Reintegration and Renunciation (was Re: Dharmatroll Swims With the Dolphins!)
Tang Huyen
DharmaTroll wrote: <<I don't think they understand much at all. They
simply know how to live and eat and swim and screw, and they don't have
the mentation stuff we have. They have lots of instincts as do other
animals. There are a lot of problems with secret wisdom claims. R.D. Laing
made the same kind of mistake by glorifying schizophrenics, claiming them
to be super-conscious at some mystical level, when really they have their
wires crossed, but the explosion of subconscious stuff in their
experiences superficially resembles the awakened person who has been able
to integrate the conscious parts with the subconscious. [snip]
Well, that's the old "ignorance is bliss" story. I'd say that our own
childhoods embody this paradox just as well. In one sense, there is the
becoming like a child again, relaxing our conditioning, right? A lot of
religious metaphors, expecially oceanic one-ness and so on are pointing
toward and urge to return to the womb, or at least recapture our
childhoods. In another sense, we can never go back and we can only go
through to the other side, which is not the kind of innocence of children
and dolphins, yet has a lot of those qualities.
It would seem to me that awakening is a deep connecting on a new level,
which also entails letting go of lots of stuff, so in that sense it always
embodies paradox. I think that when we see dolphins or any animals playing
and living harmoniously, we both feel more connected and are more present
to our artificial isolation from the natural world, and our animality.
Swimming with dolphins is another version of beating on drums and
experiencing ritual, which connects with a part of us that is terribly
neglected in our culture. That's very powerful, but it's easy then to turn
it into superstition and read all sorts of stuff into it instead of just
experiencing it and letting it go, too. Then we can step out of our
conditioning and feel connected when just doing the dishes. I find the
ocean, the mountains, and the desert all to be places where I can
experience that as well.>>
I'm not awakened or anywhere near it, but let me speculate. The awakened
is a hero (and not a wimp who volunteers as slave for his teacher to abuse
in any way possible, including sexually) who has reintegrated all his
sides, conscious and unconscious, and who has reconnected all his parts
that were floating chaotically or even were warring with each other
before. So far, that description is pretty much the same as that of highly
integrated humans, including many people revered as saints in many
religions (though many saints in many religions would seem to be maniacs
who have broken apart).
What sets the Buddhist awakeneds apart -- and here is the "paradox" that
you allude to -- is that after attaining that level of integration and
reconnection, they don't stop there but keep going (again, they are
fearless heroes and not spineless wimps) and let go of everything,
including all that they have gained, so instead of claiming a reintegrated
and reconnected self, they arrive at no-self, turn around and look at at
what to most humans (including highly realised people like artists,
composers, saints of other religions, etc.) would be perfection already
and see it as delusion instead. For anything short of awakening is still
delusion through and through.
But as I keep saying, the state of no-self would not be attainable unless
one has attained a profound and thorough-going reintegration and
reconnection of/with one's (false) sense of self first, which one then can
gather up as a bundle and let go of. The normal scattered state is not
amenable to any such letting go because it is, precisely, scattered. That
is why Buddhist cultivation starts with calming (samatha), proceeds to
insight (vipassana), and ends in total letting go of all desire and
mentation without exception.
If one hasn't got enough calm to control oneself, one has not even begun
the Buddhist path yet, as one has not accepted one's anger and
resolved/dissolved it. One has to distance oneself from oneself to gain
perspective on oneself, and in doing so one can gain enough objectivity to
see oneself and accept oneself, then keep reintegrating piece by piece,
coming to peace with each of them, taming them if needs be, seeing them
then seeing through them, and preparing to drop them when one has gained
enough harmony with them.
That's the paradox -- harmony then renunciation. The religions that
emphasise the self -- e. g., Hinduism and Christianity -- never get to the
second step. They at best stop half-way, if they get there at all. That is
why Buddhist saints are heroes, fearless heroes who do not recoil in front
of themselves but look straight into themselves and keep going until they
penetrate to the no-self, without concession. Nothing less is expected,
should be expected, from them.
Tang Huyen
Don James
--
Looking for an enlightened soul-mate?
http://www.ntr.net/~oak/zen/illsing.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
DharmaTroll
In article <378B2848...@bu.edu>,
Tang Huyen <thu...@bu.edu> wrote:
DT:
<< Well, that's the old "ignorance is bliss" story. I'd say that our
own childhoods embody this paradox just as well. In one sense,
there is the becoming like a child again, relaxing our conditioning,
right? A lot of religious metaphors, expecially oceanic one-ness
and so on are pointing toward and urge to return to the womb, or at
least recapture our childhoods. In another sense, we can never go
back and we can only go through to the other side, which is not the
kind of innocence of children and dolphins, yet has a lot of those
qualities.
It would seem to me that awakening is a deep connecting on a new
level, which also entails letting go of lots of stuff, so in that
sense it always embodies paradox. I think that when we see dolphins
or any animals playing and living harmoniously, we both feel more
connected and are more present to our artificial isolation from the
natural world, and our animality.
Swimming with dolphins is another version of beating on drums and
experiencing ritual, which connects with a part of us that is
terribly neglected in our culture. That's very powerful, but it's
easy then to tur it into superstition and read all sorts of stuff
into it instead of just experiencing it and letting it go, too.
Then we can step out of our conditioning and feel connected when
just doing the dishes. I find the ocean, the mountains, and the
desert all to be places where I can experience that as well.>>
> I'm not awakened or anywhere near it, but let me speculate.
Wow, I've been gone for a while, Tang, and not used to you using
disclaimers, but I suppose with Mubul gone and me on vacation, the
snollygosters are projecting triple on you, eh? Anyway, mentate away...
> The awakened is a hero (and not a wimp who volunteers as slave for
> his teacher to abuse in any way possible, including sexually)
Yes, this is an important point. The concept of 'surrender' is very
terribly misused to mean ignore abuse and not use your own intuition
and intelligence and let people use you. I won't dwell too long on
this tangent, as there are other threads where it's being discussed,
but I can't believe the kind of crap people have been peddling lately,
such as (this had to be a satirical or tongue in cheek post) from
Chris [Tyree Hilkert] on a.r.b.t in thread "Oh, about Guru Devotion":
<< our [BLIND] FAITH must be perfect and unshakeable regardless of
what happens. Witness the pure disciples of Chogyam Trungpa
Rinpoche who through all that they went through with his alcohol
abuse, his sexual life, and other crazy antics still maintained
a perfect mind of faith in him. >>
It's easy how to see how such a dysfunctional attitude arises, as
the sanskrit s'raddhaa often has been misinterpreted as faith, when
really it means confidence in one's own awareness and intelligence
and intuition. The idea of surrender *of* is crucial: the surrender
of unneeded mentation, conditioning, beliefs, habits, patterns.
This gets shifted into surrender *to* authority, which is about as
anti-Buddhist as it gets, as it is a form of grasping, isn't it?
Compare the "Buddha's Witness" quote above to, say, Mubul's comment:
<< If by "faith" you mean accepting a doctrine without having
evidence or good reason, then Buddhism without faith is not only
possible but obligatory. You should never accept anything as true
without adequate reason or experiential evidence. >>
This point is central to Buddhism. In some cases, the guru role
works in the Tibetan Buddhist native scene, but for Westerners to
adopt the cultural trappings is a formula for disaster. There are,
however, wonderful practitioners of Tibetan Buddhisms who don't make
this mistake but think clearly, such as Steven Batchelor, so I don't
fault the traditions, nor do I have a problem with locals such as the
Dalai Lama, only with the Westerners who swallow the cultural shit
along with the eggs.
For that is just the opposite of awakening, to become so lost in
our conditioning that we are robots who swallow what they are told
with knee-jerk reactions. Certainly this contrasts with the kind of
spontaneity we admire in the dolphins and in children, though it
does remind one of the hive behaviour in insects such as ants!
Are the guru-devotion games much different than S&M sex games where
people are whipped and spanked and led around by leashes and made to
eat out of dog bowls? Perhaps the surrender and devotion bit is often
a form of kinky sexuality that has been surpressed, surfacing in a
more spiritually correct form, eh?
Anyway, Tang continues:
> The awakened is a hero...who has reintegrated all his sides,
> conscious and unconscious, and who has reconnected all his parts
> that were floating chaotically or even were warring with each
> other before.
Yes, I agree completely.
> So far, that description is pretty much the same as that of highly
> integrated humans, including many people revered as saints in many
> religions.
As well as the description of Carl Rogers' fully-functioning person.
> What sets the Buddhist awakeneds apart -- and here is the "paradox"
> that you allude to -- is that after attaining that level of
> integration and reconnection, they don't stop there but keep going
> and let go of everything, including all that they have gained, so
> instead of claiming a reintegrated and reconnected self, they arrive
> at no-self, turn around and look at at what to most humans
> (including highly realised people like artists, composers, saints of
> other religions, etc.) would be perfection already and see it as
> delusion instead.
Actually, this *is* seen in other disciplines, such as art. For the
artist trains and trains and learns to develop one's artistic skills
and become a master. But becoming a master isn't enough, as that
makes you a technician. To be a Da Vinci, a Van Gogh, you then have
to drop everything you have learned and let go of it completely.
It is still there in how it has shaped you, but now you just paint,
without any idea or thought of style or training, and the hands seem
to paint by themselves. This is comparable to Buddhist awakening, as
it involves the step after total mastery, where one lets go of all
one has learned, in the sense of not dragging the boat with you after
you've crossed to the far shore.
> For anything short of awakening is still delusion through and through.
Or is just a matter of technical skill and not true original art.
> But as I keep saying, the state of no-self would not be attainable
> unless one has attained a profound and thorough-going reintegration
> and reconnection of/with one's (false) sense of self first, which
> one then can gather up as a bundle and let go of.
Yes, just as one has to do all the work and train and develop mastery
and control over the techniques and skills first.
> The normal scattered state is not amenable to any such letting go
> because it is, precisely, scattered.
Right. Just doing your yoga class and acupuncture treatment and then
playing Kitaro while you play with your finger paint doesn't cut it,
and isn't what makes a great artist.
> That is why Buddhist cultivation starts with calming (samatha),
> proceeds to insight (vipassana), and ends in total letting go of
> all desire and mentation without exception.
Right. And again, I qualify this, that at *moments* there is no
mentation, when it is not called for and only mediates (distorts)
our experience; yet it is used when it is useful and needed.
J. Krishnamurti claimed that mentation stopped in him naturally,
and he had to make effort to think when he needed to. He also claimed
that he stopped dreaming altogether, except for maybe a few vague
images, and he thought that dreams were always unprocessed contents
of the subconscious, and after awakening one would no longer dream.
That fits with your notion of non-mentation, doesn't it?
> That's the paradox -- harmony then renunciation. The religions that
> emphasise the self -- e. g., Hinduism and Christianity -- never get
> to the second step.
I think the mystics do, but perhaps express it in different ways.
I have a problem with a blanket statement about a huge tradition.
Perhaps it is not standard, but I think in either of these there is
a point where the second step would naturally occur, even if the
religions play such things down or interpret them away with dogma.
> That is why Buddhist saints are heroes, fearless heroes who do not
> recoil in front of themselves but look straight into themselves
> and keep going
Yes, I relate to that image very much. It's in the Buddhist mythology
most intensely when the Buddha sits under the tree and faces all of
his neuroses (Mara's armies) and just keeps going, placing his hand
on the earth and grounding himself in his connection with the world.
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
Buddhist quote of the day:
"My piece of gratuitous advice is: 'If your goal is to arrive at
an adequate understanding of yourself to enable you to navigate
the swift currents of life without meeting disaster, NEVER limit
yourself to one teacher.' One-stop shopping is great if all you
need is a sixpack of beer, a can of motor oil, and a box of
sanitary pads. But if what you need is a spiritual mentor,
one-stop shopping is just plain stupid." --Mubul R.P. Hayes
Christopher Hayden
>Wow, I've been gone for a while, Tang, and not used to you using
>disclaimers, but I suppose with Mubul gone and me on vacation, the
>snollygosters are projecting triple on you, eh? Anyway, mentate away...
>
Hey, who you callin' a snollygoster, you double-snollygoster, you?
PS What's a snollygoster?
PS Hi.
Christopher Hayden
>Buddhist quote of the day:
> "My piece of gratuitous advice is: 'If your goal is to arrive at
> an adequate understanding of yourself to enable you to navigate
> the swift currents of life without meeting disaster, NEVER limit
> yourself to one teacher.' One-stop shopping is great if all you
> need is a sixpack of beer, a can of motor oil, and a box of
> sanitary pads. But if what you need is a spiritual mentor,
> one-stop shopping is just plain stupid." --Mubul R.P. Hayes
I prefer no-stop shopping, where you can buy anything.
DharmaTroll
WCX...@prodigy.com (Christopher Hayden) wrote:
> DT:
> > Wow, I've been gone for a while, Tang, and not used to you using
> > disclaimers, but I suppose with Mubul gone and me on vacation,
> > the
> > snollygosters are projecting triple on you, eh? Anyway, mentate
> > away...
>
> Hey, who you callin' a snollygoster
Hmm, I don't know. It was more of a general statement about those
people with opinions who get all huffy when someone comes along
and asks some intelligent questions, I suppose. I'm awfully busy,
and haven't kept up with reading much of this stuff, but here is a
snollygoster for you, some demented soul named "Trashi", I think:
<< That's it Tang. You just made the dump filter.
I try never to argue with nihilists because they seldom
understand their own nature, and I won't begin with you. >>
Here is a person whose beliefs get threatened to the extent that
they ignore the issue and instead take pot shots at their opponent,
e.g., label their opponent 'nihilist', which certainly Tang is not.
(I suppose this label means "doesn't blindly swallow the same set
of groundless superstitions that I do".) Then they proudly announce
godly wisdom about the opponents deep insights into his own nature.
Now *that's* what I'd call a snollygoster, Chris. What's really
ironic is that this was in response to one of the most intelligent
and controversial claims Tang made, which I think is correct, and
in any case is certainly worth looking at closely:
Tang wrote:
<< Buddhist practice is entirely based on the effort to turn our
attention inward to check up on ourselves constantly, and we
rely on *ourselves* to awaken ourselves, which implies that any
*external* forces (deities, mantras, teachers, yidams, etc.)
that we expect to help us can only hinder us, unless we are
*explicitly* aware that they are only temporary means invented
by us and under our control to help us concentrate our mind,
to be dropped when we attain our end-goal, or even just the
next step up. >>
I mean, that's great: it's saying deception "for one's own good"
is a no-no, but it is open to all the mythological richness if one
is explicitly aware that it is a tool, i.e., a helpful metaphor,
tradition, mythology, not a scientific fact to be blindly believed.
(I've taken whacks at Tang for criticising others, such as Evelyn,
too unjustly, as Evelyn agrees with this claim; yet here Tang is
right on the money, and not triumphalistically putting down other
folks sects but rather giving them quite a charitable read. Perhaps
that is rare for Tang, but nonetheless, this time he hit the
jackpot, I would say.) Strangly, it's hard to argue against this:
for suppose you argue *for* self-deception (that it is better for me
to falsely believe things because they help me further my practise,
and when I am more advanced, then I will be shown the truth, sort
of like a kid being told that Santa Claus brings toys each year.)
To hold such a position, one would have to admit that they *do* know
that their beliefs are most likely not true: otherwise they would
have already outsmarted themselves! That is, one cannot honestly
eveb claim that "it's good that my deepest beliefs are helpful lies
which I will drop when I reach the yabba-dabba-doo state" without
acknowledging that what one believes is not true but rather a useful
fiction, hence uprooting one's blind acceptance on faith! And if they
then go on to admit that they find the stories helpful, they have
only confirmed Tang's point, that they are helpful when one
explicitly knows that they are myths and metaphors, not facts.
(One rather pathological yet common response hereis to admit that all
one's beliefs are lies, but then label them as 'conventional' and
appeal to an abstract 'ultimate' level; yet this tends to lead to
such an alienated view that one is then compelled to claim that cats,
trees, stones, and stars are also only real at a 'conventional' level,
leaving one in a major state of denial and delusion, as well as with a
Hindu anti-realist view which Tang dismisses, and with good reason.)
Anyway, the comment to damn Tang to the 'dump filter' is quite
reminiscent of a little girl sticking her fingers in her ears and
humming when the obnoxious little boy tells her that there ain't
no Santa Claus, and that her parents wrap all those presents.
Anyway, those schools which promote deception-with-good-intentions
tend to statistically have the most problems with gurus exploiting
their students sexually and financially. That's a brute fact, and
one which very much supports Tang's appeal to authenticity here.
And this should be discussed by anyone brave enough to be willing to
see things as they are and not go into a denial/avoidance routine
as soon as our beliefs and superstitions are examined critically.
> PS What's a snollygoster?
Oh, yes, that *is* a fun word, eh? It means a fast ghost, actually.
It comes from from Pennsylvania Dutch 'schnelle geeschter' which is
from Middle High German snel (fast, quick) and geist (ghost, spirit).
The snollygoster was a mythical beast said to prey on chickens and
children. The word was then abducted by lobster fishermen in the
northeastern USA (New England), where Tang goes to school. To them,
a snollygoster means a particularly severe storm (one strong enough
to blow away children and poultry).
However, it then further got abducted into politics, to denote an
unscrupulous, unprincipled person who will take personal cheap shots
or whatever it takes to win the debate or get elected. Thus President
Truman said that the word meant "a man born out of wedlock," i.e.,
a dirty bastard! Anyway, there are a lot of fast (frequently posting)
ghosts (disembodied, faceless, voiceless sources of words) around
these parts in any case.
> PS Hi.
Hello to you as well, Chris! Well, it's back to work. I'm too busy
to go into the threads, but maybe if you get a thread going on the
deception/placebo/faith issue, I'll jump in again.
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
lawrence day
Tang Huyen wrote:
(...)
>they arrive at no-self, turn around and look at at<--
This 'descent into the depths' followed by 'inversion/inside-outing' seems to
me to be
a diminushing dimensional descent leading to single-pointedness.
A point, mathematically has no dimension, it is purely a relative focus for
everything else, empty and 'selfless'. So after the 'turn around' it aims
outward in all directions, like the hub of a wheel in two dimensions or the
centre of a sphere in three.
A perspective with nothing inside and everything outside is paradoxically
non-dualistic. Neither 'self' nor 'no-self' (dualistic terms) are sufficient
to describe it.
> what to most humans (including highly realised people like artists,
> composers, saints of other religions, etc.) would be perfection already
> and see it as delusion instead. For anything short of awakening is still
> delusion through and through.
>
> But as I keep saying, the state of no-self would not be attainable unless
> one has attained a profound and thorough-going reintegration and
> reconnection of/with one's (false) sense of self first, which one then can
> gather up as a bundle and let go of. The normal scattered state is not
> amenable to any such letting go because it is, precisely, scattered. That
> is why Buddhist cultivation starts with calming (samatha), proceeds to
> insight (vipassana), and ends in total letting go of all desire and
> mentation without exception.
>
> If one hasn't got enough calm to control oneself, one has not even begun
> the Buddhist path yet, as one has not accepted one's anger and
> resolved/dissolved it. One has to distance oneself from oneself to gain
> perspective on oneself,<--
Is this possible? The perspective sees outward through the eyes, but the eyes
cannot see behind themselves. Similarly the thinking cannot apprehend the
thinker.
Imo the way to gain true perspective is by inner concentration, aimed to the
core of identity, that single-pointed emptiness. From that point the
perspective can focus and 'see' outer layers of thinking, seeing, and ways of
behaviour that might previously have been mistaken for the 'self'. The
'descent to the depths' involves
shedding/forgetting/letting go/putting down the various layers surrounding the
core.
That still center, having no dimension, has no weight, and thus is light.
Being light it is capable of insight. Since it has perspective the
trueself/noself can be quite 'objective' since the boundary line between inner
and outer has been altered, shifted to a more profound level. This is subtly
different from 'growing a head on top of your head' as in thoughts about
thoughts about thoughts...
> and in doing so one can gain enough objectivity to
> see oneself and accept oneself, then keep reintegrating piece by piece,
> coming to peace with each of them, taming them if needs be, seeing them
> then seeing through them, and preparing to drop them when one has gained
> enough harmony with them.
>
(...)
Interesting points in this thread :-)
--lawrence
Steven A. Lightfoot
Yeah but come on DT, Tang also believes that no one that uses the
tools of Diety and other Tibetan symbols *do not*, by his saying so,
know that these are tools. Hell, if he was always so understanding
and applied that understanding to others who even say that these are
tools over and over again, I wouldn't have a bone to pick with him,
ever. He's a great guy who practices more ignorance than wisdom,
thinking himself the judge of another man's inner life. It does
become a personal judgement when he says that its okay if one knows
what one is doing but those on this NG *don't* know what they are
doing when the use Tibetan practices. That's why I judge him (not
actually cause I don't know him any more than he knows *them*) and
reflect back to him what he does to others.
>I mean, that's great: it's saying deception "for one's own good"
>is a no-no, but it is open to all the mythological richness if one
>is explicitly aware that it is a tool, i.e., a helpful metaphor,
>tradition, mythology, not a scientific fact to be blindly believed.
And who gets to decide who knows what they are doing and who doesn't?
If that is the only teaching Tang came with, no one would argue with
him, and if they did, I would join his view in order to show them the
fallicy of their ways.
>(I've taken whacks at Tang for criticising others, such as Evelyn,
>too unjustly, as Evelyn agrees with this claim; yet here Tang is
>right on the money, and not triumphalistically putting down other
>folks sects but rather giving them quite a charitable read.
Fine, but is that his practice or is this just a moment of wisdom come
over him, to be left behind as soon as judgemental ignorance once
again covers his eyes?
Perhaps
>that is rare for Tang, but nonetheless, this time he hit the
>jackpot, I would say.) Strangly, it's hard to argue against this:
>for suppose you argue *for* self-deception (that it is better for me
>to falsely believe things because they help me further my practise,
>and when I am more advanced, then I will be shown the truth, sort
>of like a kid being told that Santa Claus brings toys each year.)
How about telling a child with a good imagination that if he runs out
into the street that he will be eaten by big metal monsters spewing
fumes and racing wildly about looking for ignorant little children.
>
>To hold such a position, one would have to admit that they *do* know
>that their beliefs are most likely not true: otherwise they would
>have already outsmarted themselves!
Sorry Charlie, either way you've already outsmarted yourself, as long
as there is one. Do you really believe that there is a permanent
self called by your name that will continue to exist in time after
death?
That is, one cannot honestly
>eveb claim that "it's good that my deepest beliefs are helpful lies
>which I will drop when I reach the yabba-dabba-doo state" without
>acknowledging that what one believes is not true but rather a useful
>fiction, hence uprooting one's blind acceptance on faith!
We take ourselves to exist on blind faith every day without even
thinking about it, mostly. Is this a childish fantasy bought into
or do we really have separate isolated independent existence, each one
of us. If you're going to talk about idiotic notions believed in,
why not start with the essential one that makes all others possible,
the *I* fantasy.
And if they
>then go on to admit that they find the stories helpful, they have
>only confirmed Tang's point, that they are helpful when one
>explicitly knows that they are myths and metaphors, not facts.
Then everything we do or say, including Tang's Early Canon Buddhism,
should be seen as fantasies believed in or a time until the mind
becomes empty of all *realities* and thereby dissolves into it's
essential nature, which is neither separate nor isolated from its
creation.
>
>(One rather pathological yet common response hereis to admit that all
>one's beliefs are lies, but then label them as 'conventional' and
>appeal to an abstract 'ultimate' level; yet this tends to lead to
>such an alienated view that one is then compelled to claim that cats,
>trees, stones, and stars are also only real at a 'conventional' level,
>leaving one in a major state of denial and delusion, as well as with a
>Hindu anti-realist view which Tang dismisses, and with good reason.)
Tang himself, as he knows himself, is no more than a creation of his
own believed in mind.
>
>Anyway, the comment to damn Tang to the 'dump filter' is quite
>reminiscent of a little girl sticking her fingers in her ears and
>humming when the obnoxious little boy tells her that there ain't
>no Santa Claus, and that her parents wrap all those presents.
Bullshit, we're all in the same boat and Tang gets no free ride and
neither do you or I, as long as we *believe* ourselves to
independently exist separate from one another. I mean really, do
you really *believe* that there are millions of little *thinkers*
running around thinking billions of little *thoughts*, all of which
are the product of little *beings* who exist separately and isolated
from the nature of all of their apparancies?
>
>Anyway, those schools which promote deception-with-good-intentions
>tend to statistically have the most problems with gurus exploiting
>their students sexually and financially. That's a brute fact, and
>one which very much supports Tang's appeal to authenticity here.
Vanity, all is vanity. Those who think they are *not deceived* by
childish notions, usually buy into themselves lock, stock, and barrel.
>And this should be discussed by anyone brave enough to be willing to
>see things as they are and not go into a denial/avoidance routine
>as soon as our beliefs and superstitions are examined critically.
I'm challenging you DT. Do you believe that a spearate isolated
*you* exists and that this *you* knows shit from shinola about its own
impermanent flash in the pan existence being unreal , permanently
speaking? Who taught you to be so fooled? Which teacher or
teaching did you buy into that convinced you that *you* were some kind
of reality that knew itself because of how it appeared to be and kept
growing into the appearance of?
>
>> PS What's a snollygoster?
>
>Oh, yes, that *is* a fun word, eh? It means a fast ghost, actually.
>It comes from from Pennsylvania Dutch 'schnelle geeschter' which is
>from Middle High German snel (fast, quick) and geist (ghost, spirit).
>The snollygoster was a mythical beast said to prey on chickens and
>children. The word was then abducted by lobster fishermen in the
>northeastern USA (New England), where Tang goes to school. To them,
>a snollygoster means a particularly severe storm (one strong enough
>to blow away children and poultry).
>
>However, it then further got abducted into politics, to denote an
>unscrupulous, unprincipled person who will take personal cheap shots
>or whatever it takes to win the debate or get elected. Thus President
>Truman said that the word meant "a man born out of wedlock," i.e.,
>a dirty bastard! Anyway, there are a lot of fast (frequently posting)
>ghosts (disembodied, faceless, voiceless sources of words) around
>these parts in any case.
>
Yes, try everyone, especially those that think themselves more than
fast ghosts.
>> PS Hi.
>
>Hello to you as well, Chris! Well, it's back to work. I'm too busy
>to go into the threads, but maybe if you get a thread going on the
>deception/placebo/faith issue, I'll jump in again.
>
> --Dharmakaya Trollpa
Please do oh Mr. Undeceived by himself. :-)
Tom Troughton
wrote:
snip
> Here is a person whose beliefs get threatened to the extent that
> they ignore the issue and instead take pot shots at their opponent,
> e.g., label their opponent 'nihilist', which certainly Tang is not.
> (I suppose this label means "doesn't blindly swallow the same set
> of groundless superstitions that I do".) Then they proudly announce
> godly wisdom about the opponents deep insights into his own nature.
Hello Mr Troll - a truly excellent post
I've seen Tang do this a couple of time to some guy named Tom
Broughton around here - apparently he's a nihilist, and Tang knows he
means something that Anne Klein wrote, even though Mr Broughton hasn't
written that much, or even read Ms Klein's book. Is Tang a
snollygoster?
> Now *that's* what I'd call a snollygoster, Chris.
And more power to him.
> Interesting bit snipped
> (One rather pathological yet common response hereis to admit that all
> one's beliefs are lies, but then label them as 'conventional' and
> appeal to an abstract 'ultimate' level; yet this tends to lead to
> such an alienated view that one is then compelled to claim that cats,
> trees, stones, and stars are also only real at a 'conventional' level,
> leaving one in a major state of denial and delusion, as well as with a
> Hindu anti-realist view which Tang dismisses, and with good reason.)
Is this you opinion about all analyses via a trichotomy between
nominal, ultimate, and conventional reality? And who says that
nominal truths are lies? Even Tang has been forced to admit that
words must somehow be connectible to what he calls sensible reality in
a meaningful way. You damage yourself in this inept attempt to
connect the words "conventional" and "lies" me thinks. If others do
the same then you are both damaged.
> Anyway, the comment to damn Tang to the 'dump filter' is quite
> reminiscent of a little girl sticking her fingers in her ears and
> humming when the obnoxious little boy tells her that there ain't
> no Santa Claus, and that her parents wrap all those presents.
Maybe it's a time management technique. Maybe not. How do you
_know_?
You said
> Here is a person whose beliefs get threatened to the extent that
> they ignore the issue and instead take pot shots at their opponent,
> e.g., label their opponent 'nihilist', which certainly Tang is not.
> (I suppose this label means "doesn't blindly swallow the same set
> of groundless superstitions that I do".) Then they proudly announce
> godly wisdom about the opponents deep insights into his own nature.
I suppose we could insert the word childish for nihilist, and put "a
view that says debate is good for it's own sake" instead of "the same
set of groundless superstition that I do", and replace Tang with
Trashi, and it is quite reminiscent of Mr Trollpa. What do you think
of this analysis?
> Anyway, those schools which promote deception-with-good-intentions
> tend to statistically have the most problems with gurus exploiting
> their students sexually and financially. That's a brute fact, and
> one which very much supports Tang's appeal to authenticity here.
> And this should be discussed by anyone brave enough to be willing to
> see things as they are and not go into a denial/avoidance routine
> as soon as our beliefs and superstitions are examined critically.
Where's your studies?
I'm forced to assume you are talking about all the western
universities that have sold their students useless degrees for
thousands of dollars, and convinced the state that the entire
taxpaying public has to chip in too - for national security perhaps,
or the future of our way of life, or for fairness and decency as these
examples of financial exploitation? And the way professional teachers
associations and unions have demonstrated real recognition of the
inefficacy of tenure as protection for students trying to learn
something from incompetent teachers, and then done something about it,
even if it costs their most powerful members a few hundreds of
thousands of dollars?
Is it not publish or perish, and to hell with the student for most of
the teachers in western universities? The most exploitation of
students in western terms is in western schools, not western or
eastern religions. That's where the most students are. Unless you
mean by statistically that each individual's suffering and
exploitation is not a total experience for them, and we can somehow
add it all up a la Bentham.
This is a brute fact too - all authorities are tempted to abuse their
power, and to suggest that the system creates or condones this is
laughable. It's all about persons. How about medical school?
They're all going to defeat death and illness! What kind of deception
is that? Do medical schools exploit their students more than other
schools?
Where's your studies measuring the loss of of the exploited
statistically, and what measurements did they use to quantize these
losses? If it's not quantifiable it's not amenable to statistical
analysis. How do you quantify dukkha?
Teachers remove the students education through striking for higher pay
and less work, and all for the benefit of the student. Hmm - I'm
doubtful. It sure looks like it's for their benefit, not that poor
sap who's trying to get into university and may not because his/her
test scores didn't get in early, and may make less money over the
summer to pay for it all, since they had to extend his school year
late to make up for lost time.
It is very noble however - there is some comfort in that. This must
be what Buddha meant when he called his truths the Noble Truths.
Tom Troughton
gh...@ibm.net
Tang Huyen
"Steven A. Lightfoot" wrote to Dharmatroll: <<Bullshit, we're all in the
same boat and Tang gets no free ride and neither do you or I, as long as we
*believe* ourselves to independently exist separate from one another. I
mean really, do you really *believe* that there are millions of little
*thinkers* running around thinking billions of little *thoughts*, all of
which are the product of little *beings* who exist separately and isolated
from the nature of all of their apparancies?>>
So a teacher who drinks himself silly every day and night -- or just about
-- thinks that the alcohol that he absorbs does not go into him as a
separate and independent being but rather spreads itself all over the
universe into all other beings, right? So instead of spreading the four
Immeasurables to the whole universe, he spreads his alcohol to the nature
of the all, right? And therefore it won't affect him that much but at best
infinitesimally, as he is just a speck of dust while the rest of the
universe will "absorb" the vast majority of that alcohol in his stead,
right?
Tang Huyen
DharmaTroll
DT:
>> ironic is that this was in response to one of the most intelligent
>> and controversial claims Tang made, which I think is correct, and
>> in any case is certainly worth looking at closely:
>>
>> Tang wrote:
>> << Buddhist practice is entirely based on the effort to turn our
>> attention inward to check up on ourselves constantly, and we
>> rely on *ourselves* to awaken ourselves, which implies that any
>> *external* forces (deities, mantras, teachers, yidams, etc.)
>> that we expect to help us can only hinder us, unless we are
>> *explicitly* aware that they are only temporary means invented
>> by us and under our control to help us concentrate our mind,
>> to be dropped when we attain our end-goal, or even just the
>> next step up. >>
Steven writes:
> Yeah but come on DT, Tang also believes that no one that uses the
> tools of Diety and other Tibetan symbols *do not*, by his saying so,
> know that these are tools.
I could care less what else Tang believes. Also, I've never heard
him say that "no one" knows that Tibetan deities, realms, and other
assorted beasties are metaphors and not literal entities; I have,
however, heard you caricaturise Tang. I have never heard Tang say that
it is his opinion that Steven Batchelor literally believes that such
beasties exist, for instance, which, besides being dead wrong, would
confirm your allegations. In any case, *whatever* else Tang believes
or does not believe is irrelevent. I could care less about Tang.
I care more about the issues at hand.
> Hell, if he was always so understanding and applied that
I could care less about your assessment of Tang as not understanding.
What I am discussing is the use of self-deception and placebos and
the consequences and issues surrounding their use.
> He's a great guy who practices more ignorance than wisdom,
I could also care less about your ad hominem personal attacks and
insults, whether they be toward Tang, the Pope, or your mother.
> It does become a personal judgement when he says that
No, it becomes a personal judgement when you demonise someone and
project your shit onto them instead of discussing the issue at hand.
Be a deluded flaming bozo in your posts to Tang. I'm sick of gossip.
I don't give a rat's ass if Tang is writing from an insane asylum:
what I want to know is whether his particular *claim* which I quoted
is true and justifiable or not, and why or why not. Got it?
> That's why I judge him
No, you judge him because you are a judgmental fellow! It's a habit
you have developed, and your attributions to the other are only a way
to make you feel comfort by not taking responsibility for your habits.
All your Zen, and that insight ain't smacked you in the face like the
sound of one hand clapping yet? Better get back to work, Tenderfoot.
DT:
>> it's saying deception "for one's own good" is a no-no, but it is
>> open to all the mythological richness if one is explicitly aware
>> that it is a tool, i.e., a helpful metaphor, tradition, mythology,
> And who gets to decide who knows what they are doing and who doesn't?
In the problematic cases, 'who' are the gurus and religious leaders
that decide. A Catholic monk and theologean, for example, told me that
although most theologeans interpret the Ressurection of Christ as a
powerful ancient metaphor, as with the Virgin Birth, that it is better
to teach the masses literal factical belief and blind faith, because
they aren't able to comprehend the mystical and symbolic richness.
After all, he continued, most parish priests aren't really aware
enough to understand the symbolic structure, so it's better that they
teach what they are capable of understanding.
I think this is baloney: it's a way to keep the pions under control,
and to claim that ordinary people can't think or understand for
themselves and hence they have to spoonfeed them strained applesauce.
Whereas, I don't like the idea of esoteric knowledge that people are
not ready to hear: that is a socio-political tactic functioning to keep
those in power in power, and those not in power in the dark. It ends
up seamlessly being woven into the religious dogma after centuries.
The same holds for Tibetan Buddhism as with Roman Catholicism.
> How about telling a child with a good imagination that if he runs out
> into the street that he will be eaten by big metal monsters spewing
> fumes and racing wildly about looking for ignorant little children?
Yes! Finally you address the issue. This would be helpful, would it
not, as the image of a monster is very powerful to a small child.
*However*, children are not so ignorant, and they know the value of
mythology and metaphor. The child can understand that the 'monster'
is a metaphor which corresponds to a very physical (real) danger,
and is a way to understand that danger. That is, the child certainly
can understand that seeing automobiles as monsters is a helpful tool,
and *also* understand that they are transportation vehicles being
controlled by adult people. To tell them, however, that the monsters
are conscious on their own and so forth, is the problematic case.
It is a way of keeping children ignorant by feeding them falsehoods.
> If that is the only teaching Tang came with, no one would argue
Dammit: Tang never came with *any* teaching, just a bunch of opinions.
I am claiming that this one opinion happens to be right, and here is
my reasoning for this. I could care less if it came from Tang or Fred,
or from someone alive or someone dead, nor do I care what else Tang may
have said, nor whether he possesses a swelled head, nor whether he is
good in bed, nor even whether he's yellow or red. So enough said.
> Fine, but is that his [Tang's] practice or is this just a moment
> of wisdom come over him, to be left behind as soon as judgemental
> ignorance once again covers his eyes?
You're asking me to fortune-tell the future? Look, there are only
moments. I'll treat the next post based on whatever it says and
whether or not there is evidence and reasoning for it. Again, the
compulsion to project a global label and demonize some poster instead
of evaluate the ideas one by one suggests to me that you aren't much
interested in the issue, but rather this is just your own private
tantrum and flame war, Steven. No wonder I get sick of these ngs.
Unfortunately, you next not only fail to discuss the issue, but you
go off tilting after yet another windmill, free-associating out of
the blue, acting as if you were replying to something I had posted.
Anyway, Steven, you seem to have confused your replies with me with
some born-again soulist, for you attribute bizarre claims to me:
> I mean really, do you really *believe* that there are millions of
> little *thinkers* running around thinking billions of little
> *thoughts* all of which are the product of little *beings* who exist
> separately and isolated from the nature of all of their apparancies?
No, I have never made such a claim. Your use of 'really' implies that
I have, and I presume this is a dishonest attempt to trick others who
have not read my posts into falsely labelling me as a soulist. For the
record, I claim only that there are bodies, in particular, brains which
have such states which we denote as 'thinking'; and no, they are not
isolated, as thoughts imply language which is a cultural phenomenon and
never a solely private one. I do not believe in nor have I experienced
any 'thinker' or 'self', or soul, only thoughts and sensations
organized tightly in particular ways.
DT:
>> To hold such a position, one would have to admit that they *do*
>> know that their beliefs are most likely not true: otherwise they
>> would have already outsmarted themselves!
>
> Sorry Charlie, either way you've already outsmarted yourself,
> as long as there is one. Do you really believe that there is a
> permanent self called by your name that will continue to exist
> in time after death?
Again, from what hat did you pull that non sequitor rabbit? I made
no such claim, nor do I believe that death is not death and instead
something more than brain-states, such as a permanent 'self' exists.
You know very well that by indexicals such as "themselves" I *never*
mean souls, spirits, or ghosts, but rather psycho-physical processes.
And you missed my point here. The point was that in order to argue
that one is better off currently believing in something which does
not correspond or refer to what exists, one has to admit that one is
aware that the belief does not correspond. There are actually ways
out of that circle, but it was mostly a humorous comment, pointing
out the irony of the situation.
> We take ourselves to exist on blind faith every day without even
Who's 'we'? And what do you mean by 'ourselves'? Certainly I take this
body to exist, as well as this computer. And cats and trees and stones
and stars. This is not out of blind faith, but rather purely out of
experience and practical considerations. If by 'we' you are claiming
that 'I' consider that the indexical 'I' refers to some ineffable soul,
then you could not be more grossly mistaken, Steven Tenderfoot.
I use indexicals such as 'I' to refer much as I use 'center of gravity'
to refer (or not). Both are organizational principles used to talk
about clusters of phenomena; both principles provide very robust
explanatory power. However, I've never experienced, nor believed in,
any permanent self, soul, God, other 'planes', or 'ineffable' anything,
nor have I have found any good reason to think that there is life after
death, in the sense of any strong relations between this present set of
psycho-physical processes and any distant future set of psych-physical
processes (with the possible exception of a body being super-frozen in
suspended animation).
> Is this a childish fantasy bought into or do we really have separate
> isolated independent existence, each one of us.
First of all, 'I' can't even stop breathing for more than a minute,
so the idea of isolated independent existence doesn't even make sense
to me. If it could to you, then please explain this. Why don't you
rant that the world is not flat as well? You're quite the buffoon!
> everything we do or say, including Tang's Early Canon Buddhism,
> should be seen as fantasies believed in or a time until the mind
> becomes empty of all *realities*
That's New-Age gobbledeegook. Minds never become emptied of 'realities'
(btw, there is no plural of that term); rather, minds only may get
emptied of thoughts, mentation, ideas. Are you telling me that you
don't know the difference between ideas and reality? Hmmm.
> and thereby dissolves into it's essential nature,
Now *you* are appealing to souls, Steven. Strange, after out of the
blue you accuse me of such nonsense, now you are positing *essences*?
Give me a break.
> Tang himself, as he knows himself, is no more than a creation of his
> own believed in mind.
No, there is an actual real human being which is referred to by that
term: I can even show you a picture of the oriental geek at the
Boston University web site. No, you are wrong: there does actually
exist a real, live critter named Tang. Now Zeus, on the other hand...
> I'm challenging you DT. Do you believe that a spearate isolated
> *you* exists and that this *you* knows shit from shinola about its
You ain't challengin' me at all: rather, you are babbling "do you
really think the Earth is flat???" when I've never claimed it was.
You seem to be stuck in repeating your same boring old story, Steven,
sort of like a Jehovah's Witness at the door. Try having conversation
instead of monolog. One Raymond Kookooski is enough, eh?
I have already stated that I have no belief in any separate, isolated
self, soul, mindstream, ghost, whatever. There are physical brains
which receive differring sense data from different sets of sense
organs, which results in different brain-states, or experiences.
However, the brains are interconnected with the sense organs which
are intimately connected with the environment, otherwise there would
be no experiences in the first place. Anyway, since the soul or self
you posit does not exist, your second comment is nonsense, as there
is no soul to 'know' or have any other properties.
> Which teacher or teaching did you buy into that convinced you that
> *you* were some kind of reality that
*None* of my teachers believe in selves or souls, including all of
my Western philosophical professors. Self is a boring issue, Steven,
because it is more clear to me that no self or soul exists than it
even is that the world is round. I could be being duped about the
roundness, as I haven't seen it myself from orbit, but the idea of
a permanent self or soul doesn't make any sense to me at all, really.
And geez, you never did get back to the issue of placebos and beliefs.
Perhaps *you* are a closet soulist and this whole charade has to do
with your *own* belief in souls and life after death and gods, etc.
Try dealing with it directly and stop projecting it onto me, Steven.
Or go pick a fight with someone who takes rebirth literally to be life
after death of souls or mindstreams, or find a Christian or New-Age ng!
-- Dharmakaya Trollpa
DharmaTroll
gh...@no.spam.ibm.net (Tom Troughton) wrote:
DT:
>> Here is a person whose beliefs get threatened to the extent that
>> they ignore the issue and instead take pot shots at their opponent,
>> e.g., label their opponent 'nihilist', which certainly Tang is not.
>> (I suppose this label means "doesn't blindly swallow the same set
>> of groundless superstitions that I do".) Then they proudly announce
>> godly wisdom about the opponents deep insights into his own nature.
Tom Troughton:
> Hello Mr Troll - a truly excellent post
Thanks.
> I've seen Tang do this a couple of time to some guy named
> Tom Broughton around here - apparently he's a nihilist,
I notice the resemblance to your name "Tom Troughton".
Did you just misspell your name on your e-mail account, or is
that supposed to mean something to me?
> and Tang knows he means something that Anne Klein wrote,
> even though Mr Broughton hasn't written that much, or even
> read Ms Klein's book. Is Tang a snollygoster?
That certainly does sound like an instant of snollygosterness, yes.
Tang has said all sorts of ridiculous things, made hords of
absurd sweeping generalizations about whole schools of Buddhism,
as well as claimed to understand sutras with which the top
scholars are confused. So what? He also makes some of the most
well-thought out and interesting comments. I already commented to
Steven what I think of pinning simplified global labels, in an
earlier post today on this thread.
> Interesting bit snipped
Why? You'd be better to snip the boring parts and make comments
on the interesting parts, don't you think?
> Is this your opinion about all analyses via a trichotomy between
> nominal, ultimate, and conventional reality?
There is only reality. However, things make show up in experience
in different ways. I'm certainly not going to trash all versions
of a rather vague classification system. My point is that people
use this classification system to deny the existence of cats, trees,
stones, and stars, and when used this way, such claims are absurd.
I am not claiming that any possible distinction or classification
is wrong. You would have to demonstrate to me exactly what you
mean by 'nominal', 'ultimate', and 'conventional' for me to have
any opinion whatsoever on your use of these terms.
> And who says that nominal truths are lies?
No one says that 'truths' are 'lies'. Again, what do you mean by
nominal, exactly?
> Even Tang has been forced to admit that words must somehow be
> connectible to what he calls sensible reality in a meaningful way.
Why was he 'forced' to admit something so obvious. I'm sure he would
claim that with out any force applied to him. The fact that we can
make sense of the words we read on the screen demonstrates that the
words refer in some way or another. Issues of reference are in fact
quite interesting.
> You damage yourself in this inept attempt to connect the words
> "conventional" and "lies" me thinks.
I don't 'damage myself'. Look, what I said is that many people often
use that concept to claim anti-realism. That doesn't mean that I am
trashing every possible interpretation of it, just that it can and is
misused that way, and quite often. So cut the 'damage yourself' crap.
> I suppose we could insert the word childish for nihilist...
> and it is quite reminiscent of Mr Trollpa. What do you think
> of this analysis?
It isn't analysis, it is an insult, and I think you're being an asshole.
I'm interested in what 'nihilist' means, which is a philisophical
stance, whereas 'childish' is an egoistic emotional judgement which
attacks a person's character and avoids discussing the issue.
>> Anyway, those schools which promote deception-with-good-intentions
>> tend to statistically have the most problems with gurus exploiting
>> their students sexually and financially. That's a brute fact, and
>> one which very much supports Tang's appeal to authenticity here.
>> And this should be discussed by anyone brave enough to be willing to
>> see things as they are and not go into a denial/avoidance routine
>> as soon as our beliefs and superstitions are examined critically.
>
> Where's your studies?
Published in journals, like all studies. One of them looked at various
Christian groups and measured the level at which dissent of opinion
was tolerated vs. the willingness of group members to make large
personal sacrifices of time and money when pressured by a group leader,
and it found a strong correlation between the two.
Another study looked at various religious groups, including Buddhist,
and found that the more a group was focused around a particular leader
or teacher, and the more highly the wisdom of the leader was praised,
the stronger the triumphalism in the group, or the belief that the
group is uniquely right and all others wrong.
Yet another study demonstrated a high correlation between sexual abuse
of group members by leaders with belief that the religious leaders
were infallable or possessed magic or spiritual powers or had some
other supernatural edge. There are lots of these studies. Look them up.
> I'm forced to assume you are talking about all the western
> universities that have sold their students useless degrees for
> thousands of dollars,
No, universities do not sell degrees. You sure talk about being
'forced' a lot. Since universities are quite wonderful and were in
my case the most powerful source of growth in my life, I can tell you
that I mean no such thing. And the number of profs sexually exploiting
students is extremely low compared to Buddhist and Christian groups,
and yes, there are stats for that as well.
Btw, I attended universities for many years as both an undergrad and
as a grad student. It was hard work and the most inspiring and
enlightening time of my life. I had dozens of professors who were
inspired by what they taught, such as my calculus prof who explained
math with such elegance and glowed as he spoke with enthusism, as he
so loved his field and loved to teach.
I had wonderfully inspiring professors in philosophy, in English lit,
in art, in anthropology, in microbiology, in history, in physics,
in film, in sociology, astronomy, music, and journalism. All those
professors made very little money, but played the academia game and
got published and so forth so they could continue to do what deeply
inspired them, which was to teach and learn about that which they love.
None of them really cared about money, as far as I could tell, but
they did what they had to do to get tenured. After that, they could
make up all sorts of fun classes and seminars on the topics they
enjoyed most, and would read the latest cutting-edge material along
with the students in the seminar.
Many of my profs used to go out with us grad students for pizza and
beer after class. I remember one philosophy prof, who taught Marxist
philosophy among other things, get warmed up after a couple of beers
and tell us what it was like to be a grad student at Harvard during
the war, and skip his classes to be part of the protests that swept
the country in the late 60's.
Also, I learned more about Buddhism in my college classes than I've
ever learned here in newsgroups. One Buddhist professor of mine was
responsible for getting me into Vipassana meditation, and he went with
me and some other students in our class to IMS for a ten-day retreat
at the end of my freshman year. (At the time, I was convinced this
prof. was an arahant, and at the end of the 10-days when we all
briefly explained who we were, I expected him to explain that he was
an expert who taught Buddhism and existentialism and that he had
written several books: yet all he did was mention his first name,
then smile and say, "I just come here for the food.")
> And the way professional teachers associations and unions have
Your cynicism is naive and extremist. There are lots of assholes
in academia just as there are in religion. I simply dropped their
classes after the first day or two and found more inspiring profs.
I can think of over a dozen profs of mine who were as inspiring and
aware and brilliant as any Buddhist teacher I've ever met or read.
> Is it not publish or perish, and to hell with the student for most
> of the teachers in western universities?
No, it's rarely like that, as that's a distorted stereotype held by
hateful, cynical assholes, perhaps. Rather, Western universities do
a wonderful job and are really incredible. The profs do what they
have to do and publish, and it's often unfair, but they get through
all that so that they can continue to teach. Never is there a better
opportunity to learn so many different things from so many inspiring
people. It was an enlivening and inspiring experience for me.
Only the hype about sports was problematic; that has the money-making
issues, but I was rather oblivious to sports, as there were so many
other more interesting things. I don't think I even attended a game.
In terms of education in America, btw, it is the earlier years, the
public high schools, which are really lacking in terms of really good
teachers and need vast improving, but the universities are tremendous.
> How about medical school? They're all going to defeat death and
> illness! What kind of deception is that?
That's another very bozo-ish caricature and more false propaganda
from you. You can only present just so many absurd straw-man arguments
in one post before you really make a fool of yourself, you know!
There are several doctors in my extended family, and not a single
one of them, nor one single doctor I have ever met has ever claimed
to be able to defeat death and cause eteral life! They only claim
to help people heal from and prevent disease and illness whenever
possible and to whatever extent they can. And modern medicine is
amazing. It saved my Dad's life about ten years ago, and a few
decades ago he would have died for sure. Truly wonderful stuff.
Anyway, I think the only deception around here is coming from you!
Post again when you have something real to say, and not tabloid
sensationalist gossip and propaganda.
Tang Huyen
DharmaTroll <dharm...@my-deja.com> wrote:
Steven Lightfoot writes: <<Yeah but come on DT, Tang also believes that
no one that uses the tools of Diety and other Tibetan symbols *do not*,
by his saying so, know that these are tools.>>
DT: <<I could care less what else Tang believes. Also, I've never heard
him say that "no one" knows that Tibetan deities, realms, and other
assorted beasties are metaphors and not literal entities; I have,
however, heard you caricaturise Tang. I have never heard Tang say that
it is his opinion that Steven Batchelor literally believes that such
beasties exist, for instance, which, besides being dead wrong, would
confirm your allegations. In any case, *whatever* else Tang believes or
does not believe is irrelevent. I could care less about Tang. I care
more about the issues at hand.>>
Steven Lightfoot: <<Hell, if he was always so understanding and applied
that>>
DT: <<I could care less about your assessment of Tang as not
understanding. What I am discussing is the use of self-deception and
placebos and the consequences and issues surrounding their use.>>
Steven: <<He's a great guy who practices more ignorance than wisdom,>>
DT: <<I could also care less about your ad hominem personal attacks and
insults, whether they be toward Tang, the Pope, or your mother.>>
[snip]
DT: <<And geez, you never did get back to the issue of placebos and
beliefs. Perhaps *you* are a closet soulist and this whole charade has
to do with your *own* belief in souls and life after death and gods,
etc. Try dealing with it directly and stop projecting it onto me,
Steven. Or go pick a fight with someone who takes rebirth literally to
be life after death of souls or mindstreams, or find a Christian or
New-Age ng!>>
Well, DT, some people just want to dump themselves in public. There are
lots of them in Buddhist NGs. They seem to think that they defend a
certain Buddhist tradition -- in fact, they defend the one and very same
Buddhist tradition that for some reason needs much defence because of
its rather shabby appearance, especially in the domain of ethics -- but
only accrue disrepute to it, on top of the rich disrepute it has
accumulated on its own.
That Buddhist tradition is supposed to have much internal cohesion,
because it is spiritually governed from the top by a single person who
is supposed to be a Buddha or at least the incarnation of a certain
transcendent Bodhisattva, yet when some members -- and rather well-known
members, at that -- blatantly misbehave, nobody intervenes to modulate
that outrageous behaviour, but the entire group lets it go on and on for
decades, indeed until the persons in question simply die.
Now if that happened in a tradition that has little cohesion, like
Chinese Buddhism, that would be perhaps understandable (though so far
nothing that outrageous has happened to Chinese Buddhism in the West),
but this tradition insists on allegiance to that single leader to the
extent of personality cult, yet acts as if there was no central control
or even central counsel or coordination when there are well-publicised
cases of outrageous behaviour out there. Everything goes, *but* there is
a central figure of seeming authority.
So what gives?
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
DharmaTroll wrote:
Tom Troughton: <<Where's your studies?>>
DT: <<Published in journals, like all studies. One of them looked at various
Christian groups and measured the level at which dissent of opinion was
tolerated vs. the willingness of group members to make large personal
sacrifices of time and money when pressured by a group leader, and it found
a strong correlation between the two.
Another study looked at various religious groups, including Buddhist, and
found that the more a group was focused around a particular leader or
teacher, and the more highly the wisdom of the leader was praised, the
stronger the triumphalism in the group, or the belief that the group is
uniquely right and all others wrong.
Yet another study demonstrated a high correlation between sexual abuse of
group members by leaders with belief that the religious leaders were
infallable or possessed magic or spiritual powers or had some other
supernatural edge. There are lots of these studies. Look them up.>>
The herd instinct at work. The more the merrier.
As to: "a high correlation between sexual abuse of group members by leaders
with belief that the religious leaders were infallable or possessed magic or
spiritual powers or had some other supernatural edge", that's just about
right on for some branches of Buddhism that go heavy for magic, mystery and
obscurantism. What else can one expect from them? Criticality? Are you
crazy?
DT: <<Anyway, I think the only deception around here is coming from you!
Post again when you have something real to say, and not tabloid
sensationalist gossip and propaganda.>>
It is a shame that somebody as intelligent as Tom would just go for ad
hominem trashing rather than discussing the issues at hand. Though it is
true that discussing the issues at hand require more thought than just
trashing. One reveals oneself regardless of what one does.
Tang Huyen
Tom Troughton
wrote:
> > Is this your opinion about all analyses via a trichotomy between
> > nominal, ultimate, and conventional reality?
>
> There is only reality. However, things make show up in experience
> in different ways. I'm certainly not going to trash all versions
> of a rather vague classification system. My point is that people
> use this classification system to deny the existence of cats, trees,
> stones, and stars, and when used this way, such claims are absurd.
> I am not claiming that any possible distinction or classification
> is wrong. You would have to demonstrate to me exactly what you
> mean by 'nominal', 'ultimate', and 'conventional' for me to have
> any opinion whatsoever on your use of these terms.
>
> > And who says that nominal truths are lies?
>
> No one says that 'truths' are 'lies'. Again, what do you mean by
> nominal, exactly?
Words derive meaning from their relation to other words. There is no
appeal to "reality" for meaning, the meaning is constructed by the
reader/hearer from their understanding of the words. So a sentence
like "John is reading a book" is meaningful nominally, even if there
_is_ no John, book, reading, ie fiction can carry meaning.
> > Even Tang has been forced to admit that words must somehow be
> > connectible to what he calls sensible reality in a meaningful way.
>
> Why was he 'forced' to admit something so obvious. I'm sure he would
> claim that with out any force applied to him. The fact that we can
> make sense of the words we read on the screen demonstrates that the
> words refer in some way or another. Issues of reference are in fact
> quite interesting.
Yes, maybe even the most interesting. Tang is a little or lot over
the top much of the time, but the basic points he tries to make are
sensible. He usually surrrounds the good stuff with crap however, and
creates an atmosphere of antagonism. Maybe some people are tired of
it, and use kill-files. No need to call them childish however.
> > You damage yourself in this inept attempt to connect the words
> > "conventional" and "lies" me thinks.
>
> I don't 'damage myself'. Look, what I said is that many people often
> use that concept to claim anti-realism. That doesn't mean that I am
> trashing every possible interpretation of it, just that it can and is
> misused that way, and quite often. So cut the 'damage yourself' crap.
Actually what you said is
(One rather pathological yet common response hereis to admit that all
one's beliefs are lies, but then label them as 'conventional' and
appeal to an abstract 'ultimate' level; yet this tends to lead to
such an alienated view that one is then compelled to claim that cats,
trees, stones, and stars are also only real at a 'conventional' level,
leaving one in a major state of denial and delusion, as well as with a
Hindu anti-realist view which Tang dismisses, and with good reason.)
I have yet to see that any of the people who make statements such as
this claim that they are adopting a Hindu anti-realist view, or
anti-realism. You and Tang are in this case the ones who makes such
claims on their behalf.
> > I suppose we could insert the word childish for nihilist...
> > and it is quite reminiscent of Mr Trollpa. What do you think
> > of this analysis?
>
> It isn't analysis, it is an insult, and I think you're being an asshole.
Yes you're right. My apologies. However it's not an insult, it's
merely examining how words are fungible. If you wish to read more of
this, go look at Tang's postings. He truly excels at this, and far
surpasses my feeble attempts.
> I'm interested in what 'nihilist' means, which is a philisophical
> stance, whereas 'childish' is an egoistic emotional judgement which
> attacks a person's character and avoids discussing the issue.
Actually both are highly charged emotional words in this context. Am
I to understand that you don't know that?
Nihilism also has a technical meaning. In my dictionary it says (OED
1987)
1. Negative doctrines in religious beliefs and morals, total
rejection of current religious beliefs or moral principles
2. Philosophy - An extreme form of scepticism, involving the denial
of all existence.
So this is a post in alt._religion_.buddhism.tibetan, and it seems
eveident to me that the first definition is more apt, and most
commonly accepted here. In say alt.philosophy.buddhist, I would argue
that the second should be most commonly accepted. So, you see, when
Tang repeatedly attacks guru devotion in this forum with all the
considerable skill at his muster, there are grounds for saying he
really is being a nihilist.
When I politely asked Tang to maybe show some respect for commonly
held principles he responded by mispelling my name (Broughton),
calling me a nihilist, and just generally raising shit. And he has
done this to other people as well. What's wrong with kill-filing him,
and calling him a nihilist?
> >> Anyway, those schools which promote deception-with-good-intentions
> >> tend to statistically have the most problems with gurus exploiting
> >> their students sexually and financially. That's a brute fact, and
> >> one which very much supports Tang's appeal to authenticity here.
> >> And this should be discussed by anyone brave enough to be willing to
> >> see things as they are and not go into a denial/avoidance routine
> >> as soon as our beliefs and superstitions are examined critically.
> >
> > Where's your studies?
>
> Published in journals, like all studies.
Yes, but which journals? I don't have the time to do an extensive
search.
As for the rest of my post, yes it was mostly crap. It was good to
see it so firmly rebutted. Thank you.
However there was one question in there that I am curious to hear your
opinion on. How does one quantify dukkha, and if it is not
quantifiable (as I believe) then how do we reconcile statements that
Buddhism should modify itself to accept scientific findings with the
inherent unscientificness of the source of Buddhism?
Tom Troughton
gh...@ibm.net
DharmaTroll
gh...@no.spam.ibm.net (Tom Troughton) wrote:
> Words derive meaning from their relation to other words.
> There is no appeal to "reality" for meaning, the meaning is
> constructed by the reader/hearer from their understanding of
> the words. So a sentence like "John is reading a book" is
> meaningful nominally, even if there _is_ no John, book,
> reading, ie fiction can carry meaning.
No, it is not necessarily meaningful, but we know what we mean
by it. Words have sense and reference. Those words are only
meaningful because at other times, the words, such as 'book'
and 'reading' and 'person named John' *have* been grounded in
interaction with the real, objective world, you see.
And of course some words or phrases not only don't refer, but
aren't even meant to refer, yet still have sense (are meaningful).
Perhaps a good example is "the average American family": we all
know what that means, yet nobody literally believes that there
exists a family with exactly 2.4 children! Also, 'the largest
prime number' has no referent, yet it has a sense or meaning
which is very clearly and distinctly apprehended by everyone.
> Actually what you said is
>
> DT:
>> (One rather pathological yet common response hereis to admit that all
>> one's beliefs are lies, but then label them as 'conventional' and
>> appeal to an abstract 'ultimate' level; yet this tends to lead to
>> such an alienated view that one is then compelled to claim that cats,
>> trees, stones, and stars are also only real at a 'conventional' level,
>> leaving one in a major state of denial and delusion, as well as with a
>> Hindu anti-realist view which Tang dismisses, and with good reason.)
Right.
> I have yet to see that any of the people who make statements such as
> this claim that they are adopting a Hindu anti-realist view,
No, they call it a Buddhist view. I've had several internet debates
with people on this. Most notably with Bob Frank ("B.Frank") on the
BUDDHIST list and then Julio (forget his last name) on the Insight
buddhist list, but a few here as well have claimed that the universe
is dependent, or even caused, by the mental. You are welcome to
search deja.com if you really want to read them.
> You and Tang are in this case the ones who makes such claims
> on their behalf.
I have no idea what Tang claims, but I have read many posts on this
ng where people on this ng claim that rocks and trees do not exist
objectively and independently of minds, which is the definition of
idealism. I, however, have not made that claim, on any behalf. In fact,
I very clearly assert that rocks, trees, cats, and stars do exist, and
that they exist on every level in the most ultra-hyper-ultimate sense,
or whatever.
DT:
>> I'm interested in what 'nihilist' means, which is a philisophical
>> stance, whereas 'childish' is an egoistic emotional judgement which
>> attacks a person's character and avoids discussing the issue.
>
> Actually both are highly charged emotional words in this context.
> Am I to understand that you don't know that?
What turns you on is your thing. One is a philosophical claim, and
the other is a personal attack.
> Nihilism also has a technical meaning. In my dictionary it says
<
> 1. Negative doctrines in religious beliefs and morals, total
> rejection of current religious beliefs or moral principles
I have never heard nor used this definition before in any conversation.
> 2. Philosophy - An extreme form of scepticism, involving the denial
> of all existence.
That is the definition I use. I also use it interchangably with the
claim that existence is dependent in any way on mental phenomena.
> So this is a post in alt._religion_.buddhism.tibetan, and it seems
> eveident to me that the first definition is more apt,
No, it is not. Not only have I have never used it that way, nor have I
interpreted it that way, but it has a specific sense which is *not*
that at all: nihilism is contrasted with eternalism. That is, nihilism
is a belief in a self which exists, and then gets utterly destroyed,
whereas the other side of the coin, eternalism, is a self which exists,
and then continues to exist. Buddhism rejects both (the only two) cases,
that the self ceases to exist and that the self continues to exist.
Rather, the Buddha questions the presupposition common to both, that
any self, mindstream, soul, spirit, Mind, Self, God, etc. ever even
existed or exists to begin with, and therefore what never existed
cannot either cease to exist, nor can it continue to exist. So in
that case, nihilism is seen as the inverse of eternalism in Buddhism,
and not as the insult you try to make it out to be.
> So, you see, when Tang repeatedly attacks guru devotion in this forum
> with all the considerable skill at his muster, there are grounds for
> saying he really is being a nihilist.
No. That is called bullshit. Only if Tang claims that a self exists
and then is destroyed can you say he is being a nihilist. Or if he
claims that stars don't exist without minds (by for example, conflating
the name with the thing named) can you rightfully call him a nihilist
in Buddhism.
Hence, this is just word play to excuse your insulting someone rather
than examining the content of what he says. Guru worship probably is the
most problematic part of Tibetan Buddhism. I think Tang is very unfair
to Vajrayana in general; however, his claims about blind faith make
sense to me. Anyway, I don't care about Tang. I care about the issue.
> When I politely asked Tang to maybe show some respect for commonly
> held principles he responded by mispelling my name (Broughton),
Poor baby.
> What's wrong with kill-filing him, and calling him a nihilist?
There are enough ignoramuses attacking people and not ideas as it is.
I don't care whether you read his posts, or mine. Pathetically stating
"I'm putting you in my killfile" is the actions of a cowardly wimp.
I don't read 90% of the posts around here. You don't see me bragging
to people that I think they are fools. I wouldn't do that unless I
were interested in a reaction from them. You want attention, you see.
>>> Where's your studies?
>> Published in journals, like all studies.
>
> Yes, but which journals?
> I don't have the time to do an extensive search.
Then you'll have to take my word for it. You want me to waste my
time and then you come up with another line. Look them up or don't.
Send me money first, and I'll be happy to do research for you.
Some of those I read back in college classes. Only if they are on
my hard drive or if I have URL's bookmarked will I share them with
you, and I'll be happy to share whatever doesn't cause me effort.
> As for the rest of my post, yes it was mostly crap.
> It was good to see it so firmly rebutted. Thank you.
You're welcome. Now just treat Tang like that, and you'll do fine.
Except when *he* is saying mostly crap, at which time you'll have
a chance to return the generosity he has bestowed upon you. But
remember to present solid reasoning and evidence only to defeat
his ideas, and avoid comments about the speaker of the ideas.
> However
Uh-oh.
> there was one question in there that I am curious to hear your
> opinion on. How does one quantify dukkha,
First of all, it's hard to *quantify* such a thing, just as it's
hard to quantify intelligence, or love. There are also many types
of dukkha. You can measure things which are correlated to dukkha,
such as stress, or physical pain, and several other things. You
can also have interesting subjective scales, which can't really be
compared among people but tells you a lot about an individual, by
asking him/her to imagine the most suffering they can and call
that a '1', and imagine the most happy state they could imagine,
and call that a '10', and then give a value to how they feel now.
> and if it is not quantifiable (as I believe) then how do we
> reconcile statements that Buddhism should modify itself to accept
> scientific findings
To what scientific findings on dukkha are you referring? Science is
not a matter of quantitative measurement; it is the aplication of
critical thinking and theorising how the world is, based upon
empirical observation. Not all of it is quantitative, just physics
is that way.
Loving and liking aren't strictly quantifiable, yet they can be
studied in great detail, and theories about causes and effects can
certainly be made. Yet loving and liking have to do with values as
well as facts, and science is by definition value-neutral, but that
doesn't mean it can't study whatever is factical and practical about
liking and loving. The same goes for dukkha.
> ...the inherent unscientificness of the source of Buddhism?
Since the source of Buddhism *is* very scientific, which is seeing
things as they are (what could be more scientific?) that statement is
meaningless! In fact, one can argue that the Buddha was in fact the
world's first scientist: simply look at the Kalama Sutra, which
pretty much states the scientific method for the first time in history.
Buddhist practise is very scientific. The dharma is the Buddha's
discovery of natural scientific laws. Nothing in Buddhism ever has to
be, and should never ever be, accepted on faith. Everything in Buddhism
is subject to testing, and is to be adopted if it tests out only.
Thus not only is the source of Buddhism scientific, but the Buddha is
an exemplar of a good scientist. That's one reason I'm so attracted to
Buddhism. Another reason I love Buddhism is precisely because of its
rich mythology and stories, which I find very helpful. It is only when
someone makes an absurd claim, such as that mythological devas or
the Buddha having psychic powers or 'other' realms or literal rebirth,
and treat them as scientific facts, that I get annoyed. That of course
*is* unscientific. However, you have hinted at the way out. Mythology
is not 'quantifiable', as it has to do soley with values, not facts.
So the answer to your question is that Buddhism is scientific when it
is talking about testable cause and effect, and it is some very good
and well-done science. And Buddhism is good at mythology, which is in
the domain of values, and science is always value-neutral, as it only
deals with facts. So there is no conflict really, unless someone takes
a matter of value and treats it as a fact. Which is what I think Tang
was getting on others' cases for. If Tang says that Vajrayana mythology
has no value as *mythology*, as helpful metaphors, then I will say that
he is dead wrong, and just trashing someone else's system because it
doesn't move him. He does that too from time to time, and then I get on
his case. Yet if he or anyone is rightly criticising someone for taking
metaphors to be facts, then I have no problem with that. Note that I
have, however, criticised Tang for wrongly accusing someone of taking
metaphors to be facts when they were not. That's a different scenario.
But as for quantifiability, again I think the problem is resolved by
seeing that Buddhism deals both with the domains of fact (science and
truth and cause/effect) and value (ethics, mythology, aesthetics),
which doesn't make Buddhism opposed to either, but rather inclusive
of them. Does that make sense?
DharmaTroll
Tang Huyen <thu...@bu.edu> wrote:
> The herd instinct at work. The more the merrier.
> As to: "a high correlation between sexual abuse of group members by
> leaders with belief that the religious leaders were infallable or
> possessed magic or spiritual powers or had some other supernatural
> edge", that's just about right on for some branches of Buddhism that
> go heavy for magic, mystery and obscurantism. What else can one
> expect from them? Criticality? Are you crazy?
Actually, if you revel in magic and talk about the 'ineffable' and so
forth, you're likely to be quite proud of your lack of criticality.
This is an issue that is found in many places besides Buddhism, and
as I recall, Mubul made the most intelligible comments about the entire
contraversy in various posts when he discusses Tweed's examination of
this clash of styles or values. Do you remember that stuff? I'll paste
one of those comments in at the end of this post. It's a debate that
has been going on for a long time.
> DT: <<Anyway, I think the only deception around here is coming from
you! Post again when you have something real to say, and not
tabloid sensationalist gossip and propaganda.>>
> It is a shame that somebody as intelligent as Tom would just go for
> ad hominem trashing rather than discussing the issues at hand.
It's also a shame that so many bodies who aren't nearly as intelligent
as Tom also tend to go for ad hominem trashing as well, rather than
discussing the issues at hand. Except when I do it, and then it's funny.
Heh.
> Though it is true that discussing the issues at hand require more
> thought than just trashing.
Yeah, well, that's the problem with occultists. They don't want to
think. Sometimes people connect with something to believe so they can
coast and not have to think about about it, and just go on autopilot
and do prostrations faithfully, as if they were lifting weights and
building ineffable spiritual muscles by logging in the prostrations.
What was it that Mahasanti (Karma Tharchin) claimed, that if you do
3 million prostrations then you get psychic powers? (Maybe the psychic
ability to sense that you've been duped, eh?)
That's the extreme, silly case, but look how many people believe so
many downright silly things. Add to that lots of folks who are looking
for a way, as do rebellious teenagers, to disown their scientific or
rational parental culture, so the appeal to the superstitions of some
exotic land really turns them on, and drives their uncritical faith.
I think that's one of the appeals to the irrational and the ineffable,
and the rest of the magic, because it continually lets us fuel the
pushing off against our culture, our past, which we label as science,
materialism, rational, bad. And we get to feel one-up and superior.
Yet Buddhism has never been like that. It's always been about the
rituals and values withing one's culture, not an exotic way to push
off and feel superior and justify your social alienation. This is why
I have a problem with *Westerners* who 'go native' and blindly swallow
stories of ghosts and goblins and gods and planes and realms. There is
usually a lot more to the story psychologically than is in plain sight.
Finally, I think it takes lots of being very sharply present to one's
experience, which necessarily includes a great deal of critical thinking,
to wake up. And having faith in dogma or gurus is a way to not have to
be awake or alert: it is more like sleepwalking, not something that
leads to awakening. What do you think? Anybody?
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
Dharma Quote of the Day:
Prof. Mubul R.P. Hayes wrote:
>
> Thomas Tweed is an historian of American religion. He wrote a book
> on Buddhism in America in the 19th century. It's fascinating. Tweed
> shows that American Buddhists 100 years ago fell into four categories:
> 1) rationalists, who turned to Buddhism because they were weary of
> what they saw as superstitions in Christianity;
> 2) occultists and spiritualists, who saw in Buddhism an ally in the
> battle against scientific rationalism;
> 3) aesthetes, who were attracted to the arts of Asia, and especially
> Japan, and recognised the role that Buddhism had played in the arts,
> 4) the Transcendentalists, such as Emerson and Thoreau, who saw
> Buddhism as a manifestation of a spirituality that they saw as
> being at the root of all religions.
>
> Needless to say, the rationalists and the occultists were busy
> throwing mud at each other 100 years ago, and there were sometimes
> skirmishes between the other groups as well. All of them, of course,
> claimed to be in possession of the true spirit of authentic Buddhism.
> Things have not changed a lot since then.
>
> I find Tweed's work very insightful, precisely because he is not a
> Buddhist and has no sectarian ax to grind. He is just interested in
> seeing how the tiny piece known as Buddhism fits into the larger puzzle
> of American culture. He sees clearly the extent to which a lot of
> Americans have adopted a Buddhist facade and then continued to fight
> all the same battles that have been raging in Western culture since
> the 16th century: science versus religion, modernity versus tradition,
> faith versus reason, this-worldliness versus other-worldliness.
>
> Buddhists in American are just a minor side-show in a much larger
> Western dynamic that has swept us all along; they are almost
> indistinguishable from anyone else in contemporary American culture.
>
> I think Western Buddhists owe it to themselves to learn as much as
> possible about all these currents of which they are an often unwitting
> part. Thomas Tweed is one of the few intelligent writers on the
> subject so far. His work is a good place to begin.
>
> Tweed, Thomas A. _The American Encounter with Buddhism: 1844-1912:
> Victorian culture and the limits of dissent_. Bloomington: Indian
> University Press, 1992.
>
> Tweed, Thomas A. "Night-Stand Buddhists and Other Creatures:
> Sympathizers, Adherents, and the Study of Religion." In _American
> Buddhism: Methods and Findings in Recent Scholarship_, Duncan Ryuken
> Williams and Christopher S. Queen, editors. Surrey: Curzon Press, 1999.
>
> Mubul
Tang Huyen
DharmaTroll wrote: <<Yeah, well, that's the problem with occultists. They
don't want to think. Sometimes people connect with something to believe so
they can coast and not have to think about about it, and just go on autopilot
and do prostrations faithfully, as if they were lifting weights and building
ineffable spiritual muscles by logging in the prostrations. What was it that
Mahasanti (Karma Tharchin) claimed, that if you do 3 million prostrations
then you get psychic powers? (Maybe the psychic ability to sense that you've
been duped, eh?)
That's the extreme, silly case, but look how many people believe so many
downright silly things. Add to that lots of folks who are looking for a way,
as do rebellious teenagers, to disown their scientific or rational parental
culture, so the appeal to the superstitions of some exotic land really turns
them on, and drives their uncritical faith. I think that's one of the appeals
to the irrational and the ineffable, and the rest of the magic, because it
continually lets us fuel the pushing off against our culture, our past, which
we label as science, materialism, rational, bad. And we get to feel one-up
and superior.>>
I'm still floating after dialoguing with some people here in NGs. I don't
think that they want to disown their *scientific or rational* parental
culture, but rather as Mubul says they hate their ancestral West and turn to
whatever else, as exotic as possible (that is a sine qua non requirement), to
exchange their present object of blind faith -- Christianity or Judaism or
whatever -- for another object of blind faith, and they want it exotic, like
the Great Vehicle and the Diamond Vehicle *together*. So they flop from one
object of blind faith to another, and buy the latter wholesale, lock, stock
and barrel, without asking a single question.
All happens as if they wanted to shock their parents or whomever with a total
turning-around, but they wanted to make that turning-around as brutal as
possible by making it at purely the contentual level, leaving the structure
-- blind faith -- perfectly intact. So they end up with Buddhas and
Bodhisattvas, Buddha lands (Pure Lands), and all kinds of supernatural beings
and processes (accumulating good deed for believing in nasty manifestations
of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas to test them, rather than just taking them to be
nasty people like everybody else) -- an exotic mythology that puts their
ancestral Middle Eastern mythology to shame.
So that's one of the appeals to the irrational and the ineffable, and the
rest of the magic, because it continually lets them fuel the pushing off
against their culture, their past, which they label as ancestral. That's its
main fault, not that it is wrong or untrue or illogical or mythological, but
that it's ancestral -- associated with their ancestors. That's what Mubul
calls West-hating.
To me a more rational turning-around would be to drop their ancestral
mythology, yes, but then to replace it with something more rational, less
mythological, like the Buddha's doctrine of delusion and awakening, either in
the Theravada or in Chinese Chan (I'm leaving out Zen, which has but a faint
relation to the Buddha's teaching). But that would take quite some rational
thinking, which scares the daylight out of them. They only want to believe
*and* shock their parents. So they connect with something to believe so that
they can coast and not have to think about about it, and just go on autopilot
and yet still shock the hell out of their parents. Of course they want to
augment the effect with the fancy robes and props and titles of their gurus
...
Tang Huyen
Kent Sandvik
Tang Huyen wrote in message <379077E3...@bu.edu>...
>I'm still floating after dialoguing with some people here in NGs. I
don't
>think that they want to disown their *scientific or rational*
parental
>culture, but rather as Mubul says they hate their ancestral West and
turn to
>whatever else, as exotic as possible (that is a sine qua non
requirement), to
>exchange their present object of blind faith -- Christianity or
Judaism or
>whatever -- for another object of blind faith, and they want it
exotic, like
>the Great Vehicle and the Diamond Vehicle *together*. So they flop
from one
>object of blind faith to another, and buy the latter wholesale, lock,
stock
>and barrel, without asking a single question.
A very strange view, at least this was not at all there reason for me
started to investigate Buddhism, and come to personal conclusions that
'hey, this actually makes sense'.
If there's blind faith and assumptions, it's a weak conviction, but at
least it puts into motion the investigation phase that then will
create so called inferential cognizers*) that verifies what the
teachings are stating.
It'a actually a very scientific system, as most people do the same
thing all the time, they verify that they for example understand how
the computer works by reading a manual, and when they hit button A and
something happens, then they get the inferential cognizer that A
triggers the mentioned function.
But as there are many ways to label the world, I'm sure there are many
other ways to label the world. Just had to post when I see these
'black and white' postings, they are misleading.
Mangalam, Kent
PS: Example of an inferential cognizer is for example if you put your
hand on a hot stove and get burned, the inferential cognizer is then
that hot stoves cause you pain. Inferential cognizers are blown away
when one is dying, however the habituational patterns formed from
inferential cognizers (karma) makes it easy next time to form the
inferential cognizer.
KSS
in defense of Tang. The fact I agree with some of the things Steve
also says, from time to time, is irrelevant.
If we are serious on any spiritual path we must transcend senseless
conflicts -even meaningful conflicts A.S.A.P.
So let this also be a unilateral declaration of Peace sentiments
towards DT as well! :-)
DharmaTroll wrote in <7mk5cf$a1t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Hi, Steven.
>
>DT:
>>> ironic is that this was in response to one of the most intelligent
>>> and controversial claims Tang made, which I think is correct, and
>>> in any case is certainly worth looking at closely:
>>>
>>> Tang wrote:
>>> << Buddhist practice is entirely based on the effort to turn our
>>> attention inward to check up on ourselves constantly, and we
>>> rely on *ourselves* to awaken ourselves, which implies that any
>>> *external* forces (deities, mantras, teachers, yidams, etc.)
>>> that we expect to help us can only hinder us, unless we are
>>> *explicitly* aware that they are only temporary means invented
>>> by us and under our control to help us concentrate our mind,
>>> to be dropped when we attain our end-goal, or even just the
>>> next step up. >>
>
>Steven writes:
>
>> Yeah but come on DT, Tang also believes that no one that uses the
>> tools of Diety and other Tibetan symbols *do not*, by his saying so,
>> know that these are tools.
>
>I could care less what else Tang believes. Also, I've never heard
>him say that "no one" knows that Tibetan deities, realms, and other
>assorted beasties are metaphors and not literal entities; I have,
>however, heard you caricaturise Tang.
I agree 100%.
>I have never heard Tang say that
>it is his opinion that Steven Batchelor literally believes that such
>beasties exist, for instance, which, besides being dead wrong, would
>confirm your allegations. In any case, *whatever* else Tang believes
>or does not believe is irrelevent. I could care less about Tang.
>I care more about the issues at hand.
Me too.
And I refrain from criticising Batchelor till I read more about him.
>> Hell, if he was always so understanding and applied that
>
>I could care less about your assessment of Tang as not understanding.
>What I am discussing is the use of self-deception and placebos and
>the consequences and issues surrounding their use.
A very important issue. Ditto.
>> He's a great guy who practices more ignorance than wisdom,
>
>I could also care less about your ad hominem personal attacks and
>insults, whether they be toward Tang, the Pope, or your mother.
Ditto. 100% agreed.
>> It does become a personal judgement when he says that
>
>No, it becomes a personal judgement when you demonise someone and
>project your shit onto them instead of discussing the issue at hand.
Irrespectively if DT and I have indulged in precisely this demonisation
process in the past, I applaud and support his denunciation of the same
thing in Steven, and unilaterally declare my intention to adopt the same
attitude towards DT (and Steven) as well.
>Be a deluded flaming bozo in your posts to Tang. I'm sick of gossip.
Me too. I am sick of being told I am a psycho and all kinds of things
but they mean nothing now. After a heamorrhoids operation and LOTS
of physical pain, if I could get DT to call me a psycho in exchange for
these pains to go away, I would do it, damnit! :-))) And it doesnt involve
selling my values or the value of my country, either. ;-) Labels are no
more
valid than (literally).... bleeding heamorrhoids. In short I agree 100% !!!
:-)\
>I don't give a rat's ass if Tang is writing from an insane asylum:
And I dont give a rat's ass if DT is writing from CIA headquarters ;-)
or the PsychoFascist MUD players association. If he says something
valid, I will agree to it without hesitation, as I already do now. 100% !!!
>what I want to know is whether his particular *claim* which I quoted
>is true and justifiable or not, and why or why not. Got it?
>
>> That's why I judge him
>
>No, you judge him because you are a judgmental fellow!
Steve is a nice guy, but SO judgemental. Again DT is right! :-)
>It's a habit
>you have developed, and your attributions to the other are only a way
>to make you feel comfort by not taking responsibility for your habits.
Kathy actually also said something similar to Steve, and to DT in
the past. Probably none of us are excluded from this kind of error.
Again, DT is right!
>DT:
>>> it's saying deception "for one's own good" is a no-no, but it is
>>> open to all the mythological richness if one is explicitly aware
>>> that it is a tool, i.e., a helpful metaphor, tradition, mythology,
>
>> And who gets to decide who knows what they are doing and who doesn't?
>
>In the problematic cases, 'who' are the gurus and religious leaders
>that decide. A Catholic monk and theologean, for example, told me that
>although most theologeans interpret the Ressurection of Christ as a
>powerful ancient metaphor, as with the Virgin Birth, that it is better
>to teach the masses literal factical belief and blind faith, because
>they aren't able to comprehend the mystical and symbolic richness.
>After all, he continued, most parish priests aren't really aware
>enough to understand the symbolic structure, so it's better that they
>teach what they are capable of understanding.
Strange things to hear that a Catholic monk believes. No comment,
because my own mother tended to NOT take literally most doctines,
and yet remained truly religious and practically compassionate towards
everybody during her life. She did believe certain things though, in her
own special way, which had nothing to do with priests and theology.
>I think this is baloney: it's a way to keep the pions under control,
>and to claim that ordinary people can't think or understand for
>themselves and hence they have to spoonfeed them strained applesauce.
In a discussion with my own mother some years ago, she said
exacly the same thing about those kinds of "Jesuit" hypocrites.
I agree 100%.
>Whereas, I don't like the idea of esoteric knowledge that people are
>not ready to hear: that is a socio-political tactic functioning to keep
>those in power in power, and those not in power in the dark. It ends
>up seamlessly being woven into the religious dogma after centuries.
>The same holds for Tibetan Buddhism as with Roman Catholicism.
I agree 100%.
We had enough deception for centuries.
>> How about telling a child with a good imagination that if he runs out
>> into the street that he will be eaten by big metal monsters spewing
>> fumes and racing wildly about looking for ignorant little children?
>
>Yes! Finally you address the issue. This would be helpful, would it
>not, as the image of a monster is very powerful to a small child.
>*However*, children are not so ignorant, and they know the value of
>mythology and metaphor. The child can understand that the 'monster'
>is a metaphor which corresponds to a very physical (real) danger,
>and is a way to understand that danger. That is, the child certainly
>can understand that seeing automobiles as monsters is a helpful tool,
>and *also* understand that they are transportation vehicles being
>controlled by adult people. To tell them, however, that the monsters
>are conscious on their own and so forth, is the problematic case.
>It is a way of keeping children ignorant by feeding them falsehoods.
Exactly my own opinion, ever since I was a child. I agree 100%
>> If that is the only teaching Tang came with, no one would argue
>
>Dammit: Tang never came with *any* teaching, just a bunch of opinions.
Slight disagreement here. For someone as ignorant as I, Tang's
opinions DO constitute teachings, but the same things could be
taken for granted by others more knowledgeable.
>I am claiming that this one opinion happens to be right, and here is
>my reasoning for this. I could care less if it came from Tang or Fred,
>or from someone alive or someone dead, nor do I care what else Tang may
>have said, nor whether he possesses a swelled head, nor whether he is
>good in bed, nor even whether he's yellow or red. So enough said.
Agreed 100%
>> Fine, but is that his [Tang's] practice or is this just a moment
>> of wisdom come over him, to be left behind as soon as judgemental
>> ignorance once again covers his eyes?
>
>You're asking me to fortune-tell the future? Look, there are only
>moments. I'll treat the next post based on whatever it says and
>whether or not there is evidence and reasoning for it. Again, the
>compulsion to project a global label and demonize some poster instead
>of evaluate the ideas one by one suggests to me that you aren't much
>interested in the issue, but rather this is just your own private
>tantrum and flame war, Steven. No wonder I get sick of these ngs.
DT can perhaps join the club. ;-) I would write exactly the same things
as he wrote. Go figure! :-))) I say it's the limitations of the medium
itself (like television) which are responsible. Big discussion...
>Unfortunately, you next not only fail to discuss the issue, but you
>go off tilting after yet another windmill, free-associating out of
>the blue, acting as if you were replying to something I had posted.
He did the same thing with me once or twice, but actually I dont
care. ;-)
>Anyway, Steven, you seem to have confused your replies with me with
>some born-again soulist, for you attribute bizarre claims to me:
>
>> I mean really, do you really *believe* that there are millions of
>> little *thinkers* running around thinking billions of little
>> *thoughts* all of which are the product of little *beings* who exist
>> separately and isolated from the nature of all of their apparancies?
>
>No, I have never made such a claim. Your use of 'really' implies that
>I have, and I presume this is a dishonest attempt to trick others who
>have not read my posts into falsely labelling me as a soulist. For the
>record, I claim only that there are bodies, in particular, brains which
>have such states which we denote as 'thinking'; and no, they are not
>isolated, as thoughts imply language which is a cultural phenomenon and
>never a solely private one. I do not believe in nor have I experienced
>any 'thinker' or 'self', or soul, only thoughts and sensations
>organized tightly in particular ways.
This paragraph contains those particular ideas of DT where I tend to
disagree, but these ideas are actually 99% irrelevant to the issue at
hand. So, no comment about these ideas, which are a distraction from
the main issue of the posting.
>DT:
>>> To hold such a position, one would have to admit that they *do*
>>> know that their beliefs are most likely not true: otherwise they
>>> would have already outsmarted themselves!
>>
>> Sorry Charlie, either way you've already outsmarted yourself,
>> as long as there is one. Do you really believe that there is a
>> permanent self called by your name that will continue to exist
>> in time after death?
>
>Again, from what hat did you pull that non sequitor rabbit? I made
>no such claim, nor do I believe that death is not death and instead
>something more than brain-states, such as a permanent 'self' exists.
>You know very well that by indexicals such as "themselves" I *never*
>mean souls, spirits, or ghosts, but rather psycho-physical processes.
Given my.... heamorrhoids, I consider such debate irrelevant, and also
irrelevant to the main theme of this posting. ;-)
>And you missed my point here. The point was that in order to argue
>that one is better off currently believing in something which does
>not correspond or refer to what exists, one has to admit that one is
>aware that the belief does not correspond. There are actually ways
>out of that circle, but it was mostly a humorous comment, pointing
>out the irony of the situation.
>
>> We take ourselves to exist on blind faith every day without even
>
>Who's 'we'? And what do you mean by 'ourselves'? Certainly I take this
>body to exist, as well as this computer. And cats and trees and stones
>and stars. This is not out of blind faith, but rather purely out of
>experience and practical considerations. If by 'we' you are claiming
>that 'I' consider that the indexical 'I' refers to some ineffable soul,
>then you could not be more grossly mistaken, Steven Tenderfoot.
Certain forms of torture are capable of completely destroying the soul.
The point is to salvage the sanctity and continuity of human experience
and not to cling to an absolute notion of indestructibility. Hence, even
though I disagree with DT, I find this particular disagreeement IRRELEVANT.
>I use indexicals such as 'I' to refer much as I use 'center of gravity'
>to refer (or not). Both are organizational principles used to talk
>about clusters of phenomena; both principles provide very robust
>explanatory power. However, I've never experienced, nor believed in,
>any permanent self, soul, God, other 'planes', or 'ineffable' anything,
>nor have I have found any good reason to think that there is life after
>death, in the sense of any strong relations between this present set of
>psycho-physical processes and any distant future set of psych-physical
>processes (with the possible exception of a body being super-frozen in
>suspended animation).
Ditto. These things can't and shouldn't be discussed here.
In another posting, yes. But there I doubt if I'd participate.
As I said, my... heamorrhoids (as a kind of teacher) testify that
this attitude is the best! :-)
>> Is this a childish fantasy bought into or do we really have separate
>> isolated independent existence, each one of us.
>
>First of all, 'I' can't even stop breathing for more than a minute,
>so the idea of isolated independent existence doesn't even make sense
>to me. If it could to you, then please explain this. Why don't you
>rant that the world is not flat as well? You're quite the buffoon!
I agree, It's obviously Steven's NEED to project upon his opponent
-in debate- that there is this chilidish fantasy. In reality this is a
childish
fantasy of Steven that the other person necessarily has such a fantasy.
The medium once again tricked Steve into taking projections as real.
>> everything we do or say, including Tang's Early Canon Buddhism,
>> should be seen as fantasies believed in or a time until the mind
>> becomes empty of all *realities*
>
>That's New-Age gobbledeegook. Minds never become emptied of 'realities'
>(btw, there is no plural of that term); rather, minds only may get
>emptied of thoughts, mentation, ideas. Are you telling me that you
>don't know the difference between ideas and reality? Hmmm.
There exist ideas which dont exist in reality and realities which
dont exist as ideas. The mathematical proof of this it trivial! :-))))
>> and thereby dissolves into it's essential nature,
>
>Now *you* are appealing to souls, Steven. Strange, after out of the
>blue you accuse me of such nonsense, now you are positing *essences*?
>Give me a break.
The only essence I need at the moment is a pain-killer
for heamorrhoids. Other essences welcome, but not
expected or anticipated as eternally present. :-)))
(anybody knowing anything about post-operational pains do write).
>> Tang himself, as he knows himself, is no more than a creation of his
>> own believed in mind.
>
>No, there is an actual real human being which is referred to by that
>term: I can even show you a picture of the oriental geek at the
>Boston University web site. No, you are wrong: there does actually
>exist a real, live critter named Tang. Now Zeus, on the other hand...
Fuck Zeus. Where is the picture of our dear lad Tang so I can also
take a look at his wise face? :-)) Maybe I can show it to some Greek
female friends and get them to write to him, as well, as a result! hehehe
>> I'm challenging you DT. Do you believe that a spearate isolated
>> *you* exists and that this *you* knows shit from shinola about its
>
>You ain't challengin' me at all: rather, you are babbling "do you
>really think the Earth is flat???" when I've never claimed it was.
>You seem to be stuck in repeating your same boring old story, Steven,
>sort of like a Jehovah's Witness at the door. Try having conversation
>instead of monolog. One Raymond Kookooski is enough, eh?
Fuck Kookooski. See "One flew from the cuckoo's nest" instead. ;-)
(in anycase I agree).
>I have already stated that I have no belief in any separate, isolated
>self, soul, mindstream, ghost, whatever. There are physical brains
>which receive differring sense data from different sets of sense
>organs, which results in different brain-states, or experiences.
>However, the brains are interconnected with the sense organs which
>are intimately connected with the environment, otherwise there would
>be no experiences in the first place. Anyway, since the soul or self
>you posit does not exist, your second comment is nonsense, as there
>is no soul to 'know' or have any other properties.
This is standard DT material, preferrably debated in another thread.
However I am too tired for this. Perhaps after my post-operational
pains are gone! :-)))
>> Which teacher or teaching did you buy into that convinced you that
>> *you* were some kind of reality that
>
>*None* of my teachers believe in selves or souls, including all of
>my Western philosophical professors. Self is a boring issue, Steven,
>because it is more clear to me that no self or soul exists than it
>even is that the world is round. I could be being duped about the
>roundness, as I haven't seen it myself from orbit, but the idea of
>a permanent self or soul doesn't make any sense to me at all, really.
This is no news. It's a pretty standard ideology by now.
To have a self, one must also have a world. A real world, as opposed
to a virtual one, where by definition there are only virtual selves.
But this again doesn't make the self permanent. So: IRRELEVANT.
>And geez, you never did get back to the issue of placebos and beliefs.
>Perhaps *you* are a closet soulist and this whole charade has to do
>with your *own* belief in souls and life after death and gods, etc.
>Try dealing with it directly and stop projecting it onto me, Steven.
>Or go pick a fight with someone who takes rebirth literally to be life
>after death of souls or mindstreams, or find a Christian or New-Age ng!
Count me out of it. Have you ever recovered from deep anaesthesia
under operational narcosis? Did you feel like fighting about the
existence\
of souls in a moment as difficult as this? - I bet not. hehe :-)
> -- Dharmakaya Trollpa
(tm) Karma Samten Sangpo
The Force needs Balance.
Christopher Hayden
>Me too. I am sick of being told I am a psycho and all kinds of things
>but they mean nothing now. After a heamorrhoids operation and LOTS
>of physical pain, if I could get DT to call me a psycho in exchange for
>these pains to go away, I would do it, damnit! :-)))
How much would you pay for ME to call you a psycho?