Re: Paranormal Experience as Evidence for Koo-Koo-Ka-Choo (was Re: Koo-Koo-Ka-Choo)
halfawake
...You reject me as an objectivist because I say
> than when I pet the 'cat' I actually pet a cat.
Did I ever object to your petting your cat or say that your cat wasn't
real? Or that your cat doesn't still exist when it "goes" behind the
couch? :) You're putting words in my mouth and that is just as
impolite as my Aunt stuffing my mouth with potato salad at the family party.
So positing my cat is
> to much realism for you,
are you sure you want to spell "to" that way?
did I ever object to your "positing" your cat?
Why are you making up a whole bunch of horseshit that I never said and
then attributing it to me? Is that the only way you can make your point
which bears no relation to anything I actually said? I feel so used!
You know, that is a very woo woo thing to do, just makin' stuff up about
other people.
but positive whole Ineffable Transcendental
> Realms of Ultimate Objective Reality, well, that's ok because you
> don't claim to know what it is.
Did I say anything about a Transcendental Realm of Ultimate Reality?
You are really a fake little arguer, dude. What I said was reasonable
and didn't warrant your attack any more than anything else I said:
which was basically that I don't discount the possibility that someone
who has a profound realization experience has experienced something that
is actual. In other words, that it is not wholly fictititious and is
really a transformative experience. Why should I discount it? I'm not
saying it's true or begging you to disprove a negative. But I don't
dismiss it out of hand either.
And I don't do what you do and make stuff up about one of the leading
teacher's realization being caused by "sleep deprivation." How on earth
are you in a position to postulate that, oh Objective one?
If I say I don't really know what the
> cat is, I just pet it, then is that ok too, Robert? Heh.
I really don't give a fuck what you say about your cat, or if you want
to use it as a fake example of something I supposedly said. But I don't
respect your stream of fake hyperbole supposedly referencing some
unquoted statement that is supposed to be mine. That's pissing me off,
so please refrain from being a prick in that particular way, okay? It's
annoying.
>
>
>>>>These question are difficult to investigate with any rigor, but
>>>>I think they are well worth finding rigorous terms with which to
>>>>investigate them, if that is indeed possible.
>>
>>>>Best,
>>>>Robert
>>
>>>>= = = = = = = = = = = = =
>>
>>>Well, when we are in altered states, new creative ideas and ways of
>>>seeing things bubble up, and can be amazingly transformative, sure. I
>>>just object when one adds an objectivist claim of certainty of
>>>knowledge about God or Ultimate Reality or whatever.
>>
>>How about an uncertain claim of an objective potential,
>>of which we can be agnostic until we find a way to confirm
>>one way or the other?
>
>
> Well, that's always been exactly my position, Robert, even though
> believers slander me and say I dismiss things without accepting them
> as even possible, which is patently false.
You're in an incredibly defensive and preachy mood today, DT. I'm gonna
sign off until you come down from your soapbox, okay?
With incredibly profound and compassionate metta and bodhicitta,
Robert
= = = = = = = =
DharmaTroll
> DharmaTroll wrote:
>
> > ...You reject me as an objectivist because I say
> > than when I pet the 'cat' I actually pet a cat.
>
> Did I ever object to your petting your cat or say that your cat wasn't
> real? Or that your cat doesn't still exist when it "goes" behind the
> couch? :) You're putting words in my mouth and that is just as
> impolite as my Aunt stuffing my mouth with potato salad at the family party.
Yes, you called me an "objectivist".
On this list, that means someone that thinks cats are real.
I asked you to clarify. So clarify. Don't have a hissy fit.
> > So positing my cat is
> > to much realism for you,
>
> are you sure you want to spell "to" that way?
> did I ever object to your "positing" your cat?
So my spell checker doesn't catch homophones
Yes, you called me an 'objectifvist'.
Now stop being a passive-aggressifist.
>
> Why are you making up a whole bunch of horseshit that I never said and
> then attributing it to me? Is that the only way you can make your point
> which bears no relation to anything I actually said? I feel so used!
You called me an objectivist, Robert. I asked you to clarify. Until
you do, the word 'objectivist' means "someone who thinks we aren't in
the Matrix, and that cats are real, and not illusions."
>
> > but positive whole Ineffable Transcendental
> > Realms of Ultimate Objective Reality, well, that's ok because you
> > don't claim to know what it is.
>
> Did I say anything about a Transcendental Realm of Ultimate Reality?
Yeah, you mentioned an Awareness 'beyond' consciousness.
> You are really a fake little arguer, dude. What I said was reasonable
> and didn't warrant your attack any more than anything else I said:
I didn't attack you, Robert. I described my experience of what you
said.
> which was basically that I don't discount the possibility that someone
> who has a profound realization experience has experienced something that
> is actual. In other words, that it is not wholly fictititious and is
> really a transformative experience. Why should I discount it? I'm not
> saying it's true or begging you to disprove a negative. But I don't
> dismiss it out of hand either.
A transformative experience is fine. As long as there aren't claims to
have gained infallible knowledge of objective truth, that's all.
That's what the nutters have been claiming about such experiences.
> And I don't do what you do and make stuff up about one of the leading
> teacher's realization being caused by "sleep deprivation." How on earth
> are you in a position to postulate that, oh Objective one?
I didn't claim that was the cause. I'm saying that the stress and
sleep deprivation are part and parcel of zen sesshins, and that people
under those experiences tend to have altered states experiences. I'm
simply saying that there is no reason to cling to beliefs in woo-woo
when there are simpler explanations. Same with the faith-healers on
TV.
> > If I say I don't really know what the
> > cat is, I just pet it, then is that ok too, Robert? Heh.
>
> I really don't give a fuck what you say about your cat,
Then don't call me an objectivist.
Or else clarify your terms, ya big baby.
> >>>>These question are difficult to investigate with any rigor, but
> >>>>I think they are well worth finding rigorous terms with which to
> >>>>investigate them, if that is indeed possible.
>
> >>>>Best,
> >>>>Robert
>
> >>>>= = = = = = = = = = = = =
>
> >>>Well, when we are in altered states, new creative ideas and ways of
> >>>seeing things bubble up, and can be amazingly transformative, sure. I
> >>>just object when one adds an objectivist claim of certainty of
> >>>knowledge about God or Ultimate Reality or whatever.
>
> >>How about an uncertain claim of an objective potential,
> >>of which we can be agnostic until we find a way to confirm
> >>one way or the other?
>
> > Well, that's always been exactly my position, Robert, even though
> > believers slander me and say I dismiss things without accepting them
> > as even possible, which is patently false.
>
> You're in an incredibly defensive and preachy mood today, DT.
Not at all. You accused me of being an 'objectivist' and I'm
questioning why you think it's a problem that I think cats are real,
and not a figment of your imagination.
> I'm gonna sign off until you come down from your soapbox, okay?
Robert, sober up or whatever. If you call me a name, and don't
clarify, I go with the default connotation. So don't accuse me of
things and then have a hissy fit when I ask for clarification. What's
wrong with you? You actually made intelligent posts last night. Now
you sound like the lying flamers, such as Keynes or Herbzet.
--DharmaTroll
zenworm
is labeling objectification?
is this what an objectivist does?
Are you objecting to the unobjectiveness
of objectivism being objectionable?
ZN
Tang Huyen
halfawake wrote:
> Did I say anything about a Transcendental Realm of Ultimate Reality?
> You are really a fake little arguer, dude. What I said was reasonable
> and didn't warrant your attack any more than anything else I said:
> which was basically that I don't discount the possibility that someone
> who has a profound realization experience has experienced something that
> is actual. In other words, that it is not wholly fictititious and is
> really a transformative experience. Why should I discount it? I'm not
> saying it's true or begging you to disprove a negative. But I don't
> dismiss it out of hand either.
<<Did I say anything about a Transcendental Realm of Ultimate Reality?
You are really a fake little arguer, dude.>>
You wrote:
<<But I meant to point out that you have shorn
Buddhism of its spiritual goals, when you refuse to admit a realization
that gives an insight into the very root of existence that is beyond
both psychology and science. Nibbana is *complete* realization, not
just cessation of neurosis, and not just a psychological understanding
and acceptance of change and objective existence [meaning in this case:
no self, just what is] though that is an important part of its fruit.
Buddhism claims something much more radical, a direct understanding of
what is real, and that reality is separate from everything we perceive
and think.>>
When you say:
<<Buddhism claims something much more radical, a direct understanding of
what is real, and that reality is separate from everything we perceive
and think.>>
that can easily be taken to be what you deny:
<<Did I say anything about a Transcendental Realm of Ultimate Reality?>>
Surely, "a direct understanding of what is real, and that reality
is separate from everything we perceive and think" can be
legitimately taken as "a Transcendental Realm of Ultimate Reality",
especially as it "is separate from everything we perceive and think".
That last bit is easily taken to mean transcendent in an
uncompromising sense.
Tang Huyen
DharmaTroll
wrote:
Exactly! Tang, you have correctly stated just what set off my "woo-
woo" warning alarm. It was Robert's saying "is separate from
everything we perceive and think" that sounds to me like Rob Zombie is
going to open a worm-hole to another dimension...
--DharmaTroll
"Nature does all things spontaneously, by herself, without the
meddling of the gods."
-Lucretius
herbzet
I might suggest, for Robert, the maneuver of asserting that our
apprehension of things is not necessarily limited to perceptions
and cognitions.
Or maybe not -- depending.
--
hz
Tang Huyen
herbzet wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
>
> > halfawake:
In the debate between Robbie and DharmaTroll, Robbie
ridicules DT's "objectivist view", but to me he himself
follows an objectivist view, or at least an object-based
view, as contrasted with my own view, which as I often
say is purely subjective, strictly sentimental, with nothing
objective out there to which it can be pinned down.
<<ha ha, you are really a master at sanitizing your view
and spewing venom on the opposing side. I must study
your use of hyperbolic speech sometime. If you think
that having an "objectivist dogma" is the same thing as
"refraining from woo woo" then you are truly innocent,
and not in a good way. Try reading Kuhn or Husserl's
critique of scientific paradigms or anyone at all. The
objectivist view is full of presuppositions in any age that
blind it to many actual possibilities and realities that it is
not capable of contextualizing or even perceiving. I am
not saying "just add woo-woo and you'll be fine." I'm
saying that objectivism has its own form of woo-woo,
and if you think it's not so, then well, what can one
say...>>
<<Well I admire your self-agnosticism, and I have
developed more of it myself with regard to some of my
Profound experiences, but if someone wants to claim an
objective reality, that is okay with me. Let them look for
ways of demonstrating it and I will watch with interest,
rather than dismiss them out of hand.>>
To me, both cultivation and attainment are purely
subjective and strictly sentimental, in that what is out
there does not change, but that the change is purely
internal, in that the cultivator merely adjusts himself to
himself, aligns himself with himself, harmonises himself
with himself, in closed circle. There is no reality or truth
external to himself that he must intuit or perceive, or
adjust to, and the only requirement is that he comes to
peace with himself and to reconciliation with himself,
and quiesces his mentation all the way. (If he comes to
peace with himself and to reconciliation with himself,
he is a Stoic sage, which is what the Buddha was when
he realised that his six years of intense Jaina penance
had been an error and that he should relent, and took
milk to regain strength; if he quiesces his mentation all
the way, he is awakened in the Buddhist sense, which is
what the Buddha was that night when he did just that,
namely quiesce his mentation all the way, and attain to
non-doing, non-willing, and non-mentation).
<<Sadly, it wasn't a joke. I think the idea of "direct
experience" of the nature of reality is a central theme of
zen. It didn't really start with Hakuin, although he
emphasized that those who were not enlightened were
idiots and that there was a radical break between those
who had radical insight and those who were continuing to
talk about it or engage in basic sitting practice, but goes all
the way back to Bodhidharma and Hui Neng, who believed
in direct awakening to the nature of mind itself and that
everything else was just playing around.
The fact that Americans picked up the idea of radical
direct experience of reality just means that they, in their
instant gratification way, saw what the shiny penny was in
the system and grasped onto it without a full understanding
of what stood behind it.>>
<<How about an uncertain claim of an objective potential,
of which we can be agnostic until we find a way to confirm
one way or the other? I don't think we need to close the
door on profound realizations actually referencing
something real, even if we don't have the means of opening
or going through the door at a given time. Rather, look at
them as clues to something, as any scientist would.>>
It looks to me that Robbie is debating himself, as he flip-flops
from expounding and defending an object-based, objectivist
view to bashing the same, with DT offering only a foil on
which Robbie projects his own contrary views (meaning, his
own views that are contrary to each other, and not
necessarily contrary to DT's views). Robbie looks to me like
wholly oblivious to his own warring views. He calls his own
position(s) and view(s) "mystical", but going by them, the
cultivator must adjust to something objective: <<"direct
experience" of the nature of reality>>, "direct awakening to
the nature of mind itself". I find no such reference to
anything objective in the Buddha.
Just to make sure that my view about cultivation and
attainment being purely subjective and strictly sentimental
jives with the Buddha's teaching, let me reproduce some
passages.
"When consciousness is unestablished, it does not
grow. Not growing, it does nothing. Not doing anything,
it is liberated. By being liberated, it is steady. By being
steady, it is content. By being content, he is not agitated.
Being not agitated, he internally blows out." (Tad
apathitthitam vi��anam avirulham an-abhisankhara�ca
vimuttam vimuttatta thitam thitatta santusitam santusitatta
na paritassati aparitassam paccatta��eva parinibbayati).
SN, III, 58 (22, 55).
The important part is: "not doing anything"
(an-abhisankhara�ca, variant an-abhisankhacca), where
sankhara is from the stem kr- "to act, to do, to make",
from which karman in Sanskrit and kamma in Pali come
"deed, act", also samskara in Sanskrit and sankhara in
Pali "composition" (literally "together-making"), as in the
fourth aggregate (the compositions, in the plural).
The usual translations quite water down the Buddha's
meaning. The recent translation by Bodhi is awful:
"When that consciousness is unestablished, not
coming to growth, nongenerative, it is liberated". The
old translation by Woodward is somewhat better:
"Without that platform consciousness has no growth,
it generates no action and is freed." In footnote
Woodward says: "Comy. reading anabhisankhacca,
'generates (no conception).'"
I generally avoid Thanissaro, a Hinduist monk of
strict observation, but checked with his translation
for penance, and previously found:
<<If a monk abandons passion for the property
of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment
of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no
landing of consciousness. Consciousness, thus not
having landed, not increasing, not concocting, is
released. Owing to its release, it is steady. Owing
to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its
contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he
(the monk) is totally unbound right within. He
discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled,
the task done. There is nothing further for this
world.'>>
His translation is unrecognisable. From Woodward
(1925) to Bodhi and Thanissaro, there is a distinct
regression.
Today I checked Thanissaro again, and found a
slightly different translation.
"If a monk abandons passion for the property of
consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of
passion, the support is cut off, and there is no base
for consciousness. Consciousness, thus unestablished,
not proliferating, not performing any function, is
released. Owing to its release, it stands still. Owing
to its stillness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment,
it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is totally
unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended,
the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing
further for this world.'"
Thanissaro wavered between "not concocting" and
"not performing any function" for the simple
an-abhisankhara "not doing anything". Bodhi
("nongenerative") and Thanissaro can't stand a direct
and meaningful translation but have to jump around to
water it down.
In the Buddha�s account of his own awakening, he thinks:
�What being, old age and death are? Dependent on what,
old age and death [arise]?�
He understands: Birth being, old age and death are;
dependent on birth, old age and death [arise]. And he
continued the backward search: becoming being, birth
is; dependent on becoming, birth [arises]. Grasping being,
becoming is; dependent on grasping, becoming [arises].
Craving being, grasping is; dependent on craving, grasping
[arises]. Feeling being, craving is; dependent on feeling;
craving [arises]. The sixfold place of contact being, feeling
is; dependent on the sixfold place of contact, feeling
[arises]. Name and form being, the sixfold place of contact
is; dependent on name and form, the sixfold place of
contact [arises]. Consciousness being, name and form are;
dependent on consciousness, name and form [arise]. The
Buddha then realizes: my mind turns back from
consciousness (Skt. tasya mama vij�anat pratyudavartate
manasam), it does not penetrate beyond (Skt. natah parato
vyativartate). To wit, dependent on consciousness, name
and form [arise]; dependent on name and form, the sixfold
place of contact [arises]; dependent on the sixfold place of
contact, contact [arises]; dependent on contact, feeling
[arises]; dependent on feeling, craving [arises]; dependent
on craving, grasping [arises]; dependent on grasping,
becoming [arises]; dependent on becoming, birth [arises];
dependent on birth, old age and death [arise], and also
sorrow and lamentation, suffering, grief and despair, thus
there is this whole mass of suffering.
Then the Buddha thinks: what not being, old age and death
are not? what ceasing, old age and death cease? He
understands: birth not being, old age and death are not;
birth ceasing, old age and death cease. He continues the
search: becoming not being, birth is not; becoming ceasing,
birth ceases. Clinging not being, becoming is not; grasping
ceasing, becoming ceases. Craving not being, grasping is
not; craving ceasing, grasping ceases. Feeling not being,
craving is not; feeling ceasing, craving ceases. Contact not
being, feeling is not; contact ceasing, feeling ceases. The
sixfold place of contact not being, contact is not; the
sixfold place of contact ceasing, contact ceases. Name and
form not being, the sixfold place of contact is not; name
and form ceasing, the sixfold place of contact ceases.
Consciousness not being, name and form is not; consciousness
ceasing, name and form cease.
What is new here, in the �ceasing� sequence, is that the
Buddha breaks through that which held him back when he
went up the �arising� sequence, in which he found that
his mind turned back from consciousness, and did not
extend beyond. He now thinks: what not being,
consciousness is not? What ceasing, consciousness ceases?
He understands: the compositions not being, consciousness
is not; the compositions ceasing, consciousness ceases. He
keeps on: what not being, the compositions are not? What
ceasing, the compositions cease? He understands: ignorance
not being, the compositions are not; ignorance ceasing, the
compositions cease. (The compositions are the fourth
aggregate).
He then goes back down the members: The compositions
ceasing, consciousness ceases. Consciousness ceasing,
name and form cease. Name and form ceasing, the sixfold
place of contact ceases. The sixfold place of contact
ceasing, contact ceases. Contact ceasing, feeling ceases.
Feeling ceasing, craving ceases. Craving ceasing, grasping
ceases. Clinging ceasing, becoming ceases. Becoming
ceasing, birth ceases. Birth ceasing, old age and death
cease, and also sorrow and lamentation, suffering, grief and
despair. Thus this whole mass of suffering ceases. The
Buddha thinks: I have found an ancient path, an ancient trail,
travelled by men of old, and I get to travel on it.
So the crucial step in his breakthrough is his recognising of
the importance of the compositions (the fourth aggregate).
For in the �arising� sequence from old age and death back
up to consciousness, the Buddha discovers ten stages of
the generation of suffering, all of which are expressed in
conventional terms of his Indo-Aryan time and place. He
runs into the wall of conventional knowledge, which is
untouched. But in the �ceasing� sequence, also from old
age and death back up to consciousness, each stage ceases
when the anterior, conditioning stage ceases, and thus
name and form cease when consciousness ceases, but just
when consciousness ceases the Buddha has a breakthrough,
he breaks through convention and discovers that
consciousness depends on *the compositions*, which in
turn depend on ignorance.
The addition of the two new stages is numerically
insignificant, what is important is the discovery that
consciousness depends on the compositions, and when that
discovery is made the subsequent discovery of ignorance
as condition for the compositions is a mere routine. The
philosophical and spiritual point is that in normal
consciousness, one is not aware of how much the
compositions form and inform one and one�s consciousness,
with the result that they run one from behind the scene. In
the picturesque image of folk English, consciousness is like
the tail and the compositions are like the dog; the dog wags
the tail, but the tail, being only aware of itself, thinks that it
is free and independent and therefore that it wags both itself
and the dog (perhaps the reader has recognised all
speculative philosophies and all speculative philosophers
here).
When consciousness is intact, and it is intact during the
�arising� sequence, the Buddha finds that his mind turns
back from consciousness, that it does not penetrate
beyond. Consciousness is trapped between itself and its
objects (name and form), and does not know how to break
out of that self-perpetuating circle of which it is an
accomplice; or better: consciousness has a vested interest in
\maintaining that trap intact. But when the Buddha works
on the �ceasing� sequence, the ceasing of consciousness
(which he experiences in the body and not merely as a
cogitative exercise) suddenly gives him a glimpse into the
machinery behind consciousness, and that machinery is
constituted by the compositions.
That is why he defines Nirvana -- blowing-out, the state
he attains when he breaks through the compositions -- as
the calming of all compositions (sabba-sankhara-samatho).
The compositions include language and thought, and when
they are calmed, the mind no longer kicks up a storm with
language and thought and gets caught in it, rather it frees
itself from language and thought and the tricks that they
play on it.
So that's what the Buddha says of that night and my
interpretation of it. I am sure that the latter is most
inadequate to the former, but that's the best that I can
come up with, so please forgive me for my stupidity.
By the way, whether he sits under a tree or not is not
sure. Some accounts don't mention any tree. What is
important is that his awakening is due to his breaking
through the compositions (the fourth aggregate), and his
quiescing of them, so that he attained to non-doing
(an-abhi-sankhara). Everything is internal, everything is
purely subjective and strictly sentimental. There is nothing
objective out there that he intuited, perceived, or adjusted
himself to. He simply quiesced the compositions (the
fourth aggregate).
The Buddha teaches the *symmetrical* formula: "One is
bound by grasping, and one is freed by not grasping"
(upadaya samyuktah anupadaya visamyuktah)." Poussin,
"Documents," 571, SA, 15, 3a. All is internal.
Delusion and awakening, Samsara and Nirvana are merely
two ways of looking at the same world, two aspects of
the same process, not two things, not two realities, not two
worlds. The matter is the same, only the manner of taking
it is different.
The Buddha says: "By the defilement of mind beings are
defiled, by the purification of mind beings are purified"
(Skt. citta-samklesat sattvah samklisyante,
citta-vyavadanad visudhyante). For a long time mind has
been defiled by lust, hostility, and delusion. There is
nothing as variegated as a peacock, but mind is even
more variegated. It is because the peacock's mind is
variegated that its colours are variegated. The foolish
common person does not know as they are form, its arisal,
its setting, its enticement, its danger, and the separation
from it, and takes delight in it, and after taking delight in it,
creates it again (Pali abhinibbatteti) in the future; does not
know feeling, notion, compositions, consciousness, and
creates them again (abhinibbatteti) in the future; and as he
is creating them again in the future, he is not freed from
them. But the saintly disciple knows as they are form, etc.,
and does not create them again in the future, and not
creating them again in the future, he is freed from them.
SN, III, 151-152 (22, 100), SA, 267, 69c-70a, Sanskrit
borrowed from Ratna-gotra-vibhaga, ed. Zuiryu Nakamura,
Tokyo: Sankibo, 1961, 129.
At AN, II, 196 (4, 194) the saintly disciple "unbinds his
mind from things which bind (rajaniyesu dhammesu cittam
virajeti), releases his mind with things which release
(vimocaniyesu dhammesu cittam vimoceti), and touches
right release (samma-vimuttim phusati)." According to SN,
III, 69 (22, 60), SA, 81, 21a4-5, "beings take passion in
form, with passion they become bound, being bound they
become defiled/afflicted" (Skt. in Dietz, Dharma-skandha,
50: satva rupe samrajyamte samraktah samyujyamte
samyuktah samklisyamte). In that same text, SN, III, 69-70
(22, 60), SA, 81, 20c, the Buddha says: "there is cause,
there is condition for beings getting defiled/afflicted (Pali
sahetu sapaccaya satta samkilissanti), there is cause, there
is condition for beings getting purified (Pali sahetu
sapaccaya satta visujjhanti)". C. Bendall, ed.,
Siksa-samuccaya, St. Petersburg, 1902, 252 quotes from
the Scripture on the Meeting of Father and Son
(Pita-putra-samagama-sutra) a passage which also
exists in the famous early Great Vehicle text, The
Scripture on the Passing-on in Becoming
(Bhava-samkranti-sutra): "Thus the foolish untaught
common persons, having seen with their eyes forms on
which joy is to stand, settle into them, so settling into them
follow upon them, and so following upon them become
bound by them (evam eva maha-raja balo 'srutavan
prthag-janas caksusa rupani drstva saumanasya-sthaniyany
abhiniviset, so 'bhinivistah sann anuniyate 'nuniyatah
samrajyate)."
To be noted is the rather bodily expression: the saintly
disciple "unbinds his mind from things which bind
(rajaniyesu dhammesu cittam virajeti), releases his
mind with things which release (vimocaniyesu dhammesu
cittam vimoceti), and *touches right release*
(samma-vimuttim phusati)." Such right release is strictly
internal.
As to the widespread claim in western Buddhism that
awakening consists in seeing things *as they are* in
general: no such teaching can be found in Buddhism, in
India as in China. The Buddha always refers to concrete
experiential units, like birth and death, the four Noble
Truths, the outflows, etc. in saying that the cultivator
knows it as it is or knows them as they are (yatha-bhuta).
There is no instance where "reality" or "truth" in general
is given that treatment. That is, there is no instance where
a scripture says: the cultivator knows reality as it is or
cognises truth as it is. The pattern is always framed in
the concrete: he knows suffering as it is, he knows arisal
of suffering as it is, etc. As to awakening, it is defined as
the calming of all compositions (sabba-sankara-samatho),
or the non-doing state (an-abhi-samskara), and there is
no reference to anything objective in it. One simply stops
doing or acting.
Tang Huyen
zenworm
wrote:
> vimuttam vimuttatta thitam thitatta santusitam santusitatta
> SN, III, 58 (22, 55).
>
> The important part is: "not doing anything"
gratitude
ZN
absolute permanent perfection overflowing without action
Keynes
<tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote:
I have a problem with all those quotes of
"dropping of consciousness". The Buddha was
not unconscious. Neither was he silent in his
attempts to be reasonable. (Such as they are.)
All this stringing together of this and that -
do you really think any logical proposition
will suffice? Everybody knows the drill,
but they can't seem to do it.
"The good that I would, I do not;
but the evil that I hate, that I do."
-- St.Paul
Perhaps through breath meditation one
may learn to discount thoughts and impulses
rather than to be ruled by them and act them out.
>
>As to the widespread claim in western Buddhism that
>awakening consists in seeing things *as they are* in
>general: no such teaching can be found in Buddhism, in
>India as in China.
"what and what they think it is otherwise."
"Name and form are unreal."
"In the seen just the seen."
>The Buddha always refers to concrete
>experiential units, like birth and death, the four Noble
>Truths, the outflows, etc. in saying that the cultivator
>knows it as it is or knows them as they are (yatha-bhuta).
They are all delusion-ignorance, are they not?
(And the makings of a flimsy raft to be abandoned.)
>There is no instance where "reality" or "truth" in general
>is given that treatment. That is, there is no instance where
>a scripture says: the cultivator knows reality as it is or
>cognises truth as it is.
"what and what they think it is otherwise."
"Name and form are unreal."
"In the seen just the seen."
>The pattern is always framed in
>the concrete: he knows suffering as it is, he knows arisal
>of suffering as it is, etc.
To awaken is to have no notion of suffering,
or arising, or passing away. No gain or loss,
no birth and death. No expectations, no seeking-
grasping, no clinging-regrets. To be mindfully
present and completely satisfied. Life has nothing
better to offer. But who can see that?
>As to awakening, it is defined as
>the calming of all compositions (sabba-sankara-samatho),
>or the non-doing state (an-abhi-samskara), and there is
>no reference to anything objective in it. One simply stops
>doing or acting.
Objective reality is an opinion, and not a skillful means.
What one thinks is binding on him. See 1 & 2 of the
Dhamapadda.
"Judge not, for with that measure that you
measure it will be measured out unto you."
Earth, air, fire, and water there may be (or not)
but what business is that of ours?
herbzet
Keynes wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:40:02 -0400, Tang Huyen
> <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote:
>
> I have a problem with all those quotes of
> "dropping of consciousness". The Buddha was
> not unconscious. Neither was he silent in his
> attempts to be reasonable. (Such as they are.)
>
> All this stringing together of this and that -
> do you really think any logical proposition
> will suffice? Everybody knows the drill,
> but they can't seem to do it.
>
> "The good that I would, I do not;
> but the evil that I hate, that I do."
> -- St.Paul
>
> Perhaps through breath meditation one
> may learn to discount thoughts and impulses
> rather than to be ruled by them and act them out.
Tang is working things out. Give him some elbow room.
Although it's true, he has invited us to point out
where we think his practice and his preaching diverge.
Whatever the relevance of this remark may be, is it a quote,
or a summary by you?
> What one thinks is binding on him. See 1 & 2 of the
> Dhamapadda.
I must get around to having a look at that sometime.
> "Judge not, for with that measure that you
> measure it will be measured out unto you."
<Sigh> How one might wish this to be true.
But it is true, if you consider that
one ultimately is one's own judge.
> Earth, air, fire, and water there may be (or not)
> but what business is that of ours?
--
hz
Keynes
Summary.
>> What one thinks is binding on him. See 1 & 2 of the
>> Dhamapadda.
>
>I must get around to having a look at that sometime.
>
"1. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief;
they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a
person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the
wheel that follows the foot of the ox."
"2. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief;
they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person
speaks or acts happiness follows him like his
never-departing shadow."
http://pratyeka.org/a2i/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.01.budd.html
The whole thing is quite instructive. Worth a look.
But watch out for contradictions. Like these --
"6. There are those who do not realize that one
day we all must die. But those who do realize
this settle their quarrels."
"21. Heedfulness is the path to the Deathless.
Heedlessness is the path to death. The heedful
die not. The heedless are as if dead already."
>> "Judge not, for with that measure that you
>> measure it will be measured out unto you."
>
><Sigh> How one might wish this to be true.
>
>But it is true, if you consider that
>one ultimately is one's own judge.
If you see bad, then you have bad.
If you see good, then you can have good -
(until it turns bad). Which it will if one is
attached to it. Unattached = all good.
herbzet
Keynes wrote:
> herbzet wrote:
> > Keynes wrote:
Thanks, much.
--
hz
DharmaTroll
> ridicules DT's "objectivist view", but to me he himself
> follows an objectivist view, or at least an object-based
> view, as contrasted with my own view, which as I often
> say is purely subjective, strictly sentimental, with nothing
> objective out there to which it can be pinned down.
Both you and Robbie are now using this word 'objectivist'. When I
asked Robert what the hell he means by that word, like, does he mean
that we're all in the matrix and that cats aren't real, he blows up
and has a hissie fit, so you're probably right, Robert does go for
some sort of realism.
Your view, Tang, is nice for arguing, as you can get by without making
any claims about anything, but it's rather worthless in a practical
sense.
In an example I used before, the Tang-Banger ontology can't discern
between a real dagger and a halucinated dagger. MacBeth was able to
figure it out -- he tested it with a different sense, by running his
hand through the dagger.
Is this a dagger which I see before me
The handle toward my hand?
Come, let me clutch thee.
I have thee not, and yet I see thee still
Art thou not, fatal vision, sensible
To feeling as to sight? Or art thou but
A dagger of the mind, a false creation
Proceeding from the heat-oppressed brain?
After testing it by checking it out with a separate source of
information, Mac concluded that there was no dagger (because his hand
passed through where the dagger appeared to be), that it was a "dagger
of the mind". Were there an objective dagger (that is, a real metal
dagger, and not a dagger of the mind), then he his hand would have
struck the dagger.
Of course, you can go "the full woo-woo" and say "but-but-but we're
all in the Matrix!" as the woo-woo-ists so often like to say. However,
to make that move, one has to go super-duper-objectivist, to create
super-real, super-objective Trans-Empirical hyper-reality on which
this illusory realm is parasitical. So you can't appeal to a magic
Trans-Empirical objective reality if you really want to employ your
closed-loop episemology.
And that, Tang, leaves you with not being able to discern between a
metal dagger and a dagger of the mind.
> To me, both cultivation and attainment are purely
> subjective and strictly sentimental, in that what is out
> there does not change, but that the change is purely
> internal, in that the cultivator merely adjusts himself to
> himself, aligns himself with himself, harmonises himself
> with himself, in closed circle. There is no reality or truth
> external to himself that he must intuit or perceive,
The first half of what you say I'm in total agreement with: "To me,
both cultivation and attainment are purely subjective and strictly
sentimental, in that what is out there does not change, but that the
change is purely internal, in that the cultivator merely adjusts
himself".
Where we differ is that I continue the sentence: "in that the
cultivator merely adjusts himself to the world, to what is, without
distorting and pretending that it is some way other than it is."
So for the Trollpa, you accept the nature of the cotton candy that you
are eating, that it is sweet, but that it dissolves the moment you
bite into it, and if you think you are going to fill yourself with
food, you will be dissapointed, as the cotton candy is mostly fluff.
So you accept that the cotton candy is mostly fluff and don't expect
it to be something more or something different.
Yet what you say, Tang, is that you just adjust yourself to yourself,
which doesn't seem to me to be anything more than mental masturbation.
We have to deal with sickness, old age, and death, not to mention
annoying people, taxes, and mosquitos. Your closed loop, claiming that
you don't know whether mosquitos are real or not, just isn't going to
cut it if you have to leave your dungeon and go out into the real
world (for one thing, you'll have to acknowledge that you're going out
into the real world). Maybe if you stay in your dungeon and
masturbate, you can get by with the closed-loop strategy, but that's
going to be about it.
> It looks to me that Robbie is debating himself, as he flip-flops
> from expounding and defending an object-based, objectivist
> view to bashing the same, with DT offering only a foil on
> which Robbie projects his own contrary views (meaning, his
> own views that are contrary to each other, and not
> necessarily contrary to DT's views). Robbie looks to me like
> wholly oblivious to his own warring views. He calls his own
> position(s) and view(s) "mystical", but going by them, the
> cultivator must adjust to something objective: <<"direct
> experience" of the nature of reality>>, "direct awakening to
> the nature of mind itself". I find no such reference to
> anything objective in the Buddha.
Right! And that was just the point I was making above: that to take
this so-called 'subjective' mystical view is to posit something
objective (a higher woo-woo reality with capital letters) and to make
a huge leap of 'objectivism' to create a whole realm (or a God) that
is TransEmpirical and Ultimately Real. That's much more than my
assertion that cats are real, and that I can know they are real by
petting them.
So I have problems with Robert's positing a monstrosity of objective
claims with no evidence or support. And I have problems with your
closed-loop, Tang, which seems to deny the world and dealing with it,
and seems to work only in the case of masturbation.
> Just to make sure that my view about cultivation and
> attainment being purely subjective and strictly sentimental
> jives with the Buddha's teaching, let me reproduce some
> passages.
>
> "When consciousness is unestablished, it does not
> grow. Not growing, it does nothing. Not doing anything,
> it is liberated. By being liberated, it is steady. By being
> steady, it is content. By being content, he is not agitated.
> Being not agitated, he internally blows out." (Tad
> apathitthitam viññanam avirulham an-abhisankharañca
> vimuttam vimuttatta thitam thitatta santusitam santusitatta
> na paritassati aparitassam paccattaññeva parinibbayati).
> SN, III, 58 (22, 55).
>
> The important part is: "not doing anything"
> (an-abhisankharañca, variant an-abhisankhacca), where
> sankhara is from the stem kr- "to act, to do, to make",
> from which karman in Sanskrit and kamma in Pali come
> "deed, act", also samskara in Sanskrit and sankhara in
> Pali "composition" (literally "together-making"), as in the
> fourth aggregate (the compositions, in the plural).
>
> The usual translations quite water down the Buddha's
> meaning. The recent translation by Bodhi is awful:
> "When that consciousness is unestablished, not
> coming to growth, nongenerative, it is liberated". The
> old translation by Woodward is somewhat better:
> "Without that platform consciousness has no growth,
> it generates no action and is freed." In footnote
> Woodward says: "Comy. reading anabhisankhacca,
> 'generates (no conception).'"
I don't see how that implies a purely masturbatory closed-loop, Tang.
Talk about "not doing anything" seems to me to be about "not adding
anything" to our experiences, but that doesn't mean denying that cats
cause our experiences when we see cats. It seems to me to mean not to
add anything to that.
I start with your subjectivity, Tang, and then I accept conditionally
a world of thing/processes, like cats, trees, stones, and stars, which
don't need us to exist, and aren't created by our minds, but which
interact with us, if only by reflecting light into our eyes. I don't
have to claim that such things as trees or cats or stars or stones are
permanent, or self-caused, or having any essence -- in fact I deny
those things. Nor do I claim to have complete knowledge about these
thiings -- I am only familiar with a few of their properties. But I
think that the explanation that they exist and cause the experiences
of them I have is better than either the explanation that they are
illusions created by a posited higher woo-woo objective realit, or
your just talking about yourself and not acknowledging a world outside
your dungeon, which to me reeks of denial and isn't practical or
useful at all, except for not being pinned down in arguments on usenet
groups.
--DharmaTroll
herbzet
Well, I agree with what Rob says here -- I considered
mentioning Kuhn et al myself while debating DT.
I have only the most casual acquaintence with Husserl, though
I happened to read recently that he has made some contributions,
deemed as much under-appreciated by the writer, to the philosophy
of logic.
> <<Well I admire your self-agnosticism, and I have
> developed more of it myself with regard to some of my
> Profound experiences, but if someone wants to claim an
> objective reality, that is okay with me. Let them look for
> ways of demonstrating it and I will watch with interest,
> rather than dismiss them out of hand.>>
Well, I don't really see any glaring contradictions there,
rather I feel some looseness in how terms are being used;
e.g. we could, if we wish, construe "objective reality" as
being exactly what it is that science studies. We could,
if we wish, argue that Transcendental Reality does not, of
its nature, fall into the categories of objective and
subjective. And so on.
> To me, both cultivation and attainment are purely
> subjective and strictly sentimental, in that what is out
> there does not change, but that the change is purely
> internal, in that the cultivator merely adjusts himself to
> himself, aligns himself with himself, harmonises himself
> with himself, in closed circle. There is no reality or truth
> external to himself that he must intuit or perceive, or
> adjust to, and the only requirement is that he comes to
> peace with himself and to reconciliation with himself,
> and quiesces his mentation all the way. (If he comes to
> peace with himself and to reconciliation with himself,
> he is a Stoic sage, which is what the Buddha was when
> he realised that his six years of intense Jaina penance
> had been an error and that he should relent, and took
> milk to regain strength;
The Buddha a Stoic sage already by that point? Well,
perhaps; I don't know much about Stoicism beyond some
knowledge of their contributions to logic. I don't
know that much about the historical Buddha either.
> if he quiesces his mentation all
> the way, he is awakened in the Buddhist sense, which is
> what the Buddha was that night when he did just that,
> namely quiesce his mentation all the way, and attain to
> non-doing, non-willing, and non-mentation).
Plausible, but I'd like to see a little more report from
the Buddha's own lips -- that is, see what's on record
about his own accounting of the event.
To me, what we're seeing is not so much "warring" views, as
Rob being unsettled in his view, and having several views
being held as plausible. He knows that he *doesn't* know
enough to hold a given view with any certainty.
I think that, like me, he objects not so much to DT's views
as to his arguments in support of those views -- including
the argument that DT's view is not, in fact, a view.
I think also that it is true that he is rather more predisposed
to a "mystical" frame of mind than some, which I don't think is
held as thoughtcrime yet. It may even be helpful to Rob (as
well as others) as a motivator. It may even be the correct view,
as these things go.
DT should make some small study of the distinction between
mysticism and metaphysics (or magic), since he's committed
to doing a lot of reading anyway. I mean, besides that they
all start with "m".
> He calls his own
> position(s) and view(s) "mystical", but going by them, the
> cultivator must adjust to something objective: <<"direct
> experience" of the nature of reality>>, "direct awakening to
> the nature of mind itself". I find no such reference to
> anything objective in the Buddha.
Certainly there are authoritative expositions of zen and of
buddhism that assert just these things, as well as utterances
by the Buddha, even in the early texts, that strongly suggest
such phrases. It sometimes requires a strong interpretative
charge to sanitize the implications of what the Buddha is
recorded as having actually said.
Further, in purporting not to have made metaphysical claims,
the Buddha cannot be understood as having definitively
rejected such claims as false, but merely of having
declined to affirm them as true.
Moreover, even if you hold that nothing the Buddha said
could be reasonably construed as explicitly or implicitly
asserting such things, that is no reason at all to suggest
that *Robert's* suggesting such things is therefore somehow
false or objectionable. One can merely aver that such things
are "not Buddhism", which I'm not convinced is what is being
argued there.
> Just to make sure that my view about cultivation and
> attainment being purely subjective and strictly sentimental
> jives with the Buddha's teaching, let me reproduce some
> passages.
[snip long quotes already posted in another post recently]
1) I'll buy that.
2) I appreciated, btw, your point in another post about
how two of the hindrances (or whatever they're called)
concern the compositions, while the third concerns
"all dharmas".
3) I have some reservations about the order of things in
various formulations of dependent origination, and I'm
curious about *how* one item is related to the next, but
I'm not going to go into that now (not enough patience at
the moment).
Not an expert, but I think we have to take cognizance of the
role of volition as fundamental in the action of composition-ing.
Speaking of speculative philosophy, didn't some weighty German
philosopher, Neitzsche or Schopenhauer or somebody, write a book,
"The World as Will and Representation"? The title seems appropriate
here -- not familiar with the book myself, though.
Idle thought: "The Will to Power" -- well, what the hell
else would the will will to?
> When consciousness is intact, and it is intact during the
> �arising� sequence, the Buddha finds that his mind turns
> back from consciousness, that it does not penetrate
> beyond. Consciousness is trapped between itself and its
> objects (name and form), and does not know how to break
> out of that self-perpetuating circle of which it is an
> accomplice; or better:
Sounds pretty good already.
> consciousness has a vested interest in
> \maintaining that trap intact. But when the Buddha works
> on the �ceasing� sequence, the ceasing of consciousness
> (which he experiences in the body and not merely as a
> cogitative exercise) suddenly gives him a glimpse into the
> machinery behind consciousness, and that machinery is
> constituted by the compositions.
"Ignore the man behind that curtain!" -- signed, Jen.
> That is why he defines Nirvana -- blowing-out, the state
> he attains when he breaks through the compositions -- as
> the calming of all compositions (sabba-sankhara-samatho).
> The compositions include language and thought, and when
> they are calmed, the mind no longer kicks up a storm with
> language and thought and gets caught in it, rather it frees
> itself from language and thought and the tricks that they
> play on it.
Hm, language and thought are compositions? Come to think
of it, I'm not totally clear on what "compositions"
(formations, fabrications) are supposed to be. You
previously mentioned "the volitions" as compositions;
I'm not sure about that either, though they (or it)
may be the sankhara-khanda(s).
You're also gonna have to explain Buddha walking
around and talking for forty years, while presumably
being in nirvana (freed of samsara), which seemingly
by your definition means the utter quiescence of the
compositions, consciousness, and so on.
> So that's what the Buddha says of that night and my
> interpretation of it. I am sure that the latter is most
> inadequate to the former, but that's the best that I can
> come up with, so please forgive me for my stupidity.
Well, not bad, for a beginner.
(oh, Burn! Boo-yah!)
This time you didn't cite your sources, as per your
usual practice.
> By the way, whether he sits under a tree or not is not
> sure. Some accounts don't mention any tree.
What enormity next? You gonna say there's no Santa Claus?
Just go fuck yourself.
That also makes them good conversationalists.
> The foolish
> common person does not know as they
What is the referent of "they"? The defilements?
The foolish common persons? ... The peacocks?
> are form, its
"Its" = "form"?
> arisal,
> its setting, its enticement, its danger, and the separation
> from it, and takes delight in it, and after taking delight in it,
> creates it again (Pali abhinibbatteti) in the future; does not
> know
"know" = "Understand the nature of"?
> feeling, notion, compositions, consciousness, and
> creates them again (abhinibbatteti) in the future; and as he
> is creating them again in the future, he is not freed from
> them. But the saintly disciple knows as they
"they" = feeling, notion, compositions, consciousnes?
The saintly disciple?
> are form, etc.
"etc."? "Its arisal, setting, enticement, danger, dah dah dah"?
> and does not create them again in the future, and not
> creating them again in the future, he is freed from them.
> SN, III, 151-152 (22, 100), SA, 267, 69c-70a, Sanskrit
> borrowed from Ratna-gotra-vibhaga, ed. Zuiryu Nakamura,
> Tokyo: Sankibo, 1961, 129.
>
> At AN, II, 196 (4, 194) the saintly disciple "unbinds his
> mind from things which bind (rajaniyesu dhammesu cittam
> virajeti), releases his mind with things which release
> (vimocaniyesu dhammesu cittam vimoceti), and touches
> right release (samma-vimuttim phusati)." According to SN,
> III, 69 (22, 60), SA, 81, 21a4-5, "beings take passion in
> form, with passion they become bound, being bound they
> become defiled/afflicted" (Skt. in Dietz, Dharma-skandha,
> 50: satva rupe samrajyamte samraktah samyujyamte
> samyuktah samklisyamte).
Um, just btw, what is "SN, III," "SA, 81," etc.?
The only thing that bothers me is your emphasis that
<<Everything is internal, everything is purely subjective
and strictly sentimental.>>
First of all, I don't see this emphasis as NECESSARY at all!
Secondly, I don't see that the Buddha, having had a "blowing out"
due to the quiescing of the mind, and a concomitent or subsequent
realization, would necessarily affirm that the process is purely
internal, subjective, and sentimental.
From a realized-point-of-view (or non-point-of-view) some or
all of your assertion may amount to category error, or simply
to a null proposition.
I'm referring here to the terms "internal" and "subjective"
particularly -- "sentimental", as being orthogonal to
internal/external subjective/objective, might or might
not squeak by.
Perhaps you can quote the Buddha directly affirming what
you are asserting, which is your INFERENCE from your
(very plausible) explication of what he *did* say.
But see "First of all" just above.
--
hz
Keynes
wrote:
>
>Yet what you say, Tang, is that you just adjust yourself to yourself,
>which doesn't seem to me to be anything more than mental masturbation.
>We have to deal with sickness, old age, and death, not to mention
>annoying people, taxes, and mosquitos. Your closed loop, claiming that
>you don't know whether mosquitos are real or not, just isn't going to
>cut it if you have to leave your dungeon and go out into the real
>world (for one thing, you'll have to acknowledge that you're going out
>into the real world). Maybe if you stay in your dungeon and
>masturbate, you can get by with the closed-loop strategy, but that's
>going to be about it.
>
There you have it.
You can either masturbate or get fucked in the ass.
>
>Right! And that was just the point I was making above: that to take
>this so-called 'subjective' mystical view is to posit something
>objective (a higher woo-woo reality with capital letters) and to make
>a huge leap of 'objectivism' to create a whole realm (or a God) that
>is TransEmpirical and Ultimately Real. That's much more than my
>assertion that cats are real, and that I can know they are real by
>petting them.
>
Only if one insists on a substantial basis.
(The intellect requires it. The world doesn't.)
>
>I don't see how that implies a purely masturbatory closed-loop, Tang.
>Talk about "not doing anything" seems to me to be about "not adding
>anything" to our experiences, but that doesn't mean denying that cats
>cause our experiences when we see cats. It seems to me to mean not to
>add anything to that.
>
"Not doing anything" is correct.
In fact the impression of "doing something" is delusion.
Do you suppose you create your own thoughts and emotions?
If you don't know what you'll think, say, or do next, why insist
on being some sort of free and effective agent with god-like
uncaused powers and all-knowledge?
>I start with your subjectivity, Tang, and then I accept conditionally
>a world of thing/processes, like cats, trees, stones, and stars, which
>don't need us to exist, and aren't created by our minds, but which
>interact with us,
In the war between the world (as you see it) and yourself,
you surrender right away. But not in the good way.
Your opinions are holding you for ransom.
And who will pay your price?
>if only by reflecting light into our eyes. I don't
>have to claim that such things as trees or cats or stars or stones are
>permanent, or self-caused, or having any essence -- in fact I deny
>those things.
Oh sure. And you're going to die to prove it.
(Behind the sofa with the cat under a tree.)
>Nor do I claim to have complete knowledge about these
>thiings -- I am only familiar with a few of their properties. But I
>think that the explanation that they exist and cause the experiences
>of them I have is better than either the explanation that they are
>illusions created by a posited higher woo-woo objective realit, or
>your just talking about yourself and not acknowledging a world outside
>your dungeon, which to me reeks of denial
And you reek of assertion.
Surely, surely both roads lead to hell.
>and isn't practical or useful at all, except for not being
>pinned down in arguments on usenet groups.
You don't know the value of uselessness.
If you don't need to be right, how can you ever be wrong?
Be so light on your feet that you rise into the air
and ride the winds in all directions.
herbzet
DharmaTroll wrote:
Boy, I love that verse.
Though maybe because it's like
an old, comfortable pair of slippers.
But still ...
Would you like to say something about the skandhas?
--
hz
herbzet
Oh, shit! Utter brain fart!
I meant "the sankhara"!
--
hz
Hollywood Lee
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 07:43:18 -0700 (PDT), DharmaTroll<dharm...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Yet what you say, Tang, is that you just adjust yourself to yourself,
>> which doesn't seem to me to be anything more than mental masturbation.
>> We have to deal with sickness, old age, and death, not to mention
>> annoying people, taxes, and mosquitos. Your closed loop, claiming that
>> you don't know whether mosquitos are real or not, just isn't going to
>> cut it if you have to leave your dungeon and go out into the real
>> world (for one thing, you'll have to acknowledge that you're going out
>> into the real world). Maybe if you stay in your dungeon and
>> masturbate, you can get by with the closed-loop strategy, but that's
>> going to be about it.
>>
>
> There you have it.
> You can either masturbate or get fucked in the ass.
Julian! We need ya man. Third option time.
DharmaTroll
> On 10/26/2009 10:33 AM, Keynes wrote:
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Yet what you say, Tang, is that you just adjust yourself to yourself,
> >> which doesn't seem to me to be anything more than mental masturbation.
> >> We have to deal with sickness, old age, and death, not to mention
> >> annoying people, taxes, and mosquitos. Your closed loop, claiming that
> >> you don't know whether mosquitos are real or not, just isn't going to
> >> cut it if you have to leave your dungeon and go out into the real
> >> world (for one thing, you'll have to acknowledge that you're going out
> >> into the real world). Maybe if you stay in your dungeon and
> >> masturbate, you can get by with the closed-loop strategy, but that's
> >> going to be about it.
>
> > There you have it.
> > You can either masturbate or get fucked in the ass.
>
> Julian! We need ya man. Third option time.
I think we have gotten to the quintessential false dilemma or
'dualism' in Keynes' nutter beliefs:
"You can either masturbate or get fucked in the ass."
--DharmaTroll
P.S. There is a third option (of course it happens to be Trollpa's
option - heh). It is most clearly stated by Thomas Huxley, in his
"Agnosticism" in Gordon Stein, editor, _An anthology of atheism and
rationalism_.
<<When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself
whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or
an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I
learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I
came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of
these denominations, except the last... So I took thought, and
invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic".
It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of
Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of
which I was ignorant... Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a
method, the essence of this lies in the rigorous application of a
single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old
as Socrates;
as old as the writer who said, "Try all things, hold fast to that
which is good"; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply
illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason
for the faith that is in him; it is the great principle of Descartes;
it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the
principle may expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your
reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other
consideration. And negatively, in matters of the intellect do not
pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or
demonstrable.>>
DharmaTroll
Yeah, all those Pali and Sanskrit works get confusing. Better to read
Shakespeare I suppose.
--DharmaTroll
DharmaTroll
Husserl is one of those give-me-a-headache-to-read German dudes, but
Kuhn actually supports my attack on the "naive realism" of "direct
experience" claims.
Kuhn's insight was his view that in science, concepts aren't stand-
alone, but are enmeshed in a paradigm, which has a set of cultural and
background assumptions. An easy but mistaken assumption to make is
that we simply add pieces of knowledge to the pile. Kuhn questions
this, and calls this 'ordinary science', but that it's part of a stair-
step-like cycle: when ordinary science fills out the gaps in the
current paradigm, anomalies are found that can't be explained. The
first few are ignored and assumed to be soon explained if examined
further. But eventually more anomalies arise, and they can't be
explained within the current paradigm. Then there is a crisis phase,
and finally a new over-arching paradigm emerges in a "scientific
revolution", which solves all the problems solved by the previous
paradigm, but also takes care of the anomalies. That new paradigm now
goes into the "ordinary science" phase, and that continues until
enough anomalies are uncovered to create a new crisis phase, as so on.
If you use Kuhn's model for science as a model for personal spiritual
growth (Kuhn didn't have this in mind), then you get my version of
Kapleau's Koo-Koo-Ka-Choo. What happened is that Kapleau in his stress-
filled, sleep-deprived, heavy-concentration-states sesshin, achieved
the 'crisis phase' when his current paradigm, or world-view, didn't
work. He eventually broke through to a new, more expansive spiritual
view, and the equivalent of the 'scientific revolution' phase would be
called 'Kensho'. Then he lived with a more wise and profound
understanding with his new paradigm (that, say, he has no soul or self
and is interconnected to everything) than he did with his previous
paradigm. That's what I was arguing for, a kind of Kuhnian spiritual
revolution, which is all psychological, and without any supernatural
woo-woo. His experience is still theory-laden, but he now has a more
robust and helpful paradigm through which to live his life.
> > <<Well I admire your self-agnosticism, and I have
> > developed more of it myself with regard to some of my
> > Profound experiences, but if someone wants to claim an
> > objective reality, that is okay with me. Let them look for
> > ways of demonstrating it and I will watch with interest,
> > rather than dismiss them out of hand.>>
>
> Well, I don't really see any glaring contradictions there,
> rather I feel some looseness in how terms are being used;
> e.g. we could, if we wish, construe "objective reality" as
> being exactly what it is that science studies. We could,
> if we wish, argue that Transcendental Reality does not, of
> its nature, fall into the categories of objective and
> subjective. And so on.
No we cannot! On the contrary, Transcendent Reality is objective: it's
Super-Objective. Transcendent Reality is the ultimate, most extreme
form of 'Objectivism'.
The whole point of woo-woo, or positing a Transcendental Reality, is
that without evidence, a claim to objective reality is made, and then
the natural world of stones and cats is denied as illusion in
comparison to this Objective Transcendental Reality, or the natural
world is though to simply be epiphenomenal, parasitically dependent on
the Objective and Transcendental the way our ordinary dreams are
parasitically dependent upon our brains in waking life for their
illusory existence.
The whole point of "direct experience" for woo-woo-ists is to claim to
have certain knowledge of this objective Transcendental Realm. And I
say that such claims are nonsensical. And I claim that the Buddha saw
sages making such claims, and he didn't accept their stories as
credible, and he instead eshewed metaphysical claims. I think the way
out is that by "direct experience" in various later Buddhist schools,
what is meant is "not filtered by passions, such as craving, aversion,
and delusion." Don't need to posit woo-woo Transcendental Realms, nor
claims of certainty by 'directly experiencing' them. All that is just
political religious stuff, the puffed egos of triumphalism.
> > It looks to me that Robbie is debating himself, as he flip-flops
> > from expounding and defending an object-based, objectivist
> > view to bashing the same, with DT offering only a foil on
> > which Robbie projects his own contrary views (meaning, his
> > own views that are contrary to each other, and not
> > necessarily contrary to DT's views). Robbie looks to me like
> > wholly oblivious to his own warring views.
>
> To me, what we're seeing is not so much "warring" views, as
> Rob being unsettled in his view, and having several views
> being held as plausible. He knows that he *doesn't* know
> enough to hold a given view with any certainty.
>
> I think that, like me, he objects not so much to DT's views
> as to his arguments in support of those views -- including
> the argument that DT's view is not, in fact, a view.
Who the hell made that argument? Not DT. No, what I've said over and
over, is that I argue from views, yes, but I know that I'm always
stuck in a view, so I don't take it so seriously. That's a hell of a
lot different from my saying I don't have a view. I mean, I even
switch views and argue fiercely from different ones (I do that if
someone agrees with me: there is nothing so annoying as to have
someone agree, as then you have to scramble around to find something
to whack each other over, or else talk about television or even worse,
politics. Yuck.) I'm afraid that you've been reading what your makyo-
for-brains nutter pal Keynes says about me, rather than reading what I
say, if you think I don't have a view. I have lots, and I argue for
them fiercely. I just don't take any of them to be completely true,
just useful in various ways.
> I think also that it is true that he is rather more predisposed
> to a "mystical" frame of mind than some, which I don't think is
> held as thought crime yet. It may even be helpful to Rob (as
> well as others) as a motivator. It may even be the correct view,
> as these things go.
>
> DT should make some small study of the distinction between
> mysticism and metaphysics (or magic), since he's committed
> to doing a lot of reading anyway. I mean, besides that they
> all start with "m".
Well, here, anything that is opposed to the natural, be it
Transcendental Reality, or God, or Undifferentiated Fluff, I tend to
call metaphysical, but I do also call it 'magic', as 'magic' tends to
be used to mean anything supernatural. There are exceptions, such as
in Christianity, all supernatural acts were attributed to either God
or Satan: if it was Satan's work, it was called magic; if it was God's
work, it was called a miracle. That way, when people claimed to have
paranormal powers, as do nutters these days, their claims could be
attributed to Satan. So nice old ladies like Evelyn who read palms and
do Tarot readings would be seen not as having paranormal powers, which
were utterly denied by Christianity, but would be interpreted as doing
Satan's bidding, so we'd burn the grannies at the stake as witches.
And man, did we burn hundreds of thousands of innocent women that
way.)
But here, I use 'magic' to emphasize the poster's craving of the
supernatural, and aversion to see spirituality as natural (or 'only
psychological', etc.). I'm not being philosophically sloppy as much as
really trying to bring out the poster's emotional craving for the
supernatural for spirituality.
'Mystical' is more tricky, as many spiritual atheists I know who are
100% naturalists like the DharmaTroll and Fu, still call themselves
mystics. And they call Carl Sagan and Bill Nye, and Richard Feynman
"mystics" as well. In fact, you can hear the atheist mystics' anthem,
the "Symphony of Science" here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk
That video pretty much sums up the Trollpa's annoying worldview!
> > He [Robert] calls his own
> > position(s) and view(s) "mystical", but going by them, the
> > cultivator must adjust to something objective: <<"direct
> > experience" of the nature of reality>>, "direct awakening to
> > the nature of mind itself". I find no such reference to
> > anything objective in the Buddha.
And Tang here precisely puts his finger on my problem with Robert's
claim. That's it exactly. I also call my experiences 'mystical' and
maybe even my views (that everything is impermanent and in flux, has
no essence and is not self-caused, has fuzzy and constantly changing
boundaries, and is intimately inter-connected with everything else)
are mystical. But then again, any physicist or physics grad student
will shrug his shoulders and say, "that's just the standard science
view that just about all physicists go for." But that would drive
Robert crazy, because he wouldn't have his one-up-ness with his
"secret Chinese recipe" or whatever. I'm fine with saying that regular
old physics, if pursued deeply, is mystical. Just view that video
again!
> Moreover, even if you hold that nothing the Buddha said
> could be reasonably construed as explicitly or implicitly
> asserting such things, that is no reason at all to suggest
> that *Robert's* suggesting such things is therefore somehow
> false or objectionable. One can merely aver that such things
> are "not Buddhism", which I'm not convinced is what is being
> argued there.
Well, then Robert's mystical woo-woo claims end up in the 'fantasy to
ponder when stoned' category, just like the "alien abduction" and
"flying saucer" stories, or astrology and Creationism and claims that
people's dreams foretell the future, etc. All of them are not proven
false, and can't be proven false, but there is no hard evidence for
them, so there is no reason to take them seriously as 'likely', unless
or until any real evidence shows up to suggest that they are likely
and probable explanations for what's really going on.
--DharmaTroll
"Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this
as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem
which it was intended to solve."
-Karl Popper
Hollywood Lee
discussion below on "what is real?". All fascinating topics. Reminds
me of the time spent burying myself in essays on ontology and
epistemology. Philosophical food fights of the highest order.
These are debates that I've generally tried to step back from, since
I've found more value in developing a simple practice of just attending
to my breath, becoming calm, reflecting on events, watching my emotions
arise and fade, then applying what I can moving forward. Less a focus
on the "what" of the world and more a how to live in it. Don't even use
a lot of Buddhist terminology in thinking about it.
>> In the Buddha�s account of his own awakening, he thinks:
>>
>> �What being, old age and death are? Dependent on what,
>> old age and death [arise]?�
>>
>> He understands: Birth being, old age and death are;
>> dependent on birth, old age and death [arise]. And he
>> continued the backward search: becoming being, birth
>> is; dependent on becoming, birth [arises]. Grasping being,
>> becoming is; dependent on grasping, becoming [arises].
>> Craving being, grasping is; dependent on craving, grasping
>> [arises]. Feeling being, craving is; dependent on feeling;
>> craving [arises]. The sixfold place of contact being, feeling
>> is; dependent on the sixfold place of contact, feeling
>> [arises]. Name and form being, the sixfold place of contact
>> is; dependent on name and form, the sixfold place of
>> contact [arises]. Consciousness being, name and form are;
>> dependent on consciousness, name and form [arise]. The
>> Buddha then realizes: my mind turns back from
>> consciousness (Skt. tasya mama vij�anat pratyudavartate
>> What is new here, in the �ceasing� sequence, is that the
>> Buddha breaks through that which held him back when he
>> went up the �arising� sequence, in which he found that
>> For in the �arising� sequence from old age and death back
>> up to consciousness, the Buddha discovers ten stages of
>> the generation of suffering, all of which are expressed in
>> conventional terms of his Indo-Aryan time and place. He
>> runs into the wall of conventional knowledge, which is
>> untouched. But in the �ceasing� sequence, also from old
>> age and death back up to consciousness, each stage ceases
>> when the anterior, conditioning stage ceases, and thus
>> name and form cease when consciousness ceases, but just
>> when consciousness ceases the Buddha has a breakthrough,
>> he breaks through convention and discovers that
>> consciousness depends on *the compositions*, which in
>> turn depend on ignorance.
>>
>> The addition of the two new stages is numerically
>> insignificant, what is important is the discovery that
>> consciousness depends on the compositions, and when that
>> discovery is made the subsequent discovery of ignorance
>> as condition for the compositions is a mere routine. The
>> philosophical and spiritual point is that in normal
>> consciousness, one is not aware of how much the
>> compositions form and inform one and one�s consciousness,
>> with the result that they run one from behind the scene. In
>> the picturesque image of folk English, consciousness is like
>> the tail and the compositions are like the dog; the dog wags
>> the tail, but the tail, being only aware of itself, thinks that it
>> is free and independent and therefore that it wags both itself
>> and the dog (perhaps the reader has recognised all
>> speculative philosophies and all speculative philosophers
>> here).
>
> Not an expert, but I think we have to take cognizance of the
> role of volition as fundamental in the action of composition-ing.
>
> Speaking of speculative philosophy, didn't some weighty German
> philosopher, Neitzsche or Schopenhauer or somebody, write a book,
> "The World as Will and Representation"? The title seems appropriate
> here -- not familiar with the book myself, though.
>
> Idle thought: "The Will to Power" -- well, what the hell
> else would the will will to?
>
>> When consciousness is intact, and it is intact during the
>> �arising� sequence, the Buddha finds that his mind turns
>> back from consciousness, that it does not penetrate
>> beyond. Consciousness is trapped between itself and its
>> objects (name and form), and does not know how to break
>> out of that self-perpetuating circle of which it is an
>> accomplice; or better:
>
> Sounds pretty good already.
>
>> consciousness has a vested interest in
>> \maintaining that trap intact. But when the Buddha works
>> on the �ceasing� sequence, the ceasing of consciousness
Lee Rudolph
>Husserl is one of those give-me-a-headache-to-read German dudes, but
>Kuhn actually supports my attack on the "naive realism" of "direct
>experience" claims.
>
>Kuhn's insight was his view that in science, concepts aren't stand-
>alone, but are enmeshed in a paradigm, which has a set of cultural and
>background assumptions. An easy but mistaken assumption to make is
>that we simply add pieces of knowledge to the pile. Kuhn questions
>this, and calls this 'ordinary science', but that it's part of a stair-
>step-like cycle: when ordinary science fills out the gaps in the
>current paradigm, anomalies are found that can't be explained. The
>first few are ignored and assumed to be soon explained if examined
>further. But eventually more anomalies arise, and they can't be
>explained within the current paradigm. Then there is a crisis phase,
>and finally a new over-arching paradigm emerges in a "scientific
>revolution", which solves all the problems solved by the previous
>paradigm, but also takes care of the anomalies. That new paradigm now
>goes into the "ordinary science" phase, and that continues until
>enough anomalies are uncovered to create a new crisis phase, as so on.
>
>If you use Kuhn's model for science as a model for personal spiritual
>growth (Kuhn didn't have this in mind), then you get my version of
>Kapleau's Koo-Koo-Ka-Choo.
You (or others reading this thread) might find some stuff of interest
in the various works of Imre Lakatos, principally _Proofs and Refutations_,
which is an approach to philosophy of mathematics in sort of the same spirit
as Kuhn's approach to philosophy of science, outlined above. (Lakatos has
cuter terminology, e.g., "Monster-Barring", and a much more interesting
style; for instance, most of _Proofs and Refutations_ is in the form of
a dialogue (among one teacher and many students) that circles around the
history of Euler's formula V - E + F = 2 and the topology of surfaces.
One of Kuhn's sons (I don't know if he in fact had more than one) got his
Ph.D. in mathematics, specifically topology (his advisor was the redoubtable
W. P. Thurston), but after a few years went on to medical school, then
became a psychiatrist and psychotherapist. Four or five years ago I wrote
him to ask if he'd care to give a talk on what, if anything, his study of
topology had contributed to how he thought about psychology; he wrote
back that for him topology had been a disease for which psychology was the
cure. (Or maybe he had "mathematics" where I have written "topology".)
Lee Rudolph
Déjà Flu
I make it a point to strangle at least one philosopher
before breakfast every day. Helps the environment.
Momma and poppa were layin' in bed
[chorus repeats]
Momma rolled over this is what she said
[chorus repeats]
Gimme some
[chorus repeats]
Transendency
[chorus repeats]
Gimme more
[chorus repeats]
Transendency
[chorus repeats]
I don't know but I've been told
[chorus repeats]
The very best spliff is the one you rolled
[chorus repeats]
Gimme one!
[chorus repeats]
Hit that shit!
[chorus repeats]
One more hit!
[chorus repeats]
Street double-time scene fades to depths of the A Shau Valley.
All you hear are alien lifeforms. Greenness trumps itself.
You can't breathe without sweating.
Someone reads - as though over a radio with very little
battery left...
"Claypool scraped at the mud specks with a bent paper clip.
A hole opened in the rice paper. He sighed. If there were
special tools for this kind of work Claypool hadn't been told
where to find them. Now the last word was lost and he would
have to guess. He leafed through his English-Vietnamese
dictionary. Well, this shouldn't be difficult. Certainly
the people were no being asked to unite in peace and suicide.
So it was 'tudo' then. The line ended in "freedom"."
How was the RenFair? I lost my witch costume and wig,
so I didn't go.
Just so you know - I don't "call myself" anything - I leave that
to people like Tang and Robbie. In 67 years I have had thousands
of experiences that would have blown Robbie's brains all over the
Walmart Departments and tangled Tang into a Gordian Not. They were
all - with no exceptions - illusions and delusions.
ps:
Popper sux, do0d ;)
--
Ubi dubium ibi libertas
DharmaTroll
Cool. Now that sounds like something I'd like to read. Thanks. Almost
every book I read comes from someone suggesting it after a
conversation, who really liked it. "Monster-Barring" sounds awesome,
btw!
> One of Kuhn's sons (I don't know if he in fact had more than one) got his
> Ph.D. in mathematics, specifically topology (his advisor was the redoubtable
> W. P. Thurston), but after a few years went on to medical school, then
> became a psychiatrist and psychotherapist. Four or five years ago I wrote
> him to ask if he'd care to give a talk on what, if anything, his study of
> topology had contributed to how he thought about psychology; he wrote
> back that for him topology had been a disease for which psychology was the
> cure. (Or maybe he had "mathematics" where I have written "topology".)
>
> Lee Rudolph
Hah!
Btw, nobody picked up on the reference in the article I posted
"Experience of wine is always theory-laden". The reference was to
Donald Davidson:
<<As the philosopher Donald Davidson argued, it is ultimately
impossible to distinguish between a subjective contribution to
knowledge that comes from our selves (what he calls our "scheme") and
an objective contribution that comes from the outside world ("the
content"). Instead, in Davidson's influential epistemology, the
"organizing system and something waiting to be organized" are
hopelessly interdependent. Without our subjectivity we could never
decipher our sensations, and without our sensations we would have
nothing to be subjective about. Before you can taste the wine you have
to judge it.>>
I read Donald Davidson in one class years and years ago, and remember
he had a really interesting view on the mind/body problem, called
"anomalous monism," but that's all I remember. However, the
interesting way Davidson explains how our experience is always theory-
laden sounds fascinating, just from the above paragraph from that
article.
Anyway, I just looked up Lakatos on amazon.com and it's really
expensive, so I'll check my local library next time I'm there.
I'd love to do some Monster-Barring around here. Heh.
--DharmaTroll
Q: How many Madhayamka scholars does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: Four --
One to screw it in.
One to not screw it in.
One to both screw it in and not screw it in.
One to neither screw it in nor not screw it in.
Déjà Flu
It occurs to me that you may have asked the wrong question.
Déjà Flu
If you remove "in", it's much more universal and
thus more likely to be published in the next issue
of "The Canon - Buddhist Scripture, Then and Now".
DharmaTroll
It was fantastic. People in fantastic costumes everywhere. And it was
a breast-fest. I doubt medieval wenches really showed so much
cleavage, with the Church reigning and all. Mostly liberals. The
republicans were lots of local uneducated rednecks who didn't wear
costumes and chain-smoked, but they seemed to be having fun too.
However (as usual) everyone was white. I didn't see any hispanics or
asians, and only after about four hours I saw a black couple (they
stood out, not by the color as much as the huge breasts and cleavage
displayed by the black chick).
And I got soooo stoned. As well as drinking an uncountable number of
bee-stings (hard cider spiked with mead). When pissing in the porta-
potties, I would take a couple of hits of very strong hemp, and the
hemp plus bee-stings and the strange costumed characters wandering
around created a fantastic, surreal effect. Lots of nice stuff to see,
but I'm sad to have missed seeing the totally awesome and hot
"Mediaeval Baebes" perform this year; they only played at the opening
weekend. See:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoVYNK0_F8Y
> Just so you know - I don't "call myself" anything - I leave that
> to people like Tang and Robbie. In 67 years I have had thousands
> of experiences that would have blown Robbie's brains all over the
> Walmart Departments and tangled Tang into a Gordian Not.
> They were all - with no exceptions - illusions and delusions.
Well, in my book, asserting that puts you one level closer to reality
than Tang or Robbie, or Kapleau, for not painting wings on the snake.
(Are you sure you didn't open a trans-dimensional portal into
Undifferentiated Fluff, and you're just denying it because the
rational dualistic discursive mind can't handle it?)
> ps:
> Popper sux, do0d ;)
>
> --
> Ubi dubium ibi libertas
Nah. Popper rules. His falsifiability criterion is totally awesome, if
nothing else.
--DharmaTroll
"In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be
falsifiable: and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak
about reality."
-Karl Popper
Julian
Gimme a call next time you're in London.
I'll fix you a date with Katherine.
herbzet
Hollywood Lee wrote:
>
> I'm top-posting because I have nothing to add to the interesting
> discussion below on "what is real?". All fascinating topics. Reminds
> me of the time spent burying myself in essays on ontology and
> epistemology. Philosophical food fights of the highest order.
>
> These are debates that I've generally tried to step back from, since
> I've found more value in developing a simple practice of just attending
> to my breath, becoming calm, reflecting on events, watching my emotions
> arise and fade, then applying what I can moving forward. Less a focus
> on the "what" of the world and more a how to live in it. Don't even use
> a lot of Buddhist terminology in thinking about it.
Thank you for your kind words. -- hz
[...]
Keynes
>DharmaTroll wrote:
>>
>> And I got soooo stoned. As well as drinking an uncountable number of
>> bee-stings (hard cider spiked with mead). When pissing in the porta-
>> potties, I would take a couple of hits of very strong hemp, and the
>> hemp plus bee-stings and the strange costumed characters wandering
>> around created a fantastic, surreal effect. Lots of nice stuff to see,
>> but I'm sad to have missed seeing the totally awesome and hot
>> "Mediaeval Baebes" perform this year; they only played at the opening
>> weekend.
>
>Gimme a call next time you're in London.
>I'll fix you a date with Katherine.
What have you got against Katherine?
Déjà Flu
They may have been my neighbors.
> And I got soooo stoned. As well as drinking an uncountable number of
> bee-stings (hard cider spiked with mead). When pissing in the porta-
> potties, I would take a couple of hits of very strong hemp, and the
> hemp plus bee-stings and the strange costumed characters wandering
> around created a fantastic, surreal effect. Lots of nice stuff to see,
> but I'm sad to have missed seeing the totally awesome and hot
> "Mediaeval Baebes" perform this year; they only played at the opening
> weekend. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoVYNK0_F8Y
Yeeehaaa! I've gone from three to one reactions to that combo.
The remaining one is a 12-hr nap. Very relaxing, even in a public
toilet.
>> Just so you know - I don't "call myself" anything - I leave that
>> to people like Tang and Robbie. In 67 years I have had thousands
>> of experiences that would have blown Robbie's brains all over the
>> Walmart Departments and tangled Tang into a Gordian Not.
>> They were all - with no exceptions - illusions and delusions.
>
> Well, in my book, asserting that puts you one level closer to reality
> than Tang or Robbie, or Kapleau, for not painting wings on the snake.
> (Are you sure you didn't open a trans-dimensional portal into
> Undifferentiated Fluff, and you're just denying it because the
> rational dualistic discursive mind can't handle it?)
My book keeps rewriting itself according to circumstances.
I'm really psyched for the "direct experience" thing, though.
When the LHC lights up, I'm gonna be the first one in the
cloud chamber.
>> ps:
>> Popper sux, do0d ;)
>
> Nah. Popper rules. His falsifiability criterion is totally awesome, if
> nothing else.
He didn't invent it and it's trivial (because it's so universal to
the practice of science). One of the most hypocritical things I can
think of is philosophy (equates to self-organizing religion, imo).
> --DharmaTroll
>
> "In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be
> falsifiable: and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak
> about reality."
> -Karl Popper
One big YAWN for Popper, one obvious reality for science.
I'm crushed that you missed the Vietnam Experience Story up there^
I actually had to look up the quote to make sure I had it right, too.
Mom is recovering from a broken hip - she was 99 on the 13th of
this month and staying with my brother in NJ. We got her a cell
phone because she now needs portability. She looked at it and
quipped, "Samsung? What did he sing?" It seems that zen runs in
the family.
DharmaTroll
He didn't invent it? Falsification is much better a principle than the
Verification principle of the positivists. And if Popper didn't coin
the phrase falsification and bring it into mainstream science, who
did?
> > --DharmaTroll
>
> > "In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be
> > falsifiable: and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak
> > about reality."
> > -Karl Popper
>
> One big YAWN for Popper, one obvious reality for science.
>
> I'm crushed that you missed the Vietnam Experience Story up there^
> I actually had to look up the quote to make sure I had it right, too.
I read it but I didn't quite understand it. Sorry. I figured it was a
reference to something I haven't read or aren't familiar with.
> Mom is recovering from a broken hip - she was 99 on the 13th of
> this month and staying with my brother in NJ. We got her a cell
> phone because she now needs portability. She looked at it and
> quipped, "Samsung? What did he sing?" It seems that zen runs in
> the family.
>
> --
> Ubi dubium ibi libertas
Well, if the phone stops working, tell her "Samsung Rong".
--DharmaTroll
"Happiness is nothing more than good health and a bad memory."
-Albert Schweitzer
Hollywood Lee
You are welcome. I've been visiting usenet for many years and it is
surprising still how little people talk about their practice. I've had
different theories for this. At some level, talking about practice
seems both boring (I was breathing in and out for 3 hours, blah, blah,
blah) and somewhat contradictory (talking about ehat you should be
doing?). There also seems to be little of substance to argue about,
though I'm guessing we could have a tremendous row over the
advantages/disadvantages of counting versus non-counting, eyes
open/closed. But hard to engage in full-throated name calling when
arguing sitting postures unless you are doing yoga - those guys get
downright hostile on the posture stuff.
Julian
Another reason they don't talk about their practice maybe
that they don't practice Buddhism in the first place.
Naturally they want to keep the dubious rascalities
that they do practice well out of the public domain.
Hollywood Lee
Could be. So far, the only real conclusion I feel comfortable with is
that, like most 3rd grade boys, we all enjoy swearing and seem to giggle
at scatological humor.
Lee Rudolph
>Another reason they don't talk about their practice maybe
>that they don't practice Buddhism in the first place.
>Naturally they want to keep the dubious rascalities
>that they do practice well out of the public domain.
Great dubiety, great rascality.
That about covers my practice, all right. Thank!
Lee Rudolph
DharmaTroll
Yoga folks are so twisted!
However, there have been rifts over the smallest details in practice,
not just among the fools that post here, but among real live monks. In
the recent Sixth Council, Mahasi Sayadaw implimented a couple of
changes. The first, and important change, was to include lay folks in
dedicated meditation practice. Tons of monasteries and centers were
open to lay folks, and meditation was no longer the elite practice of
the monks.
The second change Sayadaw implemented had to with the practice of
anapanasati, or meditation on the breath. Traditionally, the technique
involves focusing on the inbreath and outbreath at the nostrils,
feeling the breath enter and exit. Sayadaw changed the practice to
watching the breath rise and fall in the abdomen. The reason was that
these days folks were doing too much concentration practice with
focusing on the nostrils, and getting too addicted to the
concentration and not getting enough insight/mindfulness meditation in
the mix; whereas if focusing on the abdomen, watching it rise and fall
each breath, made it easier to pay attention to lots of other
sensations and thus include more vipassana than serenity/fluff
concentration practice in the sitting: the higher amount of vipassana
would hopefuly lead to deeper insights.
Sayadaw's simple introduction of this "rise and fall" technique
created quite an uproar of squabbling and debates by monks, even
though it was also backed up in the suttas. By the time I was in
college and attended my first 10-day vipassana retreat, the teachers
simply said, "you can try paying attention to the breath at the
nostrils, or you can pay attention to the chest and note 'rising,
falling'," as if this is how it had always been done. I didn't know
about squabbling and bickering over this change until a decade later
when I read about it.
--DharmaTroll
zenworm
"dubious rascalities"
what an exquisitely delicious frame
ZN
absolute permanent perfection overflowing without action
Hollywood Lee
Yeah, I suppose we could argue about almost anything. Scratches head.
Hey, what do you think of Windows 7 in comparison to Snow Leopard?
Anyway. Do the differences in meditation technique ever lead to
accusations of someone not being a true Buddhist? For example, is a
meditation technique like tonglen likely to get someone agitated like
our discussions about Luminous Mind or the Unborn?
Hollywood Lee
It's those danged English. Always so good with the put-down phrasing.
I've already copied this for use in my next planning meeting.
Julian
The Nichies have done nothing else for 700 odd years.
Damn right too.
zenworm
some clarification please
second paragraph above you write:
"Sayadaw changed the practice to watching the
breath rise and fall in the [abdomen]*."
third paragraph you write:
"the teachers simply said, "you can try paying
attention to the breath at the nostrils, or you can
pay attention to the [chest]* and note 'rising, falling'"."
* square brackets added to highlight focus of clarification
gratitude
ZN :D
Julian
The teacher was taking into consideration the schism
and realised that what ever he said would be wrong
for some of the punters so he equivocated.
Hollywood Lee
So they must be pretty good at it? The accusing, anyway?
>
> Damn right too.
You're going to have to do better than that if you want a food fight.
Julian
5 or 10 years ago, perhaps. Now I can't be bothered. I've delegated.
Hollywood Lee
Sort of a "have your minions talk to my minions" sort of thing? Good move.
Julian
He was.
zenworm
and the nefarious delineation of :
"kept well out of the public domain"
contextually masterful
ZN :D
Julian
Was it Confusius who said "Why have a dog and bark yourself?"
Déjà Flu
Check out Sekida's, "Zen Practice"
I had actually 'discovered' his method(s) on my own and was
pretty amazed when I came across his book in the 70's.
Julian
One minute Zazen.
With your eyes wide open, stare at something in the distance:
the corner of the building outside the window, a point on a hill,
a tree or a bush, or even a picture on thew wall.
At the same time stop, or nearly stop, breathing, and with your
attention concentrated on that point, try to prevent ideas from
coming into your mind.
You will find that you really are able to inhibit thoughts from
starting. You may feel the beginnings of some thoughtlike action
stirring in your mind, but that too can be kept under control.
Reperated practice will give you the power to inhibit the
appearance of even the fainted shadow of thought.
Déjà Flu
W7 won! (at least in the comparison I read).
> Anyway. Do the differences in meditation technique ever lead to
> accusations of someone not being a true Buddhist? For example, is a
> meditation technique like tonglen likely to get someone agitated like
> our discussions about Luminous Mind or the Unborn?
Prolly (op cit The Tibetan Period (late mesozoic))
DharmaTroll
I meant the abdomen when I said chest -- maybe 'torso' is the best
word. You can pay attention to the sensations of expanding and
contracting in the body when the breath comes and goes, or you can
focus on the sensations in the nostrils, which was the traditional
practice.
--DharmaTroll
Lee Rudolph
>I meant the abdomen when I said chest -- maybe 'torso' is the best
>word. You can pay attention to the sensations of expanding and
>contracting in the body when the breath comes and goes, or you can
>focus on the sensations in the nostrils, which was the traditional
>practice.
True adepts can distinguish the sensations emanating from each individual
hair in the nostrils.
Lee Rudolph
Déjà Flu
The pipe organ is one of my favorite instruments.
DharmaTroll
No, any technique like tonglen, as far as I've experienced real live
folks that do the practice, seems to make them feel connected to
others, and not more dogmatic or superstitious.
One interesting case about this, though. Quite recently, some real
life friends of mine invited the Trollpa (disguised, of course, as a
clumsy, mild-mannered geek called 'Tom') to a weekly gathering to do
'metta'. Well at first it sounded good, as I've done metta-bhavana on
many occasions for years, and find it helpful. I find it helpful
because starting with oneself and moving to a friend or benefactor,
and expanding to neutral and then unpleasant folks, it allows me to
find and relax prejudices and judgments I have and to feel closer and
more connected to folks by developing the brahma-vihara of loving-
kindness. So far so good.
Well, this woo-woo chick said she was sick of the teachers talking of
metta as a way to do what I was saying, to help the meditator develop
loving-kindness. She babbled something about faith healing, and then
said that metta sounded too selfish, and that her plan was for
everyone to together focus their 'metta energies' and "send their
combined 'metta healing energies' to specific people to heal them."
Well, you can imagine my reaction, this wacko witchipoo trying to
desecrate the dharma by turning it into some kinda faith-healing
crystal-channeling woo-woo magic esp session. I told her that this was
a crock, and that adding New-Age superstitions mades me wanna puke,
and totally missed the point of that practice, which is to develop the
brahma-vihara of loving-kindness in oneself.
She countered that, "ok, then, don't come, and we'll just focus our
metta energies on you to improve your attitude."
So I counter-countered, "ok, let's make it a contest then. I'm going
to go buy a barbie-doll and turn it into a voo-doo doll of you and I'm
going to cast spells and stick pins in it, while you do your woo-woo.
We'll see whether my attitude changes or you get sick first."
Everybody laughed, but the woo-woo chick actually got all nervous and
whispered to me a minute later, "please don't make a voo-doo doll of
me".
Anyway, a couple other friends who were there later said, "that was
really funny. I've never seen you stand up to New-Age silliness so
harshly before."
"Did I overdo it?" I asked.
"Nah, you were hilarious."
"Cool," I replied. "I used to do that all the time, just not with
ditsy dharma-babes in real life. I played a woo-woo-bashing SuperHero
character called DharmaTroll on usenet groups, which are filled with
every kind of superstitious whack jobs, rude bastards, and even a few
folks that like to seriously discuss Buddhist practice or philosophy
once in a while. I oughtta try that again sometime."
And here I am. Muahahahahahahahah!
--DharmaTroll
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith: I
consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile!"
-Kurt Vonnegut
Allen Barker
> On 10/26/2009 6:00 PM, herbzet wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hollywood Lee wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm top-posting because I have nothing to add to the interesting
>>> discussion below on "what is real?". All fascinating topics. Reminds
>>> me of the time spent burying myself in essays on ontology and
>>> epistemology. Philosophical food fights of the highest order.
>>>
>>> These are debates that I've generally tried to step back from, since
>>> I've found more value in developing a simple practice of just attending
>>> to my breath, becoming calm, reflecting on events, watching my emotions
>>> arise and fade, then applying what I can moving forward. Less a focus
>>> on the "what" of the world and more a how to live in it. Don't even use
>>> a lot of Buddhist terminology in thinking about it.
>>
>> Thank you for your kind words. -- hz
>
> You are welcome. I've been visiting usenet for many years and it is
> surprising still how little people talk about their practice.
Well, at least you didn't call them midgets...
> I've had
> different theories for this. At some level, talking about practice
> seems both boring (I was breathing in and out for 3 hours, blah, blah,
> blah) and somewhat contradictory (talking about ehat you should be
> doing?). There also seems to be little of substance to argue about,
> though I'm guessing we could have a tremendous row over the
> advantages/disadvantages of counting versus non-counting, eyes
> open/closed. But hard to engage in full-throated name calling when
> arguing sitting postures unless you are doing yoga - those guys get
> downright hostile on the posture stuff.
In addition to the above,
* It is difficult to talk about experiences outside of language.
* People may not want to seem to be guilty of "spiritual bragging"
or "spiritual oneupmanship."
* The whole, tiresome "zazen isn't necessary" debate might get
set off again in alt.zen.
* Cast not pearls before swine. ;-)
Does your practice, as described above, have a formal component,
such as sitting meditation, or is it a general mindfulness
practice?
My own practice is daily zazen, usually shikan-taza style. It
seeps off the mat and into daily life in its usual, insidious
ways. I think much less in words these days than I used to,
for example (when I "think" at all).
Hollywood Lee
> Hollywood Lee wrote:
>> On 10/26/2009 6:00 PM, herbzet wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hollywood Lee wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm top-posting because I have nothing to add to the interesting
>>>> discussion below on "what is real?". All fascinating topics. Reminds
>>>> me of the time spent burying myself in essays on ontology and
>>>> epistemology. Philosophical food fights of the highest order.
>>>>
>>>> These are debates that I've generally tried to step back from, since
>>>> I've found more value in developing a simple practice of just attending
>>>> to my breath, becoming calm, reflecting on events, watching my emotions
>>>> arise and fade, then applying what I can moving forward. Less a focus
>>>> on the "what" of the world and more a how to live in it. Don't even use
>>>> a lot of Buddhist terminology in thinking about it.
>>>
>>> Thank you for your kind words. -- hz
>>
>> You are welcome. I've been visiting usenet for many years and it is
>> surprising still how little people talk about their practice.
>
> Well, at least you didn't call them midgets...
Hehe. I love the imprecision of language.
>
>> I've had different theories for this. At some level, talking about
>> practice seems both boring (I was breathing in and out for 3 hours,
>> blah, blah, blah) and somewhat contradictory (talking about ehat you
>> should be doing?). There also seems to be little of substance to argue
>> about, though I'm guessing we could have a tremendous row over the
>> advantages/disadvantages of counting versus non-counting, eyes
>> open/closed. But hard to engage in full-throated name calling when
>> arguing sitting postures unless you are doing yoga - those guys get
>> downright hostile on the posture stuff.
>
> In addition to the above,
>
> * It is difficult to talk about experiences outside of language.
>
> * People may not want to seem to be guilty of "spiritual bragging"
> or "spiritual oneupmanship."
>
> * The whole, tiresome "zazen isn't necessary" debate might get
> set off again in alt.zen.
>
> * Cast not pearls before swine. ;-)
>
>
> Does your practice, as described above, have a formal component,
> such as sitting meditation, or is it a general mindfulness
> practice?
Depends. It is more a general mindfulness practice, but when I travel
as much as I'm doing lately, I find that sitting meditation helpful,
though I don't sit for extended periods. At night in hotels, I often
lie down and listen to a yoga nidra practice that my wife recorded for
me. Not into yoga, but the yoga nidra practice is much like the
scanning practice discussed several weeks ago here. Very relaxing.
>
>
> My own practice is daily zazen, usually shikan-taza style. It
> seeps off the mat and into daily life in its usual, insidious
> ways. I think much less in words these days than I used to,
> for example (when I "think" at all).
My waking life is a life or words, so I envy you.
Hollywood Lee
I thought you won over the DFH chicks with your awesomeness. Must be a
testosterone loss?
Lee Rudolph
Déjà Flu
Just another topology of the swinette?
Déjà Flu
In Japanese zen, the hara (lower abdomen) is the center of
both breathing and concentration, as it is in Japanese martial
arts. There is nothing about the course of breath there. It's
about muscle control - mastering autonomic regulation. In proper
(normal) breathing, there is no "chest breathing" at all, but it
seems many people get into the habit of it - perhaps through
stress learning?
Chest breathing is labored breathing, controlled by the muscles
of the upper torso and neck. Among other things, you can't even
sit properly if you're doing that. At 67, I can still sit for
almost 5 minutes without an inhale. Chest breathing is *certainly*
not related to buddhist breath practice.
ps:
And catching flies with chopsticks is *so*, like, "We used to do
that in 3rd grade lunch, do0d!"
DharmaTroll
Nah. If you want to seduce woo-woo chicks you pretty much have to be
dishonest and smile a lot and go along with their bullshit. In college
sure, but I don't have the stomach for that anymore. Hence, I am
single most of the time, except for those rare occasions where I meet
someone who is both eccentric (and more important, accepting of
eccentricity) and authentic.
A few years ago, a very pretty blond girl was flirting with me. She
was a woo-woo 'life coach'. Now she flirted with a friend of mine as
well, who lives in my neighborhood and is an artist,and a really laid-
back nice guy. We compared stories.
Well, the woo-woo chick asked my artist friend to her apartment. She
asked him about his art and if he ever did portraits. He said no, not
usually, but he could always try. She immediately pulled off her shirt
and then stripped naked in front of him. He told her that he was
involved with a girlfriend, and that this wasn't appropriate, and he
left.
She invited me to her place too. After a few minutes, she was sitting
on her couch, in a sexy get-laid posture, and then she actually
mentioned that there was the ghost of a dead person sitting next to
her. I questioned what she meant. She said, "don't you watch John
Edward on TV, how he channels the ghosts of dead people?"
I explained that dead people had died, and weren't hovering over her
couch. And that I'd read all about John Edward: how he has
confederates that pretend to be audience members and probe the
grieving folks on his show for info before the show; how his session
lasts for 3 hours, but only 45 minutes of it is aired on TV, as all
the 'misses' of his cold-reading are edited out, and the 'hits'
broadcast; and how everyone has to sign a waver that they can't sue
him, so when they find out he's a fraud they can't sue for taking
advantage of them when they were grieving.
At that point, instead of stripping and showing me here fine round
breasts and her blond bush and dragging me to her bedroom, she instead
stood up, folded her arms and nervously said, "you have to go now: I
don't think we can be friends until you read John Edward's book and
see what a wonderful psychic he is and the miracles he provides by
contacting the spirits of loved ones of people." I explained that if I
read his book, I'd only be that much more familiar with how he dupes
people and this would threaten her even more. "Get out!" she screamed.
So I'm afraid that while my laid-back artist friend got her to bare
her tits and I just got her to foam at the mouth like a rabid dog.
Alas, I don't get as many dates. But I'm selective, and I do end up
once in a while knowing interesting, authentic women who I don't have
to deceive or go along with their bullshit, but can be honest with.
Btw, after I told this story, my artist friend said that I didn't have
it that bad. "You know, Trollpa, she stalked me for a month, calling
me up at 1 in the morning and showing up to every public art opening
of mine and following me around. It was embarrassing. So I saw her
pubic hair: big deal. I saw her naked, but it only took you 5 minutes
to get her to bare her soul, and reveal what a wacko she was. And then
she left you alone."
And so my artist friend and I both envy each others' style. The grass
is greener on the other side of the fence kind of thing.
I suppose I'd rather be single, unless it's someone that I can connect
with; and I'd rather be a bit lonely most of the time, than to jump in
bed with woo-woo-chicks and have to deal with their issues. No amount
of sex would be worth that.
--DharmaTroll
"If only we'd stop trying to be happy we could have a pretty good
time."
-Edith Wharton
Hollywood Lee
There has to be a good song in there somewhere.
zenworm
it is truly wonderful to see someone
enjoying what they do
hilarious
barbie marketers are sure to be scrambling
to take advantage of the
anti ditsy dharma-babe
new-age woo-woo defense
voodoo barbie doll market
Keynes
wrote:
It's possible to disagree without being disagreeable.
But then what would you do with your self-righteous anger?
Keynes
"Hello, pretty lady. Has anyone told
you lately how really stupid you are?..."
DharmaTroll
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:46:07 -0700 (PDT), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
I'd love to see you actualize that possibility just once, Nutter-Dude.
Or at least apologize for calling me a liar, when I told you I
answered all your talking points and refuted all your make-believe
physics, after I gave you the link and reposted it twice. Keynes, you
and Dick Cheney are the only two folks I know that when caught
screwing up won't come clean and say "Oops, I was wrong." No, that
would be too 'dualistic' of you, eh?
> But then what would you do with your self-righteous anger?
Me, angry? When? Looks like you're just seein' your own face in my
sunglasses once again. Looks like I'm not the only one that gets the
Keynes "you-you-you" treatment around here. I see you give the Tang-
banger the same -- what would you call it -- "self-righteous anger"?
Keynes to Tang:
> You are not at all disinterested, and you are not
> advancing the dharma. Your idea of equanimity is too
> dualisticly rational. Your rationalization of what you see
> in the either-or manner is far from unbiased. You think
> you know right from wrong, don't you? You really don't
> know what you're talking about. And in that process you
> are doing damage to others and especially to yourself.
Let's see, You are...Your idea is too...Your rationalization... You
think you know... You really don't... you are doing damage...
That's 6 for 6 sentences with the Keynes' "you-you".
Continuing (Keynes to Tang):
> You are up to your eyeballs in dualistic judgmentalism,
> and of the most cheap and dirty kind possible.
> You claim to understand others and to judge them,
> but you don't even understand yourself. Do you?
> Grow up and look after yourself. Nobody else can do it for you.
> You won't ever get any better by making others look worse.
So what were you saying about "self-righteous anger", Nutter-Dude?
--DharmaTroll
"Both madmen and geniuses see something that no one else does. The
difference, of course, is whether or not it's actually there."
-Michael Wikoff
Keynes
wrote:
>On Oct 27, 9:36 pm, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
I'll let you do the talking.
Lee Rudolph
>And catching flies with chopsticks is *so*, like, "We used to do
>that in 3rd grade lunch, do0d!"
Ah! the third choice that was eluding me a few weeks ago!
Honey or vinegar? Neither. CHOPSTICKS, FUCKHEAD.
Lee Rudolph
DharmaTroll
You mean like Meredith Brooks' "Cosmic Woo-Woo"?
http://new.music.yahoo.com/meredith-brooks/tracks/cosmic-woo-woo--1718235
Spirituality is a henna tattoo
That you wash off when you find something new to get into
Standing in the field with your flashlight blinking
'Cuz somebody told you the aliens were thinking they'd want you
In the end it doesn't really matter what you say or what you wear
So you think Big G gives a - how you get there
Brahmanism, Shamanism, Hinduism,
Health Foodism, Lennonism, Sexism
What about your own ism
Just get real
Don't be a cosmic woo woo
Be who you are let everybody deal
Speak with your own voice just get real
Just get real like this
When I was fifteen I made my mother rant
'Cuz I joined a cult gave me words to chant to reach Heaven
So I used them for the lotto and won big money
They shouted you're in don't worry honey
This ain't 7-11 get in and out
Pop psychology words don't mean anything
When you throw them around to be cool
What goes around comes around
That's what they say
Catholicism, Footballism, Judaism, Racism, Manism, Womanism
What about Humanism
Just get real
Don't be a cosmic woo woo
Be who you are let everybody deal
Speak with your own voice just get real
Just get real don't be a cosmic woo woo
Be who you really are let everybody deal
Speak with your own voice just get real
Cosmic Woo Woo
Just get real
--DharmaTroll
Keynes
wrote:
>On Oct 27, 7:38 pm, Hollywood Lee <hollywood...@gmail.com> wrote:
Watch out!
There's a cat behind the sofa!
Appledog
> Hollywood Lee wrote:
> > On 10/26/2009 6:00 PM, herbzet wrote:
>
> >> Hollywood Lee wrote:
>
> >>> I'm top-posting because I have nothing to add to the interesting
> >>> discussion below on "what is real?". All fascinating topics. Reminds
> >>> me of the time spent burying myself in essays on ontology and
> >>> epistemology. Philosophical food fights of the highest order.
>
> >>> These are debates that I've generally tried to step back from, since
> >>> I've found more value in developing a simple practice of just attending
> >>> to my breath, becoming calm, reflecting on events, watching my emotions
> >>> arise and fade, then applying what I can moving forward. Less a focus
> >>> on the "what" of the world and more a how to live in it. Don't even use
> >>> a lot of Buddhist terminology in thinking about it.
>
> >> Thank you for your kind words. -- hz
>
> > You are welcome. I've been visiting usenet for many years and it is
> > surprising still how little people talk about their practice. I've had
> > different theories for this. At some level, talking about practice
> > seems both boring (I was breathing in and out for 3 hours, blah, blah,
> > blah) and somewhat contradictory (talking about ehat you should be
> > doing?). There also seems to be little of substance to argue about,
> > though I'm guessing we could have a tremendous row over the
> > advantages/disadvantages of counting versus non-counting, eyes
> > open/closed. But hard to engage in full-throated name calling when
> > arguing sitting postures unless you are doing yoga - those guys get
>
> Another reason they don't talk about their practice maybe
> that they don't practice Buddhism in the first place.
> Naturally they want to keep the dubious rascalities
> that they do practice well out of the public domain.
That, and those who do talk about their practice still get attacked.
I've talked about my practice at different levels from what it is I do
to what happens to me when I do it, and the response is usually the
same (from the peanut gallery anyways).
So, putting aside why non-buddhists don't talk about their practice
(as you say, it's obvious, because they don't practice), why don't
practising buddhists do it? Simple - the riff raff isn't worth it
(opportunity cost) and the buddhists already know what to do. In
short, there's no point.
I mean come on - who among us is trying to learn more about buddhism?
Why, you can even get flamed here just for trying to start a
discussion about the four noble truths or the eightfold path!
-
Appledog
> that, like most 3rd grade boys, we all enjoy swearing and seem to giggle
> at scatological humor.
No, not all of us.
-
herbzet
Appledog wrote:
> Julian wrote:
> > Hollywood Lee wrote:
Yes, but to get flamed for that, you have to put in some effort.
One has to pay one's dues, as you have.
--
hz
herbzet
True -- some of us have a broomstick lodged up their ass.
--
hz
Appledog
What would you rather have - some swearing, incompetent, sub-developed
spiritual loser telling you that you have a broomstick up your ass, or
having to face the reality of what kind of a person you really are?
:-)
-
Appledog
I do find it interesting, I admit, how you continuously justify what
would otherwise be self-evidently stupid, self-defeating behavior.
-
herbzet
Appledog wrote:
> herbzet wrote:
> > Appledog wrote:
> > > Hollywood Lee wrote:
> > > > ... So far, the only real conclusion I feel comfortable with is
> > > > that, like most 3rd grade boys, we all enjoy swearing and seem to giggle
> > > > at scatological humor.
> >
> > > No, not all of us.
> >
> > True -- some of us have a broomstick lodged up their ass.
>
> What would you rather have - some swearing, incompetent, sub-developed
> spiritual loser telling you that you have a broomstick up your ass, or
> having to face the reality of what kind of a person you really are?
>
> :-)
Your choice, bubba.
--
hz
halfawake
> On Oct 22, 1:14 am, halfawake <epstein...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>DharmaTroll wrote:
>>
>>
>>> ...You reject me as an objectivist because I say
>>>than when I pet the 'cat' I actually pet a cat.
>>
>>Did I ever object to your petting your cat or say that your cat wasn't
>>real? Or that your cat doesn't still exist when it "goes" behind the
>>couch? :) You're putting words in my mouth and that is just as
>>impolite as my Aunt stuffing my mouth with potato salad at the family party.
>
>
> Yes, you called me an "objectivist".
> On this list, that means someone that thinks cats are real.
> I asked you to clarify. So clarify. Don't have a hissy fit.
>
>
>>> So positing my cat is
>>>to much realism for you,
>>
>>are you sure you want to spell "to" that way?
>>did I ever object to your "positing" your cat?
>
>
> So my spell checker doesn't catch homophones
>
> Yes, you called me an 'objectifvist'.
> Now stop being a passive-aggressifist.
>
>>Why are you making up a whole bunch of horseshit that I never said and
>>then attributing it to me? Is that the only way you can make your point
>>which bears no relation to anything I actually said? I feel so used!
>
>
> You called me an objectivist, Robert. I asked you to clarify. Until
> you do, the word 'objectivist' means "someone who thinks we aren't in
> the Matrix, and that cats are real, and not illusions."
I'll tell you what, DT, I think it is taking advantage in a ridiculous
way to use my calling you an objectivist as an excuse to attribute all
kinds of specific bullshit to me that I never said. Hopefully I don't
cite the most extreme examples and attribute them to you based on you
saying that "cats are real." I don't think you're a Skinnerian for
instance, but I could make that up if I wanted an excuse.
Oh so only cats are real? That would be another stupid example. What
about dogs? You saying I believe in Ineffable ... Realms based on
calling you an Objectivist is equally ridiculous.
>
>
>>> but positive whole Ineffable Transcendental
>>>Realms of Ultimate Objective Reality, well, that's ok because you
>>>don't claim to know what it is.
>>
>>Did I say anything about a Transcendental Realm of Ultimate Reality?
>
>
> Yeah, you mentioned an Awareness 'beyond' consciousness.
Well, positing awareness beyond Buddha's categories of kandhas just
means that there could be something beyond that definition of
consciousness; doesn't have to be something ineffable, just beyond our
current scope, as Buddha himself said, beyond our range of experience.
>
>
>>You are really a fake little arguer, dude. What I said was reasonable
>>and didn't warrant your attack any more than anything else I said:
>
>
> I didn't attack you, Robert. I described my experience of what you
> said.
yeah right, you made up reams of horseshit extrapolated all by yourself
from a single premise. Gimme a break.
>
>
>>which was basically that I don't discount the possibility that someone
>>who has a profound realization experience has experienced something that
>>is actual. In other words, that it is not wholly fictititious and is
>>really a transformative experience. Why should I discount it? I'm not
>>saying it's true or begging you to disprove a negative. But I don't
>>dismiss it out of hand either.
>
>
> A transformative experience is fine. As long as there aren't claims to
> have gained infallible knowledge of objective truth, that's all.
> That's what the nutters have been claiming about such experiences.
Depends on what is experienced and what the truth they are claiming is.
If it is logically sound it may be objective; depends on what
conclusions are reached and what the evidence for them are.
Again, I don't prejudge that if I don't know what the hell they're
talking about and they are long-standing respected figures in the
tradition. I'd rather try to find out than assume I know.
>
>
>>And I don't do what you do and make stuff up about one of the leading
>>teacher's realization being caused by "sleep deprivation." How on earth
>>are you in a position to postulate that, oh Objective one?
>
>
> I didn't claim that was the cause. I'm saying that the stress and
> sleep deprivation are part and parcel of zen sesshins, and that people
> under those experiences tend to have altered states experiences.
That in itself is a gigantic presumption. Any documentatation that
would lead to such a generalization? Any objective studies, or just an
occasional anecdote?
I'm
> simply saying that there is no reason to cling to beliefs in woo-woo
> when there are simpler explanations.
You need evidence for the simpler explanations. You can't just make
them up and say they are more likely only because they are simpler.
That is bullshit.
Same with the faith-healers on
> TV.
Well even there you don't know the explanation unless you know it. That
is something different than saying 'looks to me like this guy is full of
shit.' That's your personal view and mine too, but I don't claim
objective knowledge of what takes place any more than I ascribe it to him.
>
>
>>> If I say I don't really know what the
>>>cat is, I just pet it, then is that ok too, Robert? Heh.
>>
>>I really don't give a fuck what you say about your cat,
>
>
> Then don't call me an objectivist.
> Or else clarify your terms, ya big baby.
It's someone who is attached to a view of only scientifically approved
facts and materially demonstrated units being actual. Not someone who
utilizes such knowledge, but creates a framework out of them that
doesn't allow for possibilities that may have a more subtle and less
easily demonstrable nature.
The science of today is fine as far as it goes - in fact, it's awesome,
but it doesn't encompass the scope of what is, and everyone knows that,
especially scientists. When you jump to conclusions about the reality
of other possibilities without any attempt to look into them, you go
Objectivist. That is a loose definition for the moment.
>
>
>>>>>>These question are difficult to investigate with any rigor, but
>>>>>>I think they are well worth finding rigorous terms with which to
>>>>>>investigate them, if that is indeed possible.
>>
>>>>>>Best,
>>>>>>Robert
>>
>>>>>>= = = = = = = = = = = = =
>>
>>>>>Well, when we are in altered states, new creative ideas and ways of
>>>>>seeing things bubble up, and can be amazingly transformative, sure. I
>>>>>just object when one adds an objectivist claim of certainty of
>>>>>knowledge about God or Ultimate Reality or whatever.
>>
>>>>How about an uncertain claim of an objective potential,
>>>>of which we can be agnostic until we find a way to confirm
>>>>one way or the other?
>>
>>>Well, that's always been exactly my position, Robert, even though
>>>believers slander me and say I dismiss things without accepting them
>>>as even possible, which is patently false.
>>
>>You're in an incredibly defensive and preachy mood today, DT.
>
>
> Not at all. You accused me of being an 'objectivist' and I'm
> questioning why you think it's a problem that I think cats are real,
> and not a figment of your imagination.
Well I didn't say that. That's all.
Period. Let's talk about what it means to be attached to facts and
proofs that are agreed upon and proved with the current set of
pressupositions about what is real, without any acknowledgment, except
cursory, of other things we're not able to perceive or measure at the
moment.
>
>
>> I'm gonna sign off until you come down from your soapbox, okay?
>
>
> Robert, sober up or whatever. If you call me a name, and don't
> clarify, I go with the default connotation.
What you think it is anyway and then turn it into a weapon. That's fine,
but it is also pure polemic.
So don't accuse me of
> things and then have a hissy fit when I ask for clarification.
Accusing me of not believing that cats are real and that ghosts and
thingies are based on one word is not "asking for clarification." That
is more disingenuous nonsense. Next time ask for clarification for
real, and you won't have to make believe I'm having a hissy fit when I
object to being told I believe in ghosts and don't believe in cats.
It's retaliatory and nothing more.
What's
> wrong with you? You actually made intelligent posts last night. Now
> you sound like the lying flamers, such as Keynes or Herbzet.
It's because when you go off on a bullshit polemical accusational rant,
making things up out of whole cloth, I just don't like it. Nothing more
or less.
Best,
Robert
= = = = = = = = = =
DharmaTroll
> DharmaTroll wrote:
> > On Oct 22, 1:14 am, halfawake <epstein...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>DharmaTroll wrote:
> > I'm simply saying that there is no reason to cling to beliefs
> > in woo-woo when there are simpler explanations.
>
> You need evidence for the simpler explanations.
No, I don't. All I need is to demonstrate that a simpler explanation
is possible and reasonable to dismiss the complex one.
> You can't just make them up and say they are more
> likely only because they are simpler.
Yes! That's exactly what I can do! And need to do.
And it's the most devastating, rational argument possible!!!
> That is bullshit.
No, its the best way to discredit nonsense, in fact. Famous case in
point. Phony psychic Uri Geller would 'bend spoons' in front of
audiences to demonstrate his claim that he had genuine paranormal
psychic powers, namely, that he was telekinetic. He convinced
thousands by bending the spoons in front of them.
Along came the DharmaTroll's guru, The Amazing Randi!
Randi said, "I can do the same trick in the same way, but without any
woo-woo powers. Watch!" And Randi showed his trick and reproduced
Uri's trick precisely. Randi destroyed Uri's claims, but never by
disproving anything, only by showing that there was a simpler
explanation. Uri's presupposition, like all woo-woo-ists, is that no
simple natural explanation exists, and hence we should be open to
supernatural explanations. Randi's now famous crushing line was:
"Uri Geller may have psychic powers by means of which he can bend
spoons; if so, he appears to be doing it the hard way."
With that statement, plus a spoon-bending demonstration and the
natural simple trick employed, Randi ripped the presupposition rug out
from under Uri, and Uri fell on his ass and was utterly discredited.
Randi didn't even have to show that Uri used Randi's trick, you see.
All Randi had to do was demonstrate his own simple trick, and Uri's
claims to woo-woo came crashing down like a house of Tarot Cards.
This is the crucial point, Robert. The rest of our dispute here is
silliness. This is the salient point. I don't need to 'disprove' your
woo-woo either. I just need to rip your magic carpet of presupposition
out from under you, and you fall to the ground instead of float to the
deva planes. I never have to disprove anything.
> > Same with the faith-healers on TV.
>
> Well even there you don't know the explanation unless you know it.
Again, I don't have to know the explanation in this case: I merely
have to demonstrate a simpler, more likely one. Here, I have a
religious nutter making claims about magical beasties, and then making
attributions of causation of 'miracle cures' causes by such magical
beasties, without any evidence whatsoever, only by anecdotes,
testimonies, and post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacies. In that
case, I can strongly point out that while the claim is logically
possible, there are tons of more likely natural explanations than the
woo-woo claim. And I can do so easily. Again, that's all I need to
discredit a TV faith healer: show a simpler, natural, more plausible
explanation. I never have to have "objective knowledge" of the falsity
of his woo-woo. I never have to "prove a negative" which is a
logically impossible feat, but what the nutters dishonestly ask for.
> That is something different than saying
> 'looks to me like this guy is full of shit.'
It's is never a matter of "looks to me like this guy is full of shit".
It's all about -why- this guy is full of shit. It's not that I
randomly have an opinion. It's that this guy uses invalid reasoning
and posits entities without evidence, and so forth. And then positing
a more reasonable, simpler explanation.
> That's your personal view and mine too, but I don't claim
> objective knowledge of what takes place any more than
> I ascribe it to him.
Again, I look at -how- he reasons, and if the argument is invalid and
unsound, I can safely say that his claim is no more than a logical
possibility, as he has no good evidence. I'm not claiming to have
'objective knowledge'. I'm just saying that the chances of him having
it are less than the chance of my winning the lottery.
The point is that "the onus is on the woo-woo-ist" to demonstrate his
monsters or magic or transcendence, and never on the rational,
skeptical good guy to 'prove a negative'. Or as I like to say, "the
onus is on the anus" in the case of pompous religious assholes.
If we can get a sample of its DNA, I'll acknowledge that it's probably
real, whatever the critter. Even better, my test I've used since
college when discussing critters: if it poops, it's a real critter; if
it don't poop, it's a make-believe critter. There has never been an
exception to that rule yet, so it's a really reliable guideline.
> You saying I believe in Ineffable ... Realms based on
> calling you an Objectivist is equally ridiculous.
I'm asking you to give evidence for whatever it is you posit.
> >>> but positive whole Ineffable Transcendental
> >>>Realms of Ultimate Objective Reality, well, that's ok because you
> >>>don't claim to know what it is.
>
> >>Did I say anything about a Transcendental Realm of Ultimate Reality?
>
> > Yeah, you mentioned an Awareness 'beyond' consciousness.
>
> Well, positing awareness beyond Buddha's categories of kandhas just
> means that there could be something beyond that definition of
> consciousness; doesn't have to be something ineffable, just beyond our
> current scope, as Buddha himself said, beyond our range of experience.
Then show your evidence. That's like positing aliens in flying
saucers. Show some evidence. You're doing what the Buddha refused to
ever do: posit something that can't be known by experience.
> >>You are really a fake little arguer, dude. What I said was reasonable
> >>and didn't warrant your attack any more than anything else I said:
>
> > I didn't attack you, Robert. I described my experience of what you
> > said.
>
> yeah right, you made up reams of horseshit extrapolated all by yourself
> from a single premise. Gimme a break.
No, I'm asking you to explain what the hell you're talking about.
If you call my serious demands for reasoning as "you are just a fake
little arguer" then prepare to endure a shit-storm. You know that I'm
not fake, and I'm not little, and I'm intelligent and rational and
argue well. So what I hear when I read that is, "I'm an insult-hurling
nutter askin' for a clobbering."
> >>which was basically that I don't discount the possibility that someone
> >>who has a profound realization experience has experienced something that
> >>is actual. In other words, that it is not wholly fictititious and is
> >>really a transformative experience. Why should I discount it? I'm not
> >>saying it's true or begging you to disprove a negative. But I don't
> >>dismiss it out of hand either.
>
> > A transformative experience is fine. As long as there aren't claims to
> > have gained infallible knowledge of objective truth, that's all.
> > That's what the nutters have been claiming about such experiences.
>
> Depends on what is experienced and what the truth they are claiming is.
> If it is logically sound it may be objective; depends on what
> conclusions are reached and what the evidence for them are.
>
> Again, I don't prejudge that if I don't know what the hell they're
> talking about and they are long-standing respected figures in the
> tradition. I'd rather try to find out than assume I know.
I'm not saying that I prejudge anything. But being "long-standing
respected figures" doesn't mean shit. All that matters is how he knows
and what his evidence is, not just that he's a respected witch-doctor
or yogi or guru.
That's why folks believe whatever the Pope says. Hell, it wasn't until
a philosophy of religion class in college that I found out how and
when the Pope claimed that "Infallibility" status. It was on July 18,
1870, if I recall (and not a lineage going back to St. Peter, as the
nuns taught me in grade school). The Pope was losing power and there
were these charismatic political figures that created an emotional
fervor like Obama does today: Napoleon in France; Bismark in Germany;
Garibaldi in Italy. The Pope wanted a piece of the action. It was
purely political. 60-something cardinals walked out on the Pope when
he made the declaration. But all this has been long covered up to the
general population, and the Pope is seen as someone with authority,
even infallibility, because of his long-standing respected status. I
know you probably mean some advaita vedanda woo-wooist, but it's the
same thing, different sect.
> >>And I don't do what you do and make stuff up about one of the leading
> >>teacher's realization being caused by "sleep deprivation." How on earth
> >>are you in a position to postulate that, oh Objective one?
>
> > I didn't claim that was the cause. I'm saying that the stress and
> > sleep deprivation are part and parcel of zen sesshins, and that people
> > under those experiences tend to have altered states experiences.
>
> That in itself is a gigantic presumption.
> Any documentatation that would lead to such a generalization?
Yeah, there's tons of documentation that religious folks under stress
have visions, hallucinations, and altered states. It's found all
throughout history. And no evidence for any of their claims, ever.
> >>> If I say I don't really know what the
> >>>cat is, I just pet it, then is that ok too, Robert? Heh.
>
> >>I really don't give a fuck what you say about your cat,
>
> > Then don't call me an objectivist.
> > Or else clarify your terms, ya big baby.
>
> It's someone who is attached to a view of only scientifically approved
> facts and materially demonstrated units being actual. Not someone who
> utilizes such knowledge, but creates a framework out of them that
> doesn't allow for possibilities that may have a more subtle and less
> easily demonstrable nature.
Science is only an extension of the senses. I'm saying, if there isn't
evidence for something, like some Transcendental Realm, and only
feelings and interpretations made by biased religious folks in altered
states, then we have no reason to posit objective entities or
'Realms', unless we have actual evidence that our feelings and
interpretations actually are referring to something objective
independent of our minds. That's all, Robert.
>
> The science of today is fine as far as it goes - in fact, it's awesome,
> but it doesn't encompass the scope of what is, and everyone knows that,
> especially scientists. When you jump to conclusions about the reality
> of other possibilities without any attempt to look into them, you go
> Objectivist. That is a loose definition for the moment.
No, I go 'agnostic', which is to say that for which there is no
evidence, and the only reason we even talk of is from myth and holy
books, shoudn't be considered to exist or even be remotely likely to
exist, but should still be held open as a logical possibility, in case
evidence turns up.
>
>
> >>>>>>These question are difficult to investigate with any rigor, but
> >>>>>>I think they are well worth finding rigorous terms with which to
> >>>>>>investigate them, if that is indeed possible.
>
> >>>>>>Best,
> >>>>>>Robert
>
> >>>>>>= = = = = = = = = = = = =
>
> >>>>>Well, when we are in altered states, new creative ideas and ways of
> >>>>>seeing things bubble up, and can be amazingly transformative, sure. I
> >>>>>just object when one adds an objectivist claim of certainty of
> >>>>>knowledge about God or Ultimate Reality or whatever.
>
> >>>>How about an uncertain claim of an objective potential,
> >>>>of which we can be agnostic until we find a way to confirm
> >>>>one way or the other?
>
> >>>Well, that's always been exactly my position, Robert, even though
> >>>believers slander me and say I dismiss things without accepting them
> >>>as even possible, which is patently false.
>
> >>You're in an incredibly defensive and preachy mood today, DT.
>
> > Not at all. You accused me of being an 'objectivist' and I'm
> > questioning why you think it's a problem that I think cats are real,
> > and not a figment of your imagination.
>
> Well I didn't say that. That's all.
> Period. Let's talk about what it means to be attached to facts and
> proofs that are agreed upon and proved with the current set of
> presupositions about what is real, without any acknowledgment, except
> cursory, of other things we're not able to perceive or measure at the
> moment.
Well, that's a loaded statement right there: it's as if you're saying
"cats only seem real because of presuppositions (but probably aren't)
and ghosts only seem unreal (but probably are) because we're not able
to perceive or measure spooks at the moment."
> >> I'm gonna sign off until you come down from your soapbox, okay?
>
> > Robert, sober up or whatever. If you call me a name, and don't
> > clarify, I go with the default connotation.
>
> What you think it is anyway and then turn it into a weapon. That's fine,
> but it is also pure polemic.
Weapon? I'm just asking you to clarify your woo-woo.
> > So don't accuse me of
> > things and then have a hissy fit when I ask for clarification.
>
> Accusing me of not believing that cats are real and that ghosts and
> thingies are based on one word is not "asking for clarification."
Yeah it is. When you just throw out a label, "objectivist" and I ask
you what the hell you mean, like do I get called that if I think cats
exist independent of our minds and observations, you could answer the
question without having a hissy fit, Robert.
> That
> is more disingenuous nonsense. Next time ask for clarification for
> real, and you won't have to make believe I'm having a hissy fit when I
> object to being told I believe in ghosts and don't believe in cats.
> It's retaliatory and nothing more.
Then articulate what you mean, and think twice before calling me
names! Hell, just think once: that would be better than nothing.
>
> > What's
> > wrong with you? You actually made intelligent posts last night. Now
> > you sound like the lying flamers, such as Keynes or Herbzet.
>
> It's because when you go off on a bullshit polemical accusational rant,
> making things up out of whole cloth, I just don't like it. Nothing more
> or less.
I'm trying to discuss this stuff, and I don't go off on a "bullshit
polemical accusational rant". I try to ask you for clarification and
point out how shocking and crazy to me some of the stuff you say is.
>
> Best,
> Robert
>
> = = = = = = = = = =
--DharmaTroll
"To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving
medicine to the dead."
-Thomas Paine
Keynes
First a belief in spirits and gods.
Next a belief in no-spirits and no-gods.
Finally no-belief in beliefs.
oxtail
> First a belief in spirits and gods.
> Next a belief in no-spirits and no-gods. Finally no-belief in beliefs.
Probably none of the above.
--
oxtail
Keynes
Oooo. Emptiness.
zenworm
beliefless
halfawake
> I'm trying to discuss this stuff, and I don't go off on a "bullshit
> polemical accusational rant". I try to ask you for clarification and
> point out how shocking and crazy to me some of the stuff you say is.
Making a bunch of cute, fun woo-woo examples that are not addressing
anything I actually say is not "asking for clarification." It's having
fun by circumventing the actual content. We have some good direct
discussions and I enjoy that, but watching you amuse yourself by making
up extreme equivalents to everything that is said gets boring.
Robert
DharmaTroll
Actually I did ask for clarification. Show me how your woo-woo is any
differrent from my 'bunch of cute, fun woo-woo examples". Clarify them
instead of whining. And I placed first in my post the most important
point, and you didn't respond to that at all. Again:
> That is bullshit.
--DharmaTroll
halfawake
> On Nov 4, 3:01 am, halfawake <epstein...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>DharmaTroll wrote:
>>
>>>I'm trying to discuss this stuff, and I don't go off on a "bullshit
>>>polemical accusational rant". I try to ask you for clarification and
>>>point out how shocking and crazy to me some of the stuff you say is.
>>
>>Making a bunch of cute, fun woo-woo examples that are not addressing
>>anything I actually say is not "asking for clarification." It's having
>>fun by circumventing the actual content. We have some good direct
>>discussions and I enjoy that, but watching you amuse yourself by making
>>up extreme equivalents to everything that is said gets boring.
>>
>>Robert
>
>
> Actually I did ask for clarification. Show me how your woo-woo is any
> differrent from my 'bunch of cute, fun woo-woo examples". Clarify them
> instead of whining. And I placed first in my post the most important
> point, and you didn't respond to that at all. Again:
>
>
>>>I'm simply saying that there is no reason to cling to beliefs
>>>in woo-woo when there are simpler explanations.
>
>
>>You need evidence for the simpler explanations.
>
>
>
>
> No, I don't. All I need is to demonstrate that a simpler explanation
> is possible and reasonable to dismiss the complex one.
You are making up a general case. The reason one explains things in a
particular manner is because of how it appears experientially. I don't
confuse my dreams with mystical experiences, because I understand them
as being essentially mental phenomena, and they appear that way in the
transition from sleep to wake and vice versa. Other experiences do not
appear that way. I tend to explain them in terms of what they are,
rather than how they can be logically reduced by someone with a
particular mindset. I can make up a simpler explanation for things that
are totally untrue. That is not an adequate cause for dismissing
experiential explanations.
>
>
>
>>You can't just make them up and say they are more
>>likely only because they are simpler.
>
>
>
> Yes! That's exactly what I can do! And need to do.
> And it's the most devastating, rational argument possible!!!
>
>
>
>>That is bullshit.
>
>
>
> No, its the best way to discredit nonsense, in fact. Famous case in
> point. Phony psychic Uri Geller would 'bend spoons' in front of
> audiences to demonstrate his claim that he had genuine paranormal
> psychic powers, namely, that he was telekinetic. He convinced
> thousands by bending the spoons in front of them.
>
> Along came the DharmaTroll's guru, The Amazing Randi!
>
> Randi said, "I can do the same trick in the same way, but without any
> woo-woo powers. Watch!" And Randi showed his trick and reproduced
> Uri's trick precisely. Randi destroyed Uri's claims, but never by
> disproving anything, only by showing that there was a simpler
> explanation. Uri's presupposition, like all woo-woo-ists, is that no
> simple natural explanation exists, and hence we should be open to
> supernatural explanations. Randi's now famous crushing line was:
>
> "Uri Geller may have psychic powers by means of which he can bend
> spoons; if so, he appears to be doing it the hard way."
If you can replicate my claim or experience with an actual
demonstration, of course I would accept it as a plausible alternative.
You have to demonstrate that it will actually have that effect, as Randi
did there, not just say it is simpler, which could be a fantasy.
More tomorrow.
Robert
herbzet
halfawake wrote:
> DharmaTroll wrote:
> > No, I don't. All I need is to demonstrate that a simpler explanation
> > is possible and reasonable to dismiss the complex one.
>
> You are making up a general case. The reason one explains things in a
> particular manner is because of how it appears experientially. I don't
> confuse my dreams with mystical experiences, because I understand them
> as being essentially mental phenomena, and they appear that way in the
> transition from sleep to wake and vice versa. Other experiences do not
> appear that way. I tend to explain them in terms of what they are,
> rather than how they can be logically reduced by someone with a
> particular
ax to grind
> mindset. I can make up a simpler explanation for things that
> are totally untrue. That is not an adequate cause for dismissing
> experiential explanations.
--
hz
halfawake
>
> The point is that "the onus is on the woo-woo-ist" to demonstrate his
> monsters or magic or transcendence, and never on the rational,
> skeptical good guy to 'prove a negative'. Or as I like to say, "the
> onus is on the anus" in the case of pompous religious assholes.
The problem as I see it, leaving aside broad claims of hard
rebirth/reincarnation, ghosts and devas, Gods and hell dimensions, etc.,
is that almost any radical spiritual experience can be written off as a
neurological phenomena, or a hallucination. It is just as impossible
for the person who experiences 'special states' to show that they have
any concrete reality, or that the realizations discovered are actual, as
it is for you to "prove the negative" that you feel no obligation to
prove. Therefore, if there is a broader type of perception that is
something other than a purely psychophysical distortion, the only means
we have on either side of deciding its status is one of belief or
disbelief. You can't prove a negative and the person who experiences a
special state can't prove its verity. And never the twain shall meet.
Best,
Robert
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Allen Barker
Why are you so worried about it then? If one has a great
satori, then he or she is (almost by definition) out of the
mainstream of thought.
Why do you care about the phony "consensus reality," except
as skillful means?
Do you imagine that, after having a great satori, you will
suddenly be able to convince the intellectuals of your great
insight? At best you will be able to use skillful means.
In the Zen tradition, that takes even longer to develop.
How's your zazen practice going? ;-)
zenworm
wrote:
if our eyes were big/sensitive enough to see all the stars
no matter how distant all at once, and we walked ouside
at night and looked up, would we see what appears to be
the inside of one large star with us at the center?
Allen Barker
zenworm
vortex unmoving
abundance overflowing
pendulum still
Tang Huyen
halfawake wrote:
> The problem as I see it, leaving aside broad
> claims of hard rebirth/reincarnation, ghosts
> and devas, Gods and hell dimensions, etc.,
> is that almost any radical spiritual experience
> can be written off as a neurological phenomena,
> or a hallucination. It is just as impossible for
> the person who experiences 'special states' to
> show that they have any concrete reality, or
> that the realizations discovered are actual, as
> it is for you to "prove the negative" that you
> feel no obligation to prove. Therefore, if there
> is a broader type of perception that is something
> other than a purely psychophysical distortion,
> the only means we have on either side of
> deciding its status is one of belief or disbelief.
> You can't prove a negative and the person who
> experiences a special state can't prove its verity.
> And never the twain shall meet.
If one experiences some state that is out of the
ordinary and superlative, then one experiences
some state that is out of the ordinary and
superlative. It is purely subjective and strictly
sentimental, and has nothing objective out there
to pin it down to. If one wants to call it calm,
peace, harmony, serenity, bliss, eternity, grace,
freedom, or whatever, one may do so, but why
bother about truth, reality or verity? It may well
correspond to some proclictivity of the human
mind (therefore is a universal, even if a concrete
universal and not an abstract universal), in the
direction of the release from the ordinary, and
the release from the bondage to the ordinary,
and the ordinary can be just the norms and
standards of the ordinary mind, so that the
release from the bondage to the ordinary is just
the release from the norms and standards of the
ordinary mind, but other than that, such state
has no objective implication to it, rather is purely
subjective and strictly sentimental, and has
nothing objective out there to pin it down to. No
truth, no reality, no verity, just the good feeling
(eupatheia), which, just because of such
isolation (and yes, purity), can be in and of itself,
without regard for anything else -- it makes no
reference to anything else. In a sense, one can
say that it is pure self-reference.
If some others have the same feeling, it can be
shared with them. If some others want to get
the same feeling (which entails that they hear
about it and take it to be good, even superlative,
something worthwhile to get), then they can be
taught to get it (even if it takes much effort to
get it, only to find out that it is effortlessness). If
some others dismiss it as lunatic or whatever,
free of them to do so, since there is no standard
and reference that such state refers to and
therefore it cannot be adjudged in the ordinary
norms and standards -- it is outside of the
ordinary norms and standards. Either way, any
judgement about it is arbitrary, since, as already
said, it is outside of the ordinary norms and
standards -- outside of ordinary categories -- and
to reduce it to ordinary norms and standards is to
force-fit into the ordinary what is outside of the
ordinary. (Sorry for all the tautologies, but here
there can only be tautologies).
Another way to look at the situation is that truth,
reality and verity pertain to the realm of facts,
whereas we are here outside of the realm of
facts, we are in the realm of meaning and value
(even if such state is outside of meaning and
value, though if we try to fit it into some
category anyway, to make sense of it to
ourselves, the closest category that it could fit in
would be the category of meaning and value, not
the category of facts).
There was this exchange:
[DharmaTroll:]
> > >Funny, I wouldn't call that enlightenment.
> > >I'd call it narcissism.
["^@%>---*=#**" (Jen):]
> > even funnier that you don't find
> > enlightenment narcissistic.
[DharmaTroll:]
> >> Not at all. Enlightenment is the non-arising of
> >> craving, aversion, and delusion; and since
> >> craving tends to be narcissistic, as well as
> >> aversion, enlightenment would entail less
> >> narcissism and more genuine interconnection
> >> with the real world.
["^@%>---*=#**" (Jen):]
> > nope
[DharmaTroll:]
>Yep. Enlightenment is the non-arising of craving,
>aversion, and delusion; and since craving tends to
>be narcissistic, as well as aversion, enlightenment
>would entail less narcissism and more genuine
>interconnection with the real world.
["^@%>---*=#**" (Jen):]
nope [End of quote]
Such state, or anything like it, is self-referential,
narcissistic, as it does not make reference to
anything else. There is no self around, yet the
state is self-referential, narcissistic. It is to be
experienced, and it is useless, perhaps worse
than useless, to try to wrap your mind around it.
Tang Huyen
DharmaTroll
wrote:
Tang and I agree on most of this, but I have a few areas of
contention. I'll reply to Rob's post first:
> DharmaTroll wrote:
>
>>> The point is that "the onus is on the woo-woo-ist" to demonstrate his
>>> monsters or magic or transcendence, and never on the rational,
>>> skeptical good guy to 'prove a negative'. Or as I like to say, "the
>>> onus is on the anus" in the case of pompous religious assholes.
>
> halfawake wrote:
> > The problem as I see it, leaving aside broad
> > claims of hard rebirth/reincarnation, ghosts
> > and devas, Gods and hell dimensions, etc.,
> > is that almost any radical spiritual experience
> > can be written off as a neurological phenomena,
> > or a hallucination.
But that will either be right or wrong. By definition, all real
experiences, like kissing a real girl, as well as hallucinations, like
kissing an imaginary hallucinated girl, are neurological phenomena.
(I'm assuming none of us are completely bonkers and thus we all accept
psychophysical supervenience, that is, if you had had a different
thought or experience, then different neurons would fire -- or some
other different physical state would have occurred).
However, to be a hallucination, the brain would have to create the
experience without the experience being actually caused by something
'radical'. So indeed, if you hallucinated my telepathically speaking
to you, then you merely had thoughts or pseudo-auditory sensations
which you interpreted (wrongly) as coming from me. But if I did
telepathically speak to you, then I caused, by means of esp or
whatever, you to have those pseudo-auditory sensations, much as when I
cause you to hear me when I send longitudinal compression waves of air
to your ears from my vocal chords. So we could in principle
distinguish between your hallucinating and my sending you a telepathic
message.
Similarly, we could in principle discern between your having an
experience of a woo-woo realm, and your hallucinating an experience of
the woo-woo realm. But as we would have to demonstrate telepathy
first, we would have to demonstrate the existence of the woo-woo
realm. And here is where I cry foul, because you 'in closed loop' as
Tang tends to say, are going to define your woo-woo realm according to
the interpretations of your experience. And that, sir, is question-
begging in the first degree!
> > It is just as impossible for the
> > person who experiences 'special states' to
> > show that they have any concrete reality,
Not at all. The CIA was duped at one point into putting research money
into "remote viewing" which is a nutter claim that people can sense
physical landscape at a huge distance, doing this by telepathy or out-
of-body "astral-travel", etc. Turns out, their hits were based on
interpretations of the vague descriptions they made, and nobody
demonstrated any remote viewing. The CIA was embarrassed when the woo-
woo was exposed, and canceled the program, and went back to building
more expensive satellites.
What you're in essence saying here, Rob, is "I can make up any woo-woo
I want and it's impossible for me to verify it". No, if there were
something to it, then you could verify it, such as drawing a map of of
the craters on the moon that precisely matched the best satellite
photos, etc.
> > that the realizations discovered are actual, as
> > it is for you to "prove the negative" that you
> > feel no obligation to prove. Therefore, if there
> > is a broader type of perception that is something
> > other than a purely psychophysical distortion,
> > the only means we have on either side of
> > deciding its status is one of belief or disbelief.
Again, no. Let's say that you see something I can't. I, and the rest
of the deludeds you hang out with, are colorblind, but you can see
these beautiful shades of red and green. I say "you're a nutter,
Robbie -- they are just gray." You insist, "no, I see red and green,
and they aren't gray and they are nothing like the shades of gray we
experience, and they are real, and they are beautiful". And I say,
"you've really lost it this time, with your woo-woo talk of 'red' and
'green'. Heh!"
Now, it's easy to tell if you're a nutter or have special insights. I
take gray blocks that are indistinguishable to me and which you call
'red' or 'green'. I write 'G' on the bottom of what you call the green
ones. I write 'R' on the bottom of what you call the red ones. Then I
mix up the blocks so that neither of us knows which are which.
One of two things happens. Maybe you randomly correctly pick out the
half the blocks with 'G' on the bottom as green and the other half of
them as red. Then I say, "Nope, sorry Robbie, but you're woo-woo talk
about 'colors' is without evidence. Come back when you have some."
Or, you pick out every block with a 'G' on the bottom as green. And we
repeat it with other seemingly identical objects, and you do the same.
And I carefully rule out fraud. Then I conclude, "Wow! Rob, you truly
do experience something called 'red' and 'green' which I can't. That's
amazing!!!"
Anything that is real, and isn't just arbitrary interpretation, is
going to show up passing a test like that. The talk of 'red' and
'green' is meaningful precisely because it is falsifiable -- you could
have failed the test and been shown that your claim is probably an
arbitrary interpretation. Now if you're telling me that your
experience is unfalsifiable, that it could not ever connect to reality
-- then by definition it's just interpretation -- meaningful in a
poetic way to you -- but not saying anything about the nature of
reality.
> > You can't prove a negative and the person who
> > experiences a special state can't prove its verity.
But if they can't even formulate a falsifiability test, much less pass
it, you can know that you're talking about nonsense, and not about the
real world, about how things really are. The Creationists are like
that, with their preposterous claim that Bible myth is on par with
evolution and should be taught side by side with evolution as an equal
and alternate theory. But it isn't a theory at all. Because if you
expose it to a falsifiability test, the Creationists simply make up a
new story. A test might be, "if the Universe is 6000 years old, then
we should see those and only those stars within 6000 light years of
us". Well, it fails, as we see stars from billions of light years
away. So the story is changed: "God put the light in motion, so that
it appears as if the world was older. Same with fossils." Well, rather
than be rightly rejected, now a new story is created with that
appendage, and it can never be disproven. So if you are saying, Rob,
that you are creating a totally unfalsifiable claim, then you are also
saying that you are therefore creating a meaningless (except to you
poetically) claim that is mere interpretation, not based on anything
at all.
> > And never the twain shall meet.
But if you had an experience of something real and extraordinary, then
like the red and green blocks, you in principle can pass a
falsifiability test -- that won't have proven it, as it maybe can't be
proven -- but it would be enough for me to say, "Wow, Rob, you really
are experiencing something real, and out of the ordinary." There is
one interesting case, where your particular direct sensations (qualia)
might be unverifiable, but you could still pick out correctly
something real -- I'll get to that next when I deal with the
Tangster's reply.
The Tang-banger mentates:
> If one experiences some state that is out of the
> ordinary and superlative, then one experiences
> some state that is out of the ordinary and
> superlative. It is purely subjective and strictly
> sentimental, and has nothing objective out there
> to pin it down to.
Yes, that is the point that I am making. That we experience (see, hear
smell, taste, feel, and think), and then we make interpretations, but
that there isn't necessarily anything objective about our
interpretations.
Hell, Rob and I couldn't even in principle agree that we have the same
visual experience when we see a rainbow, even if we describe the
rainbow's shape and colors and even if we describe feeling the same
emotions concerning it. And not just because we're such hard-headed
dogmatists, either.
Suppose our brain experiences visual qualia (qualia are 'direct
experiences' of sensations, the 'raw feels' such as 'redness' or
'salty') differently, with spectra inverted from each other. That is,
when Rob sees red, I see blue; when Rob sees orange, I see green, and
our yellows and purples are the same. So my rust is his teal, etc.
Notice that Rob and I could NEVER discover this from talking. We both
point to a stop sign and agree "that is red". And we both point to a
grassy lawn and say "that is green". Thus Rob and I conclude that we
are seeing the same thing. And in terms of seeing the same mind-
independent objective grass or stop-sign that is still there when we
aren't experiencing it, we are correct. But we might be experiencing
completely opposite inverted spectra, so that what Rob experiences
when he sees grass is what I experience when he sees orange, and what
Rob experiences when he sees the stop sign is what I experience when
he sees blue.
Note that each of our spectra is in 'closed-loop' as you say, Tang,
yet our consistencies can be objectively tested, so that Rob and I
will pick out the stop sign and (correctly) agree that it is 'red'. So
the stop sign in a way is objectively red (has a frequency of 430-480
THz), even though we might individually have completely different, and
in this case opposite, direct experiences (qualia) of the stop sign.
We can never compare qualia. Because of this, I am tempted to say that
our experiences (the raw feels or qualia) don't even exist, and are
simply "purely subjective and sentimental" but this is ok as long as
they are consistent (and Robbie will probably freak out if I take an
eliminativist attitude towards qualia). But if any of you wish to read
more on this, check out:
http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/quinqual.htm
> If one wants to call it calm,
> peace, harmony, serenity, bliss, eternity, grace,
> freedom, or whatever, one may do so, but why
> bother about truth, reality or verity?
Well, the phenomenon of "denial" is one huge reason to bother, Tang.
You see, even in the case where we can't tell if we're experiencing
the same raw qualia, we can still be in denial if we insist that the
stop sign is not red, and that it really says 'yield' on it. We will
still get a ticket and have to pay the fine (or worse, if we ran the
stop sign and ran over someone), even if in closed-loop we declare it
to be a yellow yield sign.
And a great example is in your case, Tang, where you claim to be
serene, and in closed-loop, but you seem to get all hot and bothered
by other posters, enough to go on rants about them for years after
they are gone, making up bogus biographies of them. How many posts
would I find that say "Fu and Dharmatroll..." or "Dharmatroll and
Jigme..." or "Jigme (the fake Dharmatroll)" or "Fu, Dharmatroll,
Jigme, and Sphere..." and on and on. More than enough for a diagnosis
of Aspergers and OCD than for one of "serenity in closed-loop", don't
you think? Or are you the only one who is seeing a yield sign, eh? But
I don't mean to hijack the thread to pick on you. All sorts of folks
claim all sorts of experiences, or that they are enlightened or on
higher spiritual levels, and then claim authority based on that. The
phony guru Adi Da claimed to be the first American to be fully
enlightened, and then he went on to form a cult where he raped several
women, all in the name of spirituality, of course. Yet the infamous
Adi Da babbled all the serenity stuff and talked about being one with
everything and so forth.
So we have two interesting questions. (1) The personal one: do you,
having experienced your experiences, have good reason to believe your
interpretations of your experiences as true (including interpretations
that you don't interpret, but directly access objective truth/
reality)? And, (2), the social one: do we, not having experienced your
experiences, have good reason to believe you or to consider you to be
enlightened, or to consider you to be deluded? (The 'you' here refers
to any 'one'.) Both are interesting questions.
> It may well
> correspond to some proclictivity of the human
> mind (therefore is a universal, even if a concrete
> universal and not an abstract universal), in the
> direction of the release from the ordinary, and
> the release from the bondage to the ordinary,
> and the ordinary can be just the norms and
> standards of the ordinary mind, so that the
> release from the bondage to the ordinary is just
> the release from the norms and standards of the
> ordinary mind, but other than that, such state
> has no objective implication to it, rather is purely
> subjective and strictly sentimental, and has
> nothing objective out there to pin it down to.
Sorry Tang, but I can't make sense of that loooong sentence. Maybe
you're saying: since we normally experience the 'ordinary', we have to
use those ordinary experiences as a yardstick, and we can then discern
anomalous experiences from them, but maybe we labeled them because we
were stuck in our fixed concept of 'ordinary', and there isn't really
anything so special about them after all. I don't know if that's what
you were saying.
> No truth, no reality, no verity,
> just the good feeling (eupatheia),
I've never seen that word, 'eupatheia', except as the name of a rock
band. Maybe you meant to say 'euphoria'? Is that correct, Tang?
> which, just because of such
> isolation (and yes, purity), can be in and of itself,
> without regard for anything else -- it makes no
> reference to anything else. In a sense, one can
> say that it is pure self-reference.
Again there is the problem of 'denial'.
> If some others have the same feeling,
> it can be shared with them.
How? If it were pure self-reference, it couldn't possibly ever be
shared. Hell, it couldn't really be talked about. If you say "serene"
or "happy", then you are referencing some objective behavior that we
all can witness, such as smiling, relaxed posture, petting kittens,
etc. But that involves lots of interpretation, tethering body language
and physical behavior to internal phenomenological experiences. Again,
look at my inverted spectra of qualia example above, where we could
never be able to tell if we are experiencing the exact same qualia as
each other, but we certainly can pick out the same objects and thus
demonstrate that whatever qualia we do each experience, we each
consistently continue to experience the same qualia.
> If some others want to get
> the same feeling (which entails that they hear
> about it and take it to be good, even superlative,
> something worthwhile to get),
Again, how do they know they are talking about the same thing?
> then they can be taught to get it
Or they can be taught to get what ever it is they associate with the
words uttered by the initial experiencer. That in no way guarantees
they will have the same experience. What you really mean here is that
they will exhibit the same behavior and body language, isn't it?
> (even if it takes much effort to get it,
> only to find out that it is effortlessness). If
> some others dismiss it as lunatic or whatever,
> free of them to do so, since there is no standard
> and reference that such state refers to and
> therefore it cannot be adjudged in the ordinary
> norms and standards -- it is outside of the
> ordinary norms and standards.
In that case, then nobody would know what the hell they are talking
about. In a sense, that's what happens with capital-lettered terms,
such as God. I say "I have experienced God," and you say, "yes, I have
experienced God too," and Rob says, "yes, I have experienced God as
well -- we have proved that God Exists!" But not only have we proved
nothing, we don't even know if we are talking about similar
experiences! More reasonable for us to describe our experiences, and
then say "we all felt euphoria". But that's no fun because it doesn't
claim that we have objective knowledge of some trans-empirical
reality. (Well, no fun to the woo-woo-ist, that is.)
> Either way, any
> judgement about it is arbitrary, since, as already
> said, it is outside of the ordinary norms and
> standards -- outside of ordinary categories -- and
> to reduce it to ordinary norms and standards is to
> force-fit into the ordinary what is outside of the
> ordinary. (Sorry for all the tautologies, but here
> there can only be tautologies).
Unless you talk about behavior again. And then you have 'denial'. That
guy Adi Da (again, an arbitrary example) can claim to be serene, and
then he rapes women in his cult, and we can watch him have a hissy fit
and throw things and break them, and we can legitimately say he is 'in
denial', that his interpretations and beliefs about his bliss and
serenity are simply and clearly mistaken. (We could choose to
participate in his denial, and claim that his hissy fits and raping
were 'lessons' for which we can't understand the reason because we
aren't yet enlightened as is he -- indeed many of his minions argued
just along those lines -- but I claim the minions were also in denial
is a more likely and reasonable explanation.)
> Another way to look at the situation is that truth,
> reality and verity pertain to the realm of facts,
> whereas we are here outside of the realm of
> facts, we are in the realm of meaning and value
Ok, I think it's important to discern between fact and value, yes.
Though I don't buy the conclusions that you draw from this
distinction.
> (even if such state is outside of meaning and
> value, though if we try to fit it into some
> category anyway, to make sense of it to
> ourselves, the closest category that it could fit in
> would be the category of meaning and value, not
> the category of facts).
Yes, our all saying "I experienced God" might be an example of this,
as if we all feel some euphoric feelings, we might interpret it that
way (if you don't like the 'G' word, then imagine we each say "I
experienced Oneness with Everything" -- same kind of ambiguity).
> There was this exchange:
>
> [DharmaTroll:]
>
> > > >Funny, I wouldn't call that enlightenment.
> > > >I'd call it narcissism.
>
> ["^@%>---*=#**" (Jen):]
>
> > > even funnier that you don't find
> > > enlightenment narcissistic.
>
> [DharmaTroll:]
>
> > >> Not at all. Enlightenment is the non-arising of
> > >> craving, aversion, and delusion; and since
> > >> craving tends to be narcissistic, as well as
> > >> aversion, enlightenment would entail less
> > >> narcissism and more genuine interconnection
> > >> with the real world.
Now what I was saying here was that certain behavior would be seen
from awakening. Indeed, given my definition as the lack of or non-
arising of craving, hatred, and delusion, the behavior would be the
lack of behavior that exhibits craving, aversion, and delusion. If I
saw someone get angry, and start a fight and punch someone, I would
pretty reasonably conclude that he/she was not an 'awakened'.
> Such state, or anything like it, is self-referential,
> narcissistic, as it does not make reference to
> anything else.
Yeah it does. It means that an awakened wouldn't be an angry asshole
that goes around kicking puppies, for one thing. So we could easily
rule out someone as not awakened. We may not ever be able to prove
they are awakened, though. That is, that they continue to pass
falsifiability tests (don't do things that would expose them as
deludeds) leads us more and more to think they may be awakened, but we
can never know with certainty. (One reason we can't know for sure is
that we can't predict the exact behavior of an awakened, because the
nature of being awakened is to be free of rigid habits and dogma, and
only if one followed a rigid system could we predict their behavior
precisely.)
> There is no self around, yet the
> state is self-referential, narcissistic.
That's not exactly what I mean by narcissistic. Indeed, without a self
around, there would be a deeper connection (and less distinction)
between self and other, which is what I mean by less (or no)
narcissism. You have to be isolated, split-off, to be narcissistic.
> It is to be
> experienced, and it is useless, perhaps worse
> than useless, to try to wrap your mind around it.
>
> Tang Huyen
But if you wrap your hand around your fantasy, it can still be
enjoyable. As Woody Allen said, "Don't knock masturbation: it's sex
with someone I love."
--DharmaTroll
"Our belief in any particular natural law cannot have a safer basis
than our unsuccessful critical attempts to refute it."
-Karl Popper
DharmaTroll
> DharmaTroll wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 3:01 am, halfawake <epstein...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>DharmaTroll wrote:
>
> >>>I'm trying to discuss this stuff, and I don't go off on a "bullshit
> >>>polemical accusational rant". I try to ask you for clarification and
> >>>point out how shocking and crazy to me some of the stuff you say is.
>
> >>Making a bunch of cute, fun woo-woo examples that are not addressing
> >>anything I actually say is not "asking for clarification." It's having
> >>fun by circumventing the actual content. We have some good direct
> >>discussions and I enjoy that, but watching you amuse yourself by making
> >>up extreme equivalents to everything that is said gets boring.
>
> >>Robert
>
> > Actually I did ask for clarification. Show me how your woo-woo is any
> > differrent from my 'bunch of cute, fun woo-woo examples". Clarify them
> > instead of whining. And I placed first in my post the most important
> > point, and you didn't respond to that at all. Again:
>
> >>>I'm simply saying that there is no reason to cling to beliefs
> >>>in woo-woo when there are simpler explanations.
>
> >>You need evidence for the simpler explanations.
>
> > No, I don't. All I need is to demonstrate that a simpler explanation
> > is possible and reasonable to dismiss the complex one.
>
> You are making up a general case. The reason one explains things in a
"How it appears" is mostly based on how you have been conditioned to
interpret it, so your description is mostly of your past conditioning
rather than of your present experience, and I'm trying to sort it all
out, that's all.
> I don't confuse my dreams with mystical experiences,
Or with waking experiences, because in dreams, your kitchen might turn
into a stadium or something.
> because I understand them as being essentially mental phenomena,
Which is the 'them'? Mystical experiences? Or dreams? and by
"essentially mental phenomena" do you mean you are saying that your
mystical experiences are essentially hallucinations? If so, then
what's the problem here? I thought you were trying to claim that by
'mystical' you are arguing that you have opened some trans-dimensional
portal and have certain knowledge of trans-empirical realms (i.e.,
communed with God, etc.).
> and they appear that way in the
> transition from sleep to wake and vice versa.
> Other experiences do not appear that way.
So you're saying that your dreams are different than waking states?
> I tend to explain them in terms of what they are,
> rather than how they can be logically reduced by
> someone with a particular mindset.
Is that a personal attack? Are you once again going to insult me and
call that an argument? Or are you admitting that having a particular
mindset you interpret strange experiences as woo-woo? (Were you to
admit something as simple as this, we would be in agreement and you
wouldn't have to constantly insult me every post, you know.)
> I can make up a simpler explanation for things that
> are totally untrue. That is not an adequate cause for
> dismissing experiential explanations.
But there is no experiential explanation!!! There is only experience
('yellow', 'warm', 'tingling', 'euphoria', etc.) and then your
interpretations based on your past conditioning, books you've read,
etc. So first, you can't pretend to not be making an extremely biased
interpretation. Second, if an interpretation is both simpler and
completely explains the same set of data just as well, only then is
the simpler one a lot more likely to be true. Just being simpler alone
means nothing in itself. It has to have at least equal explanatory
efficacy.
> >>You can't just make them up and say they are more
> >>likely only because they are simpler.
>
> > Yes! That's exactly what I can do! And need to do.
> > And it's the most devastating, rational argument possible!!!
>
> >>That is bullshit.
>
> > No, its the best way to discredit nonsense, in fact. Famous case in
> > point. Phony psychic Uri Geller would 'bend spoons' in front of
> > audiences to demonstrate his claim that he had genuine paranormal
> > psychic powers, namely, that he was telekinetic. He convinced
> > thousands by bending the spoons in front of them.
>
> > Along came the DharmaTroll's guru, The Amazing Randi!
> > Randi said, "I can do the same trick in the same way, but without any
> > woo-woo powers. Watch!" And Randi showed his trick and reproduced
> > Uri's trick precisely. Randi destroyed Uri's claims, but never by
> > disproving anything, only by showing that there was a simpler
> > explanation. Uri's presupposition, like all woo-woo-ists, is that no
> > simple natural explanation exists, and hence we should be open to
> > supernatural explanations. Randi's now famous crushing line was:
>
> > "Uri Geller may have psychic powers by means of which he can bend
> > spoons; if so, he appears to be doing it the hard way."
>
> If you can replicate my claim or experience with an actual
> demonstration, of course I would accept it as a plausible alternative.
Well, the Onus is on the Asshole, remember? So far, all you've done is
talked about your dogma-based interpretation of your experiences. And
when I ask you what the hell you're talking about, you insult me.
> You have to demonstrate that it will actually have that effect, as Randi
> did there, not just say it is simpler, which could be a fantasy.
Have what effect?
What I am saying is that if you say "God talked to me", the simpler
explanation is that you are hallucinating, and the more complicated
one is that an Omniscient Beastie sent you an objective communication.
For one thing, you have to posit this infinite Beastie, which just by
definition is more complex than the entire universe, and then you have
to explain how this non-physical Beastie could possibly send a signal
to your brain. (Or you could just keep adding more beasties, like
your "soul" which was in communion with "God", and then you have to
explain how your 'soul', not being physical, could possibly interact
with your body. And so forth.)
In your case, by saying 'mystical', I understand you to claim
objective certain knowledge about some trans-empirical realm. And so I
want you to produce this realm, in the same way I would ask you to
produce a unicorn if you said you had a vision of a unicorn, and it
wasn't simply imagination but was a vision of a real unicorn.
So far, you've just said, "I have these experiences and because I have
these feelings about them I call them mystical". So why do you see
them as woo-woo, Robert? Why after having them don't you instead say,
"that was the experience of being in love", for instance?
Show me your magic carpet!
> More tomorrow.
>
> Robert
Same Bat time. Same Bat channel.
Tang Huyen
DharmaTroll wrote:
> So we have two interesting questions. (1) The personal
> one: do you, having experienced your experiences,
> have good reason to believe your interpretations of your
> experiences as true (including interpretations that you
> don't interpret, but directly access objective truth/reality)?
> And, (2), the social one: do we, not having experienced
> your experiences, have good reason to believe you or
> to consider you to be enlightened, or to consider you to
> be deluded? (The 'you' here refers to any 'one'.) Both
> are interesting questions.
I don't pretend to "directly access objective
truth/reality", so the first question is not
applicable to me. I don't pretend to be awakened.
I take zenworm and oxtail as being light-footed,
agile, fast, flexible, perspicacious, expert at
shape-shifting, so on their way to awakening, at
least. At the other end are the people who are
heavy-footed, unwieldy, rigid, reactive, oblivious,
dissociated (from themselves), like Fu, Jigme,
Renli/Appledog, Sphere, you, and I take them to
be as far away from awakening as humanly
possible. Takuji is oblivious and dissociated,
though calm and polite, and I take him also as
far away from awakening, because he has lost
touch with reality and babbles, though he babbles
pleasantly, sometimes poetically.
> I've never seen that word, 'eupatheia', except
> as the name of a rock band. Maybe you
> meant to say 'euphoria'? Is that correct, Tang?
For an expert on Usenet like you, that is quite
unexpected. A search on that word (all by itself)
turns up lots of Stoic references. Just plug it into
Google or Bing, and you will see (yes, it will be an
experience, an empirical fact). Are you slipping?
> In that case, then nobody would know what the
> hell they are talking about. In a sense, that's what
> happens with capital-lettered terms, such as God.
> I say "I have experienced God," and you say,
> "yes, I have experienced God too," and Rob says,
> "yes, I have experienced God as well -- we have
> proved that God Exists!" But not only have we
> proved nothing, we don't even know if we are
> talking about similar experiences! More reasonable
> for us to describe our experiences, and then say
> "we all felt euphoria". But that's no fun because it
> doesn't claim that we have objective knowledge of
> some trans-empirical reality. (Well, no fun to the
> woo-woo-ist, that is.)
Christianity has you well trained, the Pavlovian way.
It has made you realist and literalist, and it tells you
how to think, even as you think that you are rebelling
against it. Actually, it thinks you and talks you, and
you are a slave to it, totally and completely. It thinks
and talks right through you, as if you were a
transparent tool, a zombiish mouthpiece of it. You
think that you rebel against it, but you rebel against
it only in content, and in structure it runs you like a
machine.
A person who experiences eupatheia will recognise
somebody else who experiences the same, and
perhaps their respective experience of it differs, but
both, having experienced it, are not realist and
literalist, and will have enough flexibility to allow
for difference in that experience, and recognise their
respective version of it as the same thing. They may
well not talk about it directly, but their "air" is
recognised to each other, even if such experience
does not refer to anything outside of it.
> (One reason we can't know for sure is that we can't
> predict the exact behavior of an awakened, because
> the nature of being awakened is to be free of rigid
> habits and dogma, and only if one followed a rigid
> system could we predict their behavior precisely.)
This is one reason for my taking the people who are
heavy-footed, unwieldy, rigid, reactive, oblivious,
dissociated (from themselves), like Fu, Jigme,
Renli/Appledog, Sphere, you, to be as far away from
awakening as humanly possible. Fu and you are
clones of each other, in that both of you are rigidly
controlled by Christianity (that both of you carry in
your head) and are realist and literalist just the way it
wants its faithful to be. Both of you are framed by it,
and are good Christians, even in bad faith.
Tang Huyen
DharmaTroll
wrote:
> DharmaTroll wrote:
> > So we have two interesting questions. (1) The personal
> > one: do you, having experienced your experiences,
> > have good reason to believe your interpretations of your
> > experiences as true (including interpretations that you
> > don't interpret, but directly access objective truth/reality)?
> > And, (2), the social one: do we, not having experienced
> > your experiences, have good reason to believe you or
> > to consider you to be enlightened, or to consider you to
> > be deluded? (The 'you' here refers to any 'one'.) Both
> > are interesting questions.
>
> I don't pretend to "directly access objective
> truth/reality", so the first question is not
> applicable to me. I don't pretend to be awakened.
Oh, I didn't mean you, Tang. In fact I said:
"(The 'you' here refers to any 'one'.)"
I had in mind the claims about Kapleau's Koo-Koo-Ka-Choo. The
believers here insist that because his teacher with credentials gave
him the thumbs up and proclaimed Kapleau had a Kensho, we should
believe him. That's (2). And even if we are skeptical about the whole
organized religion thing how the Zen Master could magically know
Kapleau's inner experience with certainty and make such claims, we
might still go for (1) and say that Kapleau himself should believe his
own interpretation.
You (Tang), I suspect would argue yes for (1) but no for (2) because
with (1) you'd use your closed-loop story, but (2) would be a dubious
objective assertion for you. Am I correct? I can also imagine someone
saying yes to (2) but no to (1), thinking that one can easily delude
oneself, but verification from the outside from a Zen Master is more
reasonable, as the Zen Master is less easily fooled. I've been arguing
no for both (1) and (2) in order to get the most complaints and
attention from everyone, though I'm probably agnostic on both
questions, as I boringly am on most things if pressed.
> I take zenworm and oxtail as being light-footed,
> agile, fast, flexible, perspicacious, expert at
> shape-shifting, so on their way to awakening,
I see them and those like them as silly clever high-school kids,
probably in old bodies, looking for the clever insult, but once in a
while saying something of interest. They are the riff-raff that make
good comic relief, when the real lost nutters, like Keynes, aren't
around to beat up on.
I think you praise them because they are so harmless and transparent
and easy to laugh at.
> At the other end are the people who are
> heavy-footed, unwieldy, rigid, reactive, oblivious,
> dissociated (from themselves), like Fu, Jigme,
> Renli/Appledog, Sphere, you, and I take them to
> be as far away from awakening as humanly
> possible.
I think that means you find us to be your equals and threatening, so
you have to box us into categories and constantly be vigilant to cut
us down to size whenever possible. I put you in with us, and I'll add
Lee and Robert (I just met AppleDog and have no opinion yet of him,
though he seems to stir up trouble with the dogmatists, and that I
like). Just add you, Lee, and Robert to your list of heavy-footed
giants who can kick butt, and you have the people from whom I learn
the most. I also think you're pretty dissociated from yourself, and so
you see that in us, which supports my theory that you see us as your
equals and thus as threats to you.
> Takuji is oblivious and dissociated,
Never heard of that poster before.
> though calm and polite, and I take him also as
> far away from awakening,
Actually, I like "calm and polite".
That would be a refreshing change around here.
> because he has lost
> touch with reality and babbles, though he babbles
> pleasantly, sometimes poetically.
Says the pot to the kettle!!!
> > I've never seen that word, 'eupatheia', except
> > as the name of a rock band. Maybe you
> > meant to say 'euphoria'? Is that correct, Tang?
>
> For an expert on Usenet like you, that is quite
> unexpected. A search on that word (all by itself)
> turns up lots of Stoic references. Just plug it into
> Google or Bing, and you will see (yes, it will be an
> experience, an empirical fact). Are you slipping?
No I'm not slipping, but you use such big words so often, that I'm not
going to look them all up. The fact that you know 10 languages or
whatever is very impressive, Tang -- I mean it really is -- so you
don't have to use such obscure words in your post to show what you
know -- better to use the simplest ones which convey the meaning.
And I write these posts fast, so I didn't want to waste time looking
up your obscure words. Ok I'll google it now (sigh).
Oh, cool, it's a Stoic term. Like you, I like the Stoics and thought
they had a lot in common with the Buddha's original teachings, and I
like your posts when you make such comparisons. If you had said "the
Stoic term eupatheia", I might have looked it up. Ok, from the top hit
on Google:
"The soul’s movement is irrational if it is moved by the belief or
opinion of an apparent good or evil, while it is rational if it is
moved by only what is truly good or evil — namely virtue and vice.
Consequently, when irrational, these generic movements of the soul
were called ‘passions’ and when rational, ‘eupatheia’ or ‘good
emotions’."
Hmm, and Philo used this term as well, and Philo included in his
philosophy both Greek wisdom and Judaism, which he sought to fuse and
harmonize by means of the art of allegory that he had learned from the
Stoics. Philo's work was not accepted by contemporary Judaism. "The
sophists of literalness," as he calls them (De Somniis, i. 16-17),
"opened their eyes superciliously" when he explained to them the
marvels of his exegesis. Is that why you call me and Fu 'literalists',
Tang? Are you referring to Philo's comment about the Jews?
As for good emotions: ok, that is pretty cool. I do like your
references like that. Though right now this one reminds me of a Beach
Boys song that suddenly is playing in my head. (Would you call that
'eupatheia'?)
I, I love the colorful clothes she wears
And the way the sunlight plays upon her hair
I hear the sound of a gentle word
On the wind that lifts her perfume through the air
I'm pickin' up good vibrations
She's giving me excitations
I'm pickin' up good vibrations
(Oom bop bop good vibrations)
She's giving me excitations
(Oom bop bop excitations)
Good good good good vibrations
(Oom bop bop)
She's giving me excitations
(Oom bop bop excitations)
Good good good good vibrations
(Oom bop bop)
She's giving me excitations
(Oom bop bop excitations)
> > In that case, then nobody would know what the
> > hell they are talking about. In a sense, that's what
> > happens with capital-lettered terms, such as God.
> > I say "I have experienced God," and you say,
> > "yes, I have experienced God too," and Rob says,
> > "yes, I have experienced God as well -- we have
> > proved that God Exists!" But not only have we
> > proved nothing, we don't even know if we are
> > talking about similar experiences! More reasonable
> > for us to describe our experiences, and then say
> > "we all felt euphoria". But that's no fun because it
> > doesn't claim that we have objective knowledge of
> > some trans-empirical reality. (Well, no fun to the
> > woo-woo-ist, that is.)
>
> Christianity has you well trained, the Pavlovian way.
> It has made you realist and literalist, and it tells you
> how to think, even as you think that you are rebelling
> against it. Actually, it thinks you and talks you, and
> you are a slave to it, totally and completely. It thinks
> and talks right through you, as if you were a
> transparent tool, a zombiish mouthpiece of it.
Strangely, you are correct about me when I was in high school, Tang.
That was true when I was in high school. when I was 12, I was a good
Catholic, and went to mass every morning before school. By the time I
was 14, I was rebellious, and was sneaking into the church (next door
to the Catholic school) after mass and stealing the extra leftover
magic hosts, and then at recess I would play priest and hand out the
communion to the local neighborhood dogs, saying "body of Christ" as I
handed one to each doggie. And when the nuns would send me to fetch
them water during class, instead of going to the water fountain, I'd
slip into the bathroom and fill up their cup with toilet-bowl water.
You're right about then -- I thought I was rebellious, but I was still
controlled by the dogma. An anti-conformist rather than a non-
conformist.
Strange you see me that way now, though. That was decades ago, Tang.
You don't even respect my differences from Fu. I actually see my
spiritual/philosophical position as a cross between Lee and Fu -- I
rarely disagree with either of them, though I quibble with both on the
small stuff, and I'd describe myself as an equal mix of Hollywood and
Fu, with some Jigme thrown in. For instance, I agree with pretty much
what Fu says about religion and share his admiration of Dawkins et al.
But I also like the Christian religious folks that go for a non-
localized and more mystical view of God, such as the ex-nun Karen
Armstrong (Fu hates her) and even more with the philosopher of
religion James Carse (Fu can't stand him either). In fact, I think
Carse's "Finite and Infinite Games" is one of the coolest poetic books
on spirituality ever. If you haven't read it, you can get through it
in an hour, and it's well worth the one or two bucks (plus 4 more for
shipping) for a copy from amazon. Anyway, you also know I'm a fan of
Nicholas of Cusa, who claimed that the only property that we can know
about God is that God is completely unknowable. And I'm a fan of
Spinoza and his mystical pantheistic equating of God with Nature. Fu
probably doesn't like any of them either. But I wouldn't call Fu stuck
-- we just disagree on this stuff. In any case, while what you said
was true of me in high school, when I took philosophy classes and
philosophy of religion classes in college, I went from being
rebellious to seeing lots of different ways of looking at things, and
I acquired a similar project to yours: to compare and contrast various
views and systems and note patterns that they had in common. Recently
I read a very long history book "Constantine's Sword", from cover to
cover, which is about the relationship between the Catholic Church and
Jews from Constantine to Hitler. It's an amazing read, and I'm
fascinated by the subject because I was was raised Catholic. There is
an instant-download intro documentary to the book on Netflix, btw,
which I recommend to anyone with Netflix (you can rent it on DVD by
snail-mail from them as well).
> You think that you rebel against it, but you rebel
> against it only in content, and in structure it runs
> you like a machine.
Not in the last couple of decades, Tang. For once, rather than read
your characters into the words you read on the screen, try dealing
with the people that are behind the caricatures they are presenting.
Exactly what structure are you talking about here? I use a lot of
Catholic and Christian examples, because I'm most familiar with them
and am surrounded with them -- my extended family goes to church every
week, and I know tons of Christians, and born-agains are everywhere.
And in my neighborhood I'm surrounded by New-Age dolts that believe
everything from astrology to woo-woo "energy work" nonsense and go to
quacks who stick pins into them and babble about 'chi'.
Maybe you form your conclusions about me from my crusades against
superstition and woo-woo. Well, first of all I explicitly exaggerate
that with my DharmaTroll persona, but I've had a change of heart from
my old view, which was "superstitions and beliefs don't matter, just
see how people behave, if they are kind and intelligent." Well, it
turns out that most of the superstitious Christians I know end up with
mean irrational beliefs, such as that all gays are immoral or evil or
crazy. And most of the superstitious New-Agers have irrational mean
beliefs: such as that Bush and Cheney secretly were behind the 9/11
attack, and did this to gain more power, which is an equally crazy and
absurd belief. So now I'm starting to more agree with Fu that, as
Hitchens put it in the subtitle of his funny book "God is Not Great:
How Religion Poisons Everything". And I think that believers, whether
Christian right or New-Age left, end up projecting their shadow side
onto others, rather than what I do, which is to whenever possible, be
mindful of my shadow side and get to know it, rather than deny it and
project it onto some "they" which is opposed to our "we". Anyway, as I
said, I end up with a position that is a mixture of Fu and Hollywood
Lee on this list. And I'm usually inspired by Jigme as well, and my
position is close enough to his to have got he and I mixed up in your
eyes for years. I don't think any of the three of them are stuck, and
I consider the three of them to be the most useful posters, along with
you, as you're an eccentric anomaly, saying some things I like a lot,
some that I think are ridiculous, and some things that I just can't
make any sense of.
In any case, I think that you label as 'stuck' and 'farthest away from
awakening' anyone who you think is as much as one of the 'big boys' as
you are, while you praise the laughable minions, and you've done this
for years.
> A person who experiences eupatheia will recognise
> somebody else who experiences the same, and
How will they recognize this? Rather than recognize 'eupatheia' in
others, you recognize positively the silly posters who are no
intellectual threat to you, while you label and insult those of us
around whom you feel intellectually threatened -- though you
shouldn't, as you know so many languages and have read so much and we
all acknowledge you as impressive, Tang.
> perhaps their respective experience of it differs, but
> both, having experienced it, are not realist and
> literalist, and will have enough flexibility to allow
> for difference in that experience, and recognise their
> respective version of it as the same thing. They may
> well not talk about it directly, but their "air" is
> recognised to each other, even if such experience
> does not refer to anything outside of it.
I'm pickin' up good vibrations
She's giving me excitations
I'm pickin' up good vibrations
(Oom bop bop good vibrations)
She's giving me excitations
(Oom bop bop excitations)
Good good good good vibrations
(Oom bop bop)
But Tang, that's also how rich snobs 'recognize' each other at the
Country Clubs, Tang. This magical 'recognizing' is far from your "just
words on a screen" and "in closed-loop" and "all is fluff" talk, Tang.
And again I claim that you're not recognizing eupatheia, but rather
you recognize stooges who are of no threat to you, while anyone that
you fear as in your ballpark of intelligence you dismiss as "realist
and literalist". And why don't you explain those terms. By what to
mean realist? As opposed to idealist? Nominalist? And what about
"literalist"? What are you talking about? I'm the one debunking the
literalist claims of woo-woo. I have no problem if you say "God is a
metaphor". I only have a problem with "God is a real Beatie who
watches you when you masturbate." So am I not taking the battle to the
literalists and realists who make literal claims about their capital
letters?
> > (One reason we can't know for sure is that we can't
> > predict the exact behavior of an awakened, because
> > the nature of being awakened is to be free of rigid
> > habits and dogma, and only if one followed a rigid
> > system could we predict their behavior precisely.)
>
> This is one reason for my taking the people who are
> heavy-footed, unwieldy, rigid, reactive, oblivious,
> dissociated (from themselves), like Fu, Jigme,
> Renli/Appledog, Sphere, you, to be as far away from
> awakening as humanly possible. Fu and you are
> clones of each other, in that both of you are rigidly
> controlled by Christianity (that both of you carry in
> your head) and are realist and literalist just the way it
> wants its faithful to be. Both of you are framed by it,
> and are good Christians, even in bad faith.
You keep saying that, Tang, and recently you added Hollywood Lee to
our cult. And of all of us, Jigme is about the most spontaneous,
fluid, nonreactive poster, and the only reason I can think you say
that about him is that his wit and intelligence threatened you. I
don't see any basis for you claiming that Fu or I are "clones of each
other", as we strongly disagree on many matters, even though both of
us dislike woo-woo, be it Christian, or New Age or Brahmanist
Undifferentiated Oneness. Isn't it more likely that we aren't "clones
of each other" but rather that you are chunking and bagging reality
here, and forcing your own chunking and bagging onto us with such
labels? That's exactly what you are doing! Got'cha, Tang! Heh.
Oh, look, during that last sentence, the next episode of the new V:
the series has finished downloading. Whew Who! It's cheesy, but it's
got no less than two hot actresses that I'm in love with: Morena
Baccarin, from Firefly and Stargate (she is still hot even with short
hair) and Elizabeth Mitchell ('Juliet Burke' from Lost), so I'm going
to get my fix of reality now -- I mean, my fix of sci-fi. But think
about that, Tang: you're chunking and bagging: seeing two of us that
are intelligent and who threaten you as 'clones' of each other should
be a warning to you that you are chunking and bagging through the
filter of your ridiculous labels, rather than seeing us as we are in
each of our eccentric uniqueness. And of the intelligent insightful
posters that you label this way -- guess what? You're one of us, Tang,
as crazy as you are. You're reading a lot more of yourself into those
words on the screen than you realize, Tang. But you're still one of
us, and not standing apart and eupathic, as you might suppose.
--DharmaTroll
“Households, cities, countries, and nations have enjoyed great
happiness when a single individual has taken heed of the Good and
Beautiful. Such people not only liberate themselves; they fill those
they meet with a free mind.”
-Philo