
Postmodernists seem to want to interpret away even Einstein's
equations the way the more out-there Buddhists want to interpret away
brains. The French (bad news already) postmodernist Luce Irigaray
asks, "Is e=mc2 a sexed equation?" She concludes: "Perhaps it is. Let
us make the hypothesis that it is insofar as it privileges the speed
of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us. What
seems to me to indicate the possible sexed nature of the equation is
not directly its uses by nuclear weapons, rather it is having
privileged what goes the fastest."
Boy, I wouldn't want to go on a date with her! Her claim is almost as
nonsensical as some of the posts around here. Hence my annoyance with
postmodernism. But I think the pendulum had to swing the other
direction so that we now have interesting thinkers that were
influenced by postmodernism.
In general I tend to agree with physicist Roger Penrose:
"I have taken for granted that any 'serious' philosophical viewpoint
should contain at least a good measure of realism. It always surprises
me when I learn of apparently serious-minded thinkers, often
physicists concerned with the implications of quantum mechanics, who
take the strongly subjective view that there is, in actuality, no real
world 'out there' at all! The fact that I take a realistic line
wherever possible is not meant to imply that I am unaware that such
subjective views are often seriously maintained -- only that I am
unable to make sense of them."
-j
Robert J Bullock
> primodial Minds and denying that brains are conscious is like
> denouncing Newton and claiming that Angels still push the planets
> around.
Right, I agree... All of this talk only makes sense in the context of
specific traditions and practices... Half the time, somebody here is
contradicting their own view. Ego's such a tricky little thing.
Rationalizations are so plentiful.
Most of what we're saying is bullshit, but if we say it with the intention
to learn and help, it doesn't matter... Occassionally something authentic
will pop out. Until then, we have primordial minds and unconscious brains.
;-)
--
R.J. Bullock
Binghamton, NY
"An intellectual says something simple in a difficult way;
an artist says something difficult in a simple way."
- Charles Bukowski
Lawrence Foard
jhayati <jha...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>Well, to tell you the truth, Mark, I've never heard of Marcel Duchamp,
>nor do I know very much about postmodernism. I categorize
>postmodernism as claims that there is no real world, and there are
>only "texts" and "interpretations". I think of popular claims such as
>that "truth" is not determined by evidence or empirical data but by
>social "power" relationships. Or that "physical `reality', no less
>than social `reality', is at bottom a social and linguistic
>construct". Run out across an interstate highway, and you'll be hit
>by something a lot more real than a linguistic construct!
Post modernism has always seemed quite silly to me. It seems to be a
rebellion against science rather than a serious attempt at philosophy.
A physicist made up a non sense post modernist article, and sent it to
a post modernist journal which published it.
>Such views seem to counter the naive realism idea that we see things
>actually as they are, ignoring our own subjectivity and views and
>interpretations, and how much we are conditioned and how we filter the
>world through our conditioning and interpretations. So I see the
>truth as somewhere in between.
The world is drastically colored by our interpretations, yet its real
enough that no matter what you believe nor how you interpret it you'd
better not take a nap on the train tracks.
>When people try to claim that everything is made up of words and
>nothing is real, usually what this means to me is that such people are
>only spewing words that don't refer to anything substantial - that is,
>their claims apply to themselves, but not to the universe.
Yes. Not to mention its a 'wordist' view point :) Words are not reality,
nor are they even a tiny fraction of our interpretation of reality. I
don't verbally think "I like this flavor, I don't like that flavor" that
happens at another level. Words don't even start to fully represent
our personal perspectives on reality, there is much of it which I do not
and probably could not fully verbalize.
>I tend to
>think of talk like that as 'postmodernist'. Since I haven't studied
>postmodernism, I know I don't have a clue as to what the most serious
>and profound of postmodernists have to say. Feel free to point me in
>the right direction.
I'd also be curious. Most philosophies make a good try, but all post
modernist thought I've heard is simply a hasty irrational response to
western science, without offering an alternative. How do you apply
post modernist ideas to make anything actually work? Can they make
a TV set? Can they grow crops? Can they show you how to be happy?
I can just imagine a team of post modernist engineers trying to design
a TV set!
>While meditation is really helpful, often people use Buddhism to go
>off on all sorts of fantasies and make every absurd claim imaginable.
>In physics, there is all sorts of weirdness, but you have to be kept
>honest because you are always grounded in reality, and you can't just
>keep making up more abstract words and adding more magical realms.
Yes. Thats why I like science, nature keeps you honest. Post modernism
you could spew words all day, and tie your mind up in a pretzel and no
one or thing could advise you that your speaking total nonsense. Atleast
until you convince yourself you can take a nap on the train tracks,
because trains are based on the male linear thinking dominated equations
of western science, and you are now above all of that.
>Postmodernists seem to want to interpret away even Einstein's
>equations the way the more out-there Buddhists want to interpret away
>brains. The French (bad news already) postmodernist Luce Irigaray
>asks, "Is e=mc2 a sexed equation?" She concludes: "Perhaps it is. Let
>us make the hypothesis that it is insofar as it privileges the speed
>of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us. What
>seems to me to indicate the possible sexed nature of the equation is
>not directly its uses by nuclear weapons, rather it is having
>privileged what goes the fastest."
Thats really nutty.
>Boy, I wouldn't want to go on a date with her! Her claim is almost as
>nonsensical as some of the posts around here.
Far less sensical really :) Some experiences just translate poorly into
words.
--
Be a counter terrorist perpetrate random senseless acts of kindness
Rave: Immanentization of the Eschaton in a Temporary Autonomous Zone.
We are nothing but sunlight detours, in the road between fusion and eternity.
Mark Dunlop
>> >. I guess I like to think of Buddhism as
>> >being somewhat consistent with all sorts of schools of thought,
>> >including postmodernism, which to me is an interesting over-reaction
>> >to naive realism.
>>
>> I'm curious as to what you think postmodernism is, and how it is an
>> interesting over-reaction to naive realism.
>>
>> Postmodernism to me basically means Marcel Duchamp, so I'm not sure why
>> you might see his work as an over-reaction to naive realism.
>>
>> There again, postmodernism probably means something completely different
>> to you, such is the nature of postmodernism.
>
>Well, to tell you the truth, Mark, I've never heard of Marcel Duchamp,
French artist, 1887 - 1968
In 1917 Duchamp entered Fountain, one of his ready mades, into an art
exhibition, the Armory show in New York. It was an ordinary
mass-produced urinal which he had signed 'R. Mutt'. Defending his action
Duchamp wrote `Whether Mr Mutt with his own hands made the fountain or
not has no importance. He chose it. He took an ordinary article of life,
placed it so that its useful significance disappeared under the new
title and point of view - he created a new thought for that object'.
Basically he's saying that anything can potentially be art, or
alternatively trite and banal, depending on the interpretation of the
viewer. The viewer is a necessary part of the artistic process.
>nor do I know very much about postmodernism. I categorize
>postmodernism as claims that there is no real world,
That's solipsism, not Postmodernism.
>and there are
>only "texts" and "interpretations".
But reality can only be apprehended though interpretation. Even the
concept of the 'real world' is an interpretation.
> I think of popular claims such as
>that "truth" is not determined by evidence or empirical data but by
>social "power" relationships.
'History is written by the victors.' There is some truth in that, I
think.
> Or that "physical `reality', no less
>than social `reality', is at bottom a social and linguistic
>construct".
'Reality is a shared fiction'.
Actually I think that's the Structuralists, who broadly hold that it is
misleading to conceive of the individual as separate and distinct from
their physical and cultural environment. People like Levi-Strauss and
Marcuse suggest that, for example, the grammatical structure of the
language we speak, partly or entirely determines the way we perceive and
think about reality. That we are creatures of our upbringing and
culture.
> Run out across an interstate highway, and you'll be hit
>by something a lot more real than a linguistic construct!
>
But sometimes linguistic constructs can have an impact on one's life.
The whole legal system is a series of linguistic constructs.
>Such views seem to counter the naive realism idea that we see things
>actually as they are, ignoring our own subjectivity and views and
>interpretations, and how much we are conditioned and how we filter the
>world through our conditioning and interpretations.
Yes.
> So I see the
>truth as somewhere in between.
>
That's your interpretation ...
>When people try to claim that everything is made up of words and
>nothing is real, usually what this means to me is that such people are
>only spewing words that don't refer to anything substantial - that is,
>their claims apply to themselves, but not to the universe. I tend to
>think of talk like that as 'postmodernist'. Since I haven't studied
>postmodernism, I know I don't have a clue as to what the most serious
>and profound of postmodernists have to say. Feel free to point me in
>the right direction.
>
>While meditation is really helpful, often people use Buddhism to go
>off on all sorts of fantasies and make every absurd claim imaginable.
>In physics, there is all sorts of weirdness, but you have to be kept
>honest because you are always grounded in reality, and you can't just
>keep making up more abstract words and adding more magical realms.
>
Oh, I don't know. Physicists are up to about eleven dimensions now, and
have to keep inventing new words like quark and muon (sp?)
>Postmodernists seem to want to interpret away even Einstein's
>equations the way the more out-there Buddhists want to interpret away
>brains. The French (bad news already) postmodernist Luce Irigaray
>asks, "Is e=mc2 a sexed equation?" She concludes: "Perhaps it is. Let
>us make the hypothesis that it is insofar as it privileges the speed
>of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us. What
>seems to me to indicate the possible sexed nature of the equation is
>not directly its uses by nuclear weapons, rather it is having
>privileged what goes the fastest."
Yes, this seems like gobeldy-gook to me too.
>
>Boy, I wouldn't want to go on a date with her! Her claim is almost as
>nonsensical as some of the posts around here. Hence my annoyance with
>postmodernism. But I think the pendulum had to swing the other
>direction so that we now have interesting thinkers that were
>influenced by postmodernism.
>
>In general I tend to agree with physicist Roger Penrose:
>
>"I have taken for granted that any 'serious' philosophical viewpoint
>should contain at least a good measure of realism. It always surprises
>me when I learn of apparently serious-minded thinkers, often
>physicists concerned with the implications of quantum mechanics, who
>take the strongly subjective view that there is, in actuality, no real
>world 'out there' at all!
I don't think quantum physicists say 'there is, in actuality, no real
world 'out there' at all'. Rather they say that our perception and
understanding of reality is conditioned by how we interpret our
perceptions. Which is not inconsistent with Buddhist teaching on
reality.
Max Planck said this about quantum uncertainty in 1933:
'measurements ... give no direct information about external reality.
They are only a register or representation of reactions to physical
phenomena. As such they contain no explicit information and have to be
interpreted. As Helmholtz said, measurements furnish the physicist with
a sign which he must interpret ...'
Einstein said:
'As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.'
and:
'The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and science.'
and:
'Imagination is more important than knowledge.'
>The fact that I take a realistic line
>wherever possible is not meant to imply that I am unaware that such
>subjective views
'subjective' ? Reckon that's very much Penrose's subjective
interpretation of quantum mechanics.
> are often seriously maintained -- only that I am
>unable to make sense of them."
>
--
Mark Dunlop
Ch'an Fu
> Einstein said:
> 'As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
> certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.'
>
> and:
> 'The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
> source of all true art and science.'
>
> and:
> 'Imagination is more important than knowledge.'
and:
'God does not play dice with the universe'
and:
'oops'
jhayati
> Post modernism has always seemed quite silly to me. It seems to be a
> rebellion against science rather than a serious attempt at philosophy.
> A physicist made up a non sense post modernist article, and sent it to
> a post modernist journal which published it.
I read that as well by Alan Sokal. It was really funny. He has a book
out called "Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of
Science", but I haven't seen it.
> I'd also be curious. Most philosophies make a good try, but all post
> modernist thought I've heard is simply a hasty irrational response to
> western science, without offering an alternative.
I've found that every school of thought has some brilliant insights,
and I'm sure postmodern thought is no exception, else it wouldn't have
lasted more than a decade. It's easy to find fault with every school
of thought, but they all have some gem to offer. I've been wrong 100%
of the time when I've dismissed whole schools of philosophy as pure
nonsense in the past. The best bet is to find the people who are
considered the very best, and if they are hard to read, a recommended
synopsis of their work.
I've heard very good things about Derrida, for example, but I've never
read anything of his. Foucault is supposed to be good as well but I
know nothing of him either. There are tons of online resources for
both of them, I just found out by searching. Ok, the conjunction of
Derrida and Buddhism yields over 3000 hits on Google, so there has to
be some good stuff in there somewhere.
-j
Meandwarf
"jhayati" <jha...@msn.com> wrote in message
> Postmodernists seem to want to interpret away even Einstein's
> equations the way the more out-there Buddhists want to interpret away
> brains. The French (bad news already) postmodernist Luce Irigaray
> asks, "Is e=mc2 a sexed equation?" She concludes: "Perhaps it is. Let
> us make the hypothesis that it is insofar as it privileges the speed
> of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us. What
> seems to me to indicate the possible sexed nature of the equation is
> not directly its uses by nuclear weapons, rather it is having
> privileged what goes the fastest."
>
LOL
But there you go... There are many many people who regard scientific thought
as merely another paradigm, a social convention or construction to be
deconstructed like a novel or a set of religious beliefs.
Ch'an Fu
?
it deconstructs itself all the time.
many many people think they're
typing on moon rocks, but it's
still only a paradigm - let it be what
it is, and don't make it into 'Truth'.
jhayati
> >Well, to tell you the truth, Mark, I've never heard of Marcel Duchamp,
>
> French artist, 1887 - 1968
Oh, well I have no problem with artists of any kind. Art is wonderful.
> >nor do I know very much about postmodernism. I categorize
> >postmodernism as claims that there is no real world,
>
> That's solipsism, not Postmodernism.
Actually, solipsism is believing that you alone exist and that there
are no other minds, so that other people are all in your own
imagination.
Idealism is the claim that there is no real world. Usually this is
done by creating a 'hyper-reality' and then discounting the original
one. The Matrix in the movie expresses idealism, as the world isn't
real, but only piggy-backs off of a higher reality. That's what Plato
claimed. And the Hindus. And several people posting on this list.
> But reality can only be apprehended though interpretation.
> Even the concept of the 'real world' is an interpretation.
Yes! That's why I said that it is a counter-balance to naive realism,
which denies this. But just because we need interpretation to even
see, as the light is interpreted into impulses by the optic nerve, the
world is still real, as long as the interpretation correctly picks out
and represents to some extent the important features of the real
world.
> > I think of popular claims such as
> >that "truth" is not determined by evidence or empirical data but by
> >social "power" relationships.
>
> 'History is written by the victors.'
> There is some truth in that, I think.
Of course there is! My problem, again, is only with extreme claims.
We should always be wary of who wrote the history books and what views
they had. But if you went 'all the way' and say that there was no
history, but that it is entirely arbitrary and made up and can be
re-written anyway we choose, then I strongly disagree. But I go along
with the notion that it's often very biases, and favors views of those
in power.
> > Or that "physical `reality', no less than social `reality',
> > is at bottom a social and linguistic construct".
>
> 'Reality is a shared fiction'.
Our collective interpretation of reality is a shared fiction, sure.
But the sun shines, no matter how we interpret, and if you try to deny
that, then your off in wizard magic land again.
> Actually I think that's the Structuralists, who broadly hold that it is
> misleading to conceive of the individual as separate and distinct from
> their physical and cultural environment.
Ok, and I go for that. Organism and environment go together and have
to be understood as a whole system. That fits in well with dependent
co-arising.
> People like Levi-Strauss and
> Marcuse suggest that, for example, the grammatical structure of the
> language we speak, partly or entirely determines the way we perceive and
> think about reality. That we are creatures of our upbringing and
> culture.
I go with the 'partly' version, even 'mostly'. 'Entirely' sounds
fishy.
> > Run out across an interstate highway, and you'll be hit
> >by something a lot more real than a linguistic construct!
>
> But sometimes linguistic constructs can have an impact on one's life.
> The whole legal system is a series of linguistic constructs.
Sure. So are 'countries' and 'governments'. And 'selves'.
> >Such views seem to counter the naive realism idea that we see things
> >actually as they are, ignoring our own subjectivity and views and
> >interpretations, and how much we are conditioned and how we filter the
> >world through our conditioning and interpretations.
>
> Yes.
>
> > So I see the truth as somewhere in between.
>
> That's your interpretation ...
Yes, and I think it is correct. Btw, we have to acknowledge that some
interpretations are better than others, depending on how well they fit
with reality. Only if you claim that the world doesn't exist at all
or is a dream inside the mind of God or something can you then say any
old interpretation is as good as any other, and then you might as well
just grunt instead of using any language at all.
> >While meditation is really helpful, often people use Buddhism to go
> >off on all sorts of fantasies and make every absurd claim imaginable.
> >In physics, there is all sorts of weirdness, but you have to be kept
> >honest because you are always grounded in reality, and you can't just
> >keep making up more abstract words and adding more magical realms.
> >
> Oh, I don't know. Physicists are up to about eleven dimensions now, and
> have to keep inventing new words like quark and muon (sp?)
Only when the words correspond to actual experiments. Quarks actually
refer to the makeup of protons and neutrons and tests where we spray
particles and bounce them off of other ones confirm them. When the
experiments don't confirm the theory, the theoretical entities are
rejected. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen in religion: I'd like
Buddhist teachers to all agree that "since there is no evidence for
any creatures called devas, we are all rejecting the claim that such
creatures exist, and they are to be taken strictly as metaphors or
anthropomorphizing of human mental states." That would be a great
step; I hope it happens soon, though I find it odd that anyone not
born in Asia would actually claim the scientific existence of such
creatures. But I bet there are people on this list who swear by them.
> >Postmodernists seem to want to interpret away even Einstein's
> >equations the way the more out-there Buddhists want to interpret away
> >brains. The French (bad news already) postmodernist Luce Irigaray
> >asks, "Is e=mc2 a sexed equation?" She concludes: "Perhaps it is. Let
> >us make the hypothesis that it is insofar as it privileges the speed
> >of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us. What
> >seems to me to indicate the possible sexed nature of the equation is
> >not directly its uses by nuclear weapons, rather it is having
> >privileged what goes the fastest."
>
> Yes, this seems like gobeldy-gook to me too.
I love that example. I usually use it to poke fun at feminism.
> >In general I tend to agree with physicist Roger Penrose:
> >
> >"I have taken for granted that any 'serious' philosophical viewpoint
> >should contain at least a good measure of realism. It always surprises
> >me when I learn of apparently serious-minded thinkers, often
> >physicists concerned with the implications of quantum mechanics, who
> >take the strongly subjective view that there is, in actuality, no real
> >world 'out there' at all!
>
> I don't think quantum physicists say 'there is, in actuality, no real
> world 'out there' at all'. Rather they say that our perception and
> understanding of reality is conditioned by how we interpret our
> perceptions.
The sentence wouldn't even make sense unless they were talking about
our perception and understanding of the real world out there.
Otherwise it wouldn't be perception at all: it would be pure creation.
But we can't create a second sun in the sky, Mark. No matter how we
interpret, we live in a single star system, not a binary star system.
So again, there are limits to interpretation, because they are
interpretations of a real world. As long as we don't forget that, no
problem.
> Einstein said:
> 'As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
> certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.'
That's just saying that we can never make a perfect map of reality,
and that all our interpretations are only proximate. Doesn't mean
that there isn't a universe, only that we can only know very little
about it, and that our interpretations are always open to further
revision and improvement. Which is why claims of absolute certainty
are always absolutely absurd.
-j
Lawrence Foard
Ch'an Fu <cha...@removeyoursandals.metta.lk> wrote:
>Meandwarf wrote:
>>
>> But there you go... There are many many people who regard scientific thought
>> as merely another paradigm, a social convention or construction to be
>> deconstructed like a novel or a set of religious beliefs.
>
>?
>it deconstructs itself all the time.
Thats why science is useful. It doesn't give up when it makes
a mistake. Notice how all these other 'systems' like post modernism
come and go, yet science has remained for thousands of years, growing
stronger with time.
>many many people think they're
>typing on moon rocks, but it's
>still only a paradigm - let it be what
>it is, and don't make it into 'Truth'.
Its an approximate and useful model, its not truth.
Raan
"Ch'an Fu" <cha...@removeyoursandals.metta.lk> wrote in message
news:3EF8AC8B...@removeyoursandals.metta.lk...
and
'What do I know? I'm a physicist not a philosopher."
Lawrence Foard
>
>> Post modernism has always seemed quite silly to me. It seems to be a
>> rebellion against science rather than a serious attempt at philosophy.
>> A physicist made up a non sense post modernist article, and sent it to
>> a post modernist journal which published it.
>
>I read that as well by Alan Sokal. It was really funny. He has a book
>out called "Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of
>Science", but I haven't seen it.
Yes. I read a little bit of it, it was quite funny.
>> I'd also be curious. Most philosophies make a good try, but all post
>> modernist thought I've heard is simply a hasty irrational response to
>> western science, without offering an alternative.
>
>I've found that every school of thought has some brilliant insights,
>and I'm sure postmodern thought is no exception, else it wouldn't have
>lasted more than a decade. It's easy to find fault with every school
>of thought, but they all have some gem to offer. I've been wrong 100%
>of the time when I've dismissed whole schools of philosophy as pure
>nonsense in the past. The best bet is to find the people who are
>considered the very best, and if they are hard to read, a recommended
>synopsis of their work.
Your probably right. I'm possibly being too judgemental based on limited
evidence.