Re: Hollywood Lee's Koo-Koo-Ka-Choo (was Re: Bhikkhu Nanananda's Koo-Koo-Ka-Choo)
Bodhidumba
news:hbkm1c$a16$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 10/20/2009 6:13 AM, Bodhidumba wrote:
>> "Hollywood Lee"<hollyw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hbhl7r$gs$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> On 10/19/2009 3:53 AM, Bodhidumba wrote:
[...]
>>>> So I wonder if when Nanananda says that Nibbana is a "psychological"
>>>> phenomena, he means it in the sense of "relative reality", as he
>>>> discusses
>>>> below...
>>>>
>>>> "Though it is fallacious [the concept of a being or a person, as
>>>> discussed
>>>> above], for the worldling living in an illusory unreal world, it has
>>>> its
>>>> place as a relative reality. Due to the very fact that it is grasped,
>>>> it
>>>> is
>>>> binding on him. Therefore, when a worldling uses such terms as `I' and
>>>> `mine', or a `being' and a `person', it is not a mere way of
>>>> expression.
>>>> It
>>>> is a level of reality proper to the worldling's scale of values."
>>>>
>>>> I haven't seen anywhere where Nanananda says that he means Nibbana is
>>>> psychological in this sense of "relative reality", but I think it would
>>>> be
>>>> more reasonable if that were the case. But if he means that Nibbana is
>>>> absolutely a psychological phenomena, and that's as true as it gets,
>>>> then
>>>> he's asserting a 'reality' to the concept of a person that (even he
>>>> says)
>>>> the Buddha stated is fallacious. So who would be the deluded one then,
>>>> Buddha or Nanananda? :-0
>>>
>>>
>>> So you've done what philosophers tend to do, you've talked yourself into
>>> a
>>> corner
>>
>> =========
>>
>>
>> Actually, the point I was getting at is that it is Nanananda who seems to
>> have painted himself into a corner by claiming that Nibbana is a purely
>> psychological experience, since that view is ultimately in conflict with
>> what (he says) the Buddha stated - that "the concept of a being or a
>> person
>> is fallacious" (so IMO the term "psychological" would ultimately be
>> inapplicable and irrelevant).
>>
>>> with only two seeming exits, neither of which is entirely palatable to
>>> you
>>> at the moment -
>>
>> My final question - "So who would be the deluded one then, Buddha or
>> Nanananda?" - I felt was a rhetorical one. I can say that if I believed
>> that it was the Buddha who was deluded regarding what he said about
>> Nibbana,
>> meaning that Nibbana is actually a state of delusion, I would leave
>> Buddhism.
>
> Oh dear. Can't have that. But two answers.
================================================
Well, earlier I did mention a possible third option - that when Nanananda
says that Nibbana is a psychological experience he may mean it in the sense
of what he calls 'relative reality' (i.e. "for the worldling living in an
illusory unreal world, it has its place as a relative reality"), not in the
more absolute sense that the Buddha is speaking from when he says that "the
concept of a being or a person is fallacious". But I haven't seen anywhere
that Nanananda says that he means 'psychological' in that sense of 'relative
reality', have you?
> First, a point we won't agree on is that you've set up a false choice
> between (a) awakening is more than merely psychological or (b) a person is
> real. In other words, asserting awakening as psychological also means
> asserting that a person is real. I don't follow the logic of that
> reasoning (assuming I've read you correctly), especially if by real you
> mean permanent and unchanging, rather than real as simply a pragmatic mode
> of reference.
By 'real' I don't mean permanent and unchanging. I think that Nanananda
himself clarifies it well with this quote, which I also posted the other day
to DharmaTroll:
"Various types of views and opinions current in the world regard�ing
material forms and matter in general, are the out�come of the no�tion that
they are absolutely real. There is a ten�dency in the worldling to presume
that what he grasps with his hands and sees with his eyes exists absolutely.
So a thing is said to exist for some length of time, before it gets
destroyed. The logical conclusion, then, is that all things in the world
ex�ist absolutely and that at some point of time they get abso�lute�ly
destroyed. This is how the two extreme views of abso�lute existence and
absolute non-existence have arisen in this world. This is the outcome of a
perception of form, which is tanta�mount to a pursuit of a mirage. It is an
illusion." - from Nibbana Sermon 11
So Nanananda is saying that, even though we may believe that things are
impermanent (they exist for a length of time then get destroyed), we can
still mistakenly believe that they are *absolutely* real when we see and
sense them - and that's illusion. So to believe that a person 'absolutely'
exists (during their lifetime) is an illusion. That's why the Buddha said
"the concept of a being or a person is fallacious".
But when Nanananda states elsewhere that the experience of Nibbana is
'psychological', this has to mean that he is actually asserting that a
person exists (i.e. is 'real') that this psychological label can be applied
to. So he's at odds not only with what the Buddha says above, but also with
what he himself says above, that such a 'logical conclusion' (that something
is real / exists), based on the perception of form, is an 'illusion'.
Unless, like I said earlier, he means 'psychological' in the sense of
'relative reality' (basically affirming that it's based on illusion) -- but
he hasn't said that.
> The second point, though, was more what I was addressing, and that is that
> it seems to me that any philosophy that tries to develop a complete and
> non-contradictory understanding of "reality" will run into unsolvable
> problems at some point - and I would suggest that applies to all schools
> of Buddhism - even if they arise at different points in the theology. So,
> by your standard, perhaps you should leave Buddhism now.
I'm not talking about any intellectual / theoretical understanding of
'reality', I'm talking about what Buddha actually realized with his perfect
enlightenment / state of Nibbana, leading him to say for example that the
concept of a being or a person is fallacious. So are there any schools of
Buddhism that say that Buddha was deluded regarding what he said about
Nibbana, meaning that Nibbana is actually a state of delusion? I wouldn't
say that just because there may be contradictions regarding the
(theoretical) nature of 'reality' among the schools, that that means the
Buddha was deluded - it just means they have differing interpretations.
But how about yourself.... when the Buddha said that the concept of a being
or a person is fallacious, do you think he was mistaken about that?
(keeping in mind that Nanananda says "Though it is fallacious, for the
worldling living in an illusory unreal world, it has its place as a relative
reality".)
> That, I think, is the lesson of the referenced chapter in Dreyfus' book,
> but I also think it may be the lesson of the first sutta in the early
> canon - the Net of Views sutta.
>
> In any event, I've not seen any reason to go beyond the
> mental/psychological interpretation as i think is well-represented by
> Nanananda. You seem to want to and I still don't understand why you think
> that is useful or necessary - other than as an interpretive matter for
> you. So what in you practice would be negatively impacted by a
> psychological interpretation?
Well, from the perspective of my own (Zen) practice, it would be yet another
view / opinion to be dropped - and a particularly 'sticky' one at that, with
wider implications, as it postulates that "I" am a body / mind that can have
a psychological interpretation of an experience applied to it - all
obstructions to the realization of "no-self". For that matter the Buddha's
"the concept of a being or a person is fallacious" is also a view to be
dropped (though a much less 'sticky' one). I do believe that the Buddha
actually said that as a valid expression of his state of Nibbana, in an
unattached way, but I've just been parroting it, and haven't actually
experienced what it implies myself. So as far as my own practice goes, I
have to be mindful not to get stuck on that view, either. I'm just using it
for the sake of discussion here.
[...]
>> FWIW, I've been a 'Zennie' since I was in high school (in the 1970s).
>> Before that I was briefly interested in Theravada Buddhism, but when I
>> came
>> across Zen I knew that was what I was looking for, and it's been that way
>> ever since. The Tibetan tradition, though somewhat interesting, never
>> really appealed to me. So my daily practice is from the Zen tradition...
>
> ok. So what in the Zen tradition requires you to believe that awakening
> is something beyond the psychological?
Zen koan practice aims at dropping any belief about awakening - including
the big one.... the belief that one is not already awakened. In one
recorded teisho I listened to the teacher said that even the slightest
notion in the back of one's mind that awakening is something to be gained in
the future is enough to actually block awakening. Complete absorption in
the koan practice is necessary. I'm not there yet, at this point,
obviously, since I'm still yakking about it here... <g>
But for the sake of discussion, the words of those who have at least to some
degree awakened indicate that the state of realization has implications that
go beyond the psychological realm - for example Kapleau's "I have it! I
know! There is nothing, absolutely nothing. I am everything and everything
is nothing!"; one of Kapleau's students said, describing their kensho: "I
took one step and the universe turned inside out"; Koun Yamada said "...The
big clock chimes - not the clock but Mind chimes. The universe itself
chimes. There is neither Mind nor universe...... The substance of Mind -
this is now luminously clear to me..."; and of course the Buddha saying that
the concept of a being or a person is fallacious, and that "All forms are
unreal" (Dhammapada #279).
If awakening really is entirely a psychological experience, then IMO it
fills one with delusion if it leads one to believe such things as those,
which clearly have implications outside of the psychological realm... and I
know I wouldn't want awakening, if that were the case. It would be more
accurate to call that experience "delusioning".
- Bodhidumba
Hollywood Lee
Again, I don't follow this line or reasoning. You seem to equate the
idea that a person who "exists" for purposes of discussing choices,
attributes, psychological experiences, and on can only be (a) illusory
and delusory, or (b) real, unchanging and permanent. I think you may be
confusing yourself with shifting definitions.
What is illusory is the sense of a real, unchanging self - a delusion
that gives rise to suffering as you follow the conditions of arising up
the chain. But the cutting of the delusion, the calming of the mental
compositions, the dropping of clinging to the aggregates doesn't erase
the aggregates. The awakened still eats, talks, walks and on in this
world and I see no reason not to speak of such walking, talking grouping
of aggregates as a person - even if not one that is permanent and
unchanging.
Hmm. Yeah, I don't see the problem, but since the psychological impact
of such a psychological approach, from your perspective, would be
negative or a hindrance, then probably good to let go. Makes sense.
> For that matter the Buddha's
> "the concept of a being or a person is fallacious" is also a view to be
> dropped (though a much less 'sticky' one). I do believe that the Buddha
> actually said that as a valid expression of his state of Nibbana, in an
> unattached way, but I've just been parroting it, and haven't actually
> experienced what it implies myself. So as far as my own practice goes, I
> have to be mindful not to get stuck on that view, either. I'm just using it
> for the sake of discussion here.
Of course, the Buddha on various occasions notes that even the raft of
Buddhism must be set down, so no argument here. Until then, row, dammit.
Wow. You get worried that my approach asserts something about
awakening, yet you go with these after the fact interpretations that
assert some amazing ontological claims about nirvana and the Universe,
Mind chimes, and on.
You then boot-strap back by accepting these ontological claims as true
and then conclude that the psychological approach is insufficient to
make the leap to these amazing claims, therefore the psychological
approach must be wrong.
But how about this? I didn't claim that the hammer could be used as an
inter-dimensional transport device. So criticizing the hammer for what
you desire it to do instead of what it does quite well, seems odd.
>
> If awakening really is entirely a psychological experience, then IMO it
> fills one with delusion if it leads one to believe such things as those,
> which clearly have implications outside of the psychological realm... and I
> know I wouldn't want awakening, if that were the case. It would be more
> accurate to call that experience "delusioning".
Try pounding nails and stop worrying about ringing your Mind chimes. If
you get the foundation secure, then you can move on.
herbzet
Hollywood Lee wrote:
> Bodhidumba wrote:
> > But when Nanananda states elsewhere that the experience of Nibbana is
> > 'psychological', this has to mean that he is actually asserting that a
> > person exists (i.e. is 'real') that this psychological label can be applied
> > to.
>
> Again, I don't follow this line or reasoning.
This is why you're so frustrating to argue with.
You're given a clear, knock-down argument, and
you just mildly remark that you don't follow
the line of reasoning.
You really can be a wet blanket!
#$%^@*!
--
hz
Déjà Flu
>
> Hollywood Lee wrote:
>> Bodhidumba wrote:
>
>>> But when Nanananda states elsewhere that the experience of Nibbana is
>>> 'psychological', this has to mean that he is actually asserting that a
>>> person exists (i.e. is 'real') that this psychological label can be applied
>>> to.
>> Again, I don't follow this line o[f] reasoning.
>
> This is why you're so frustrating to argue with.
Yeah.
Dogmatic positions on one side or the other are SO much easier.
Too bad it's so hard to tell what a dogmatic position really is.
Sometimes you have to imply them, just to continue the argument.
--
Ubi dubium ibi libertas
Appledog
You're much the same. I can see it in you, him, and me, but you can
see it only in others. That's why you fail so hard.
> You really can be a wet blanket!
>
> #$%^@*!
*shrug* get used to it.
-
Hollywood Lee
Ibid.
Tang Huyen
D�j� Flu wrote:
> Dogmatic positions on one side or the other are SO much easier.
> Too bad it's so hard to tell what a dogmatic position really is.
> Sometimes you have to imply them, just to continue the argument.
Theoretical positions, dogmatic or not, do matter,
but what matters more is whether their owners
can exemplify them and stand behind them as
their guarantors. It is the ad hominem part of
arguments, namely whether the proponents of
whatever theoretical positions can back up in
person their proclamations (which are mere words
on the screen anyway).
Jumping on mere words on the screen instantly
nullifies the theoretical positions, however well
argued they are. Jumping all over the map in terms
of theoretical positions, especially from extremes
to extremes, doesn't help, either.
Tang Huyen
Beerlet Dhiblang
wrote:
I do generally like the mix of perspectives b/c there are a variety of
themes that tend to be consistent and originate from each individual
poster. I enjoy most of the perspectives voiced here and only find
tedium in all of it when people let themselves compete overly much
with the other perspectives. That's when the intellectual egos are
overshadowing - and detracting from - the actual message.
As for the dharma don't let anybody say that the denizenry doesn't
know their share of Buddhism, I've been consistently impressed by how
well versed folks are here. As for the actual applied use of Buddhism,
well.... why y'all show up every day to bicker & and dig at each other
is anybody's guess.
Except maybe we enjoy it and would be bored to death without a
playground where the competition of ideas keeps the ol' grey gyrii
from getting too smooth too soon.
And a good flame war as a test of calmness and aplomb can still be
quite .... exhilarating.
/l
Tang Huyen
Beerlet Dhiblang wrote:
> I do generally like the mix of perspectives b/c there are a variety of
> themes that tend to be consistent and originate from each individual
> poster. I enjoy most of the perspectives voiced here and only find
> tedium in all of it when people let themselves compete overly much
> with the other perspectives. That's when the intellectual egos are
> overshadowing - and detracting from - the actual message.
>
> As for the dharma don't let anybody say that the denizenry doesn't
> know their share of Buddhism, I've been consistently impressed by how
> well versed folks are here. As for the actual applied use of Buddhism,
> well.... why y'all show up every day to bicker & and dig at each other
> is anybody's guess.
>
> Except maybe we enjoy it and would be bored to death without a
> playground where the competition of ideas keeps the ol' grey gyrii
> from getting too smooth too soon.
>
> And a good flame war as a test of calmness and aplomb can still be
> quite .... exhilarating.
Theoretical positions and claims regarding experience
or attainment are easily and quickly tested by how fast
and adaptive their authors are in a swiftly changing
milieu. Fu, Renli/Appledog and DharmaTroll are
incredibly closed-minded and rigid, and unable to
shape-shift at any deliberate speed. They are just plain
stuck (in addition to being very angry), and that fact
alone shows how they are and where they are, not
just with regard to Buddhist cultivation in particular,
but aso with life in general.
Tang Huyen
Beerlet Dhiblang
All of you suck the same.
It's b/c frankly the whole lot of yous fixate on which theory is most
correct, most faithful to the true faith. If a mind keeps clinging to
being the purveyor of quintessential truth, that's "defending the
faith."
Trying to establish a universal baseline of truth borders on
philosophical cargo cultism. The underlying tone belies a lack of
intellectual & emotional agnosticism, so yer really a bunch o' lapsed
non-theists while yer at it.
I didn't get into Buddhism to fall prey to the same lockbrained
fussing about scripture and theosophical correctness. That's piety &
evangelizing (exhibited in the endless & impersonal discussions about
theory). It's the same thing cardinals and mullahs do.
But I like y'all the way you are anyway, wouldn't change a thing. I've
learned a great deal and hell it's rather amusing to watch.
/l
zenworm
wrote:
what helps?
ZN
absolute permanent perfection overflowing without action
zenworm
beer or wine?
Tang Huyen
zenworm wrote:
> what helps?
Pulling oneself together to act as a single unit, in
harmony and accord with oneself. Setting up
some form of safeguard, so that if one fails,
firstly one is aware of that fact, namely that one
fails, and secondly one then acts to mend the
failure, or redeem the failure in some manner, so
that it is no longer a failure (not by deception,
but by genuinely redeeming the failure so that it
becomes a success in cultivation).
One general form is to be mindful, and if one
fails at it, one is aware of the failure and pulls
oneself back to being mindful. The practice is
its own safeguard.
My own practice is just to relax and be serene,
and my safeguard against failure is that if I fail
at just relaxing and being serene, I can yet take
the failure by just relaxing and being serene.
The practice is its own safeguard.
In all cases, honesty to oneself and openness to
oneself are required. The people who fool
themselves and hide themselves from themselves
will never succeed in Buddhist cultivation,
regardless of their prowess in meditative
technique and argumentative skill.
Tang Huyen
Evelyn
news:ZuCdnboR5aku4HnX...@supernews.com...
Never say "never."
All are capable of self realization, even if they get stuck sometimes.
Even you and maybe even me.
--
Evelyn
"Even as a mother protects with her life her only child, So with a boundless
heart let one cherish all living beings." --Sutta Nipata 1.8
Pete Watters
And sometimes "Y" and "W."
Pete (brought to you by the letter "I"...)
zenworm
Evelyn
news:nospam-3BD36E....@news.west.cox.net...
And maybe even Angiulimala.
zenworm
> "Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
maybe?
Beerlet Dhiblang
wrote:
Me thinks a wee tad too pointed with your broad brush there,
Tanglehair. I see you being competitive yourself, pointing out
everyone else's foibles.
I've watched everyone wrangle the same old same old for years. For
starters who here hasn't been guilty of having an axe to grind? If
there's an agenda the next trick is to get affirmations for it. And if
that doesn't work, ad-hom the opposition & pat yeself on thine dorsal
aspect (hey, it has worked for me....).
So I wouldn't boast & gloat too much there ... if you're right then
you're shooting down slow moving targets and if you're not fully right
then you're being judgmental, meet Mr. Kettle.
Cranky Chuck's right about a few things (stopped clock & all that
rot), one is that most of the traffic here is up to its axles in rut.
/l
Evelyn
news:457f3c0c-2f0a-436d...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
maybe?
With a little luck and some diligent effort and a great ball of
doubt........
Beerlet Dhiblang
martini & a cigar....
/l
zenworm
> "zenworm" <zensp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
doubt?
zenworm
sourcoughagus?
ZN :D
herbzet
Beerlet Dhiblang wrote:
> As for the dharma don't let anybody say that the denizenry doesn't
> know their share of Buddhism, I've been consistently impressed by how
> well versed folks are here.
Personally, I take a perverse pride in my near-total ignorance of
chapter and verse.
But you guys are wearing me down, slowly.
> As for the actual applied use of Buddhism,
> well.... why y'all show up every day to bicker & and dig at each other
> is anybody's guess.
>
> Except maybe we enjoy it and would be bored to death without a
> playground where the competition of ideas keeps the ol' grey gyrii
> from getting too smooth too soon.
>
> And a good flame war as a test of calmness and aplomb can still be
> quite .... exhilarating.
Heh-heh.
--
hz
herbzet
Beerlet Dhiblang wrote:
> On Oct 25, 7:35 am, Hollywood Lee <hollywood...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/24/2009 9:00 PM, herbzet wrote:
> > > Hollywood Lee wrote:
> > >> Bodhidumba wrote:
> >
> > >>> But when Nanananda states elsewhere that the experience of Nibbana is
> > >>> 'psychological', this has to mean that he is actually asserting that a
> > >>> person exists (i.e. is 'real') that this psychological label can be applied
> > >>> to.
> >
> > >> Again, I don't follow this line or reasoning.
> >
> > > This is why you're so frustrating to argue with.
> >
> > > You're given a clear, knock-down argument, and
> > > you just mildly remark that you don't follow
> > > the line of reasoning.
> >
> > Ibid.
>
> All of you suck the same.
Well, this certainly may be so, but I'd like to say that I'd hoped that
Lee (and others) would pick up from my remarks (the unsnipped remarks)
that I was being a little humorous and self-deprecating, along with
the observation about what I find frustrating.
Now, back to our previously scheduled rant:
> It's b/c frankly the whole lot of yous fixate on which theory is most
> correct, most faithful to the true faith. If a mind keeps clinging to
> being the purveyor of quintessential truth, that's "defending the
> faith."
>
> Trying to establish a universal baseline of truth borders on
> philosophical cargo cultism. The underlying tone belies a lack of
> intellectual & emotional agnosticism, so yer really a bunch o' lapsed
> non-theists while yer at it.
>
> I didn't get into Buddhism to fall prey to the same lockbrained
> fussing about scripture and theosophical correctness. That's piety &
> evangelizing (exhibited in the endless & impersonal discussions about
> theory). It's the same thing cardinals and mullahs do.
>
> But I like y'all the way you are anyway, wouldn't change a thing. I've
> learned a great deal and hell it's rather amusing to watch.
--
hz
herbzet
herbzet wrote:
> Beerlet Dhiblang wrote:
> > On Oct 25, 7:35 am, Hollywood Lee <hollywood...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 10/24/2009 9:00 PM, herbzet wrote:
> > > > Hollywood Lee wrote:
> > > >> Bodhidumba wrote:
> > >
> > > >>> But when Nanananda states elsewhere that the experience of Nibbana is
> > > >>> 'psychological', this has to mean that he is actually asserting that a
> > > >>> person exists (i.e. is 'real') that this psychological label can be applied
> > > >>> to.
> > >
> > > >> Again, I don't follow this line or reasoning.
> > >
> > > > This is why you're so frustrating to argue with.
> > >
> > > > You're given a clear, knock-down argument, and
> > > > you just mildly remark that you don't follow
> > > > the line of reasoning.
> > >
> > > Ibid.
> >
> > All of you suck the same.
>
> Well, this certainly may be so, but I'd like to say that I'd hoped that
> Lee (and others) would pick up from my remarks (the unsnipped remarks)
> that I was being a little humorous and self-deprecating, along with
> the observation about what I find frustrating.
Also, I interpreted Lee's "Ibid" as some dry humor as well.
Evelyn
doubt?
Essential to the mix, so says my teacher.
Beerlet Dhiblang
> Beerlet Dhiblang wrote:
> > On Oct 25, 7:35 am, Hollywood Lee <hollywood...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 10/24/2009 9:00 PM, herbzet wrote:
> > > > Hollywood Lee wrote:
> > > >> Bodhidumba wrote:
>
> > > >>> But when Nanananda states elsewhere that the experience of Nibbana is
> > > >>> 'psychological', this has to mean that he is actually asserting that a
> > > >>> person exists (i.e. is 'real') that this psychological label can be applied
> > > >>> to.
>
> > > >> Again, I don't follow this line or reasoning.
>
> > > > This is why you're so frustrating to argue with.
>
> > > > You're given a clear, knock-down argument, and
> > > > you just mildly remark that you don't follow
> > > > the line of reasoning.
>
> > > Ibid.
>
> > All of you suck the same.
>
> Well, this certainly may be so, but I'd like to say that I'd hoped that
> Lee (and others) would pick up from my remarks (the unsnipped remarks)
> that I was being a little humorous and self-deprecating, along with
> the observation about what I find frustrating.
Oh, you're least worst after quite a few others.
But there are plenty of others who just stay back from the verbal
streams the boys fish in.
You're mostly just a kidder, so the broad brush paints you least. But
I'm not sure what motivates you to hang in with the game.
I said my $0.02, got nothin' out of it except dirty.
> Now, back to our previously scheduled rant:
Rant?
You call this a rant?
Against all these endless attack threads that are mostly off-topic?
> > It's b/c frankly the whole lot of yous fixate on which theory is most
> > correct, most faithful to the true faith. If a mind keeps clinging to
> > being the purveyor of quintessential truth, that's "defending the
> > faith."
>
> > Trying to establish a universal baseline of truth borders on
> > philosophical cargo cultism. The underlying tone belies a lack of
> > intellectual & emotional agnosticism, so yer really a bunch o' lapsed
> > non-theists while yer at it.
>
> > I didn't get into Buddhism to fall prey to the same lockbrained
> > fussing about scripture and theosophical correctness. That's piety &
> > evangelizing (exhibited in the endless & impersonal discussions about
> > theory). It's the same thing cardinals and mullahs do.
>
> > But I like y'all the way you are anyway, wouldn't change a thing. I've
> > learned a great deal and hell it's rather amusing to watch.
/l
Beerlet Dhiblang
> herbzet wrote:
> > Beerlet Dhiblang wrote:
> > > On Oct 25, 7:35 am, Hollywood Lee <hollywood...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 10/24/2009 9:00 PM, herbzet wrote:
> > > > > Hollywood Lee wrote:
> > > > >> Bodhidumba wrote:
>
> > > > >>> But when Nanananda states elsewhere that the experience of Nibbana is
> > > > >>> 'psychological', this has to mean that he is actually asserting that a
> > > > >>> person exists (i.e. is 'real') that this psychological label can be applied
> > > > >>> to.
>
> > > > >> Again, I don't follow this line or reasoning.
>
> > > > > This is why you're so frustrating to argue with.
>
> > > > > You're given a clear, knock-down argument, and
> > > > > you just mildly remark that you don't follow
> > > > > the line of reasoning.
>
> > > > Ibid.
>
> > > All of you suck the same.
>
> > Well, this certainly may be so, but I'd like to say that I'd hoped that
> > Lee (and others) would pick up from my remarks (the unsnipped remarks)
> > that I was being a little humorous and self-deprecating, along with
> > the observation about what I find frustrating.
>
> Also, I interpreted Lee's "Ibid" as some dry humor as well.
Oh sure, but the way the bunch of y'all continue to rumble says more
than just one remark.
If arguing philosophy with Poster X isn't ever going to go anywhere,
or if Person Y is stuck on a weird spot, well, why get into nastygrams
about it?
And going at it for 5 - or more - years running w/out a break?
That said I generally have enjoyed reading & responding to posts from
most everyone at one time or another. Amongst them there are those who
are the least rancorous (I don't care to enumerate whom), the ladies
in the front of the list.
That much should be obvious... the rough housing in the rumpus room is
mostly a boy thing. The guys don't like to back off, tend to hang on
in negative thread going up in flames & be more obsessive in pushing
their agenda over the others.
IOW: Competitive.
/l
Bodhidumba
news:hbs71u$527$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 10/23/2009 5:37 AM, Bodhidumba wrote:
[...]
>> But when Nanananda states elsewhere that the experience of Nibbana is
>> 'psychological', this has to mean that he is actually asserting that a
>> person exists (i.e. is 'real') that this psychological label can be
>> applied
>> to.
>
> Again, I don't follow this line or reasoning. You seem to equate the idea
> that a person who "exists" for purposes of discussing choices, attributes,
> psychological experiences, and on can only be (a) illusory and delusory,
> or (b) real, unchanging and permanent. I think you may be confusing
> yourself with shifting definitions.
>
> What is illusory is the sense of a real, unchanging self - a delusion that
> gives rise to suffering as you follow the conditions of arising up the
> chain. But the cutting of the delusion, the calming of the mental
> compositions, the dropping of clinging to the aggregates doesn't erase the
> aggregates. The awakened still eats, talks, walks and on in this world and
> I see no reason not to speak of such walking, talking grouping of
> aggregates as a person - even if not one that is permanent and unchanging.
========================================================
But do you consider a person that you see (that group of aggregates that is
not permanent and not unchanging) to be real and existing in any way, or
else a "mirage" / "illusion"? (to use Nanananda's words.) For example, a
few days ago DharmaTroll posted this to Keynes:
"....trees exist. Trees are impermanent and have no self or essence. Trees,
which by definition are selfless and impermanent, exist."
So DharmaTroll acknowledges that although trees are "impermanent and have no
self or essence", he still believes that they *exist* (because he can
perceive them). That word *exist*, in that sense, is what I'm talking
about. That's exactly how it is with me, too - I'm not awakened, and I
believe that the trees (and also people, animals, etc.) that I see do exist
and are real, though I also know that they're impermanent (and that they
have no real, unchanging self or essence). But regarding that, Nanananda
says: "This is the outcome of a perception of form, which is tanta�mount to
a pursuit of a mirage. It is an illusion." So he is saying that me thinking
that the trees, people, animals, etc. that I perceive are 'real', that they
'exist', is an illusion (even though I also accept that they're selfless and
impermanent). But the Buddha had seen through that illusion, so he said
that the concept of a being or a person is fallacious.
So when Nanananda says elsewhere that Nibbana is entirely psychological,
there must be what he considers to be a real, existing person that he
intends to apply that label to, or else he wouldn't have said that. But how
is that possible if ultimately, as he says in Nibbana Sermon 11, all things
in the world are an "illusion" / "mirage"?
[...]
>>>> FWIW, I've been a 'Zennie' since I was in high school (in the 1970s).
>>>> Before that I was briefly interested in Theravada Buddhism, but when I
>>>> came
>>>> across Zen I knew that was what I was looking for, and it's been that
>>>> way
>>>> ever since. The Tibetan tradition, though somewhat interesting, never
>>>> really appealed to me. So my daily practice is from the Zen
>>>> tradition...
>>>
>>> ok. So what in the Zen tradition requires you to believe that awakening
>>> is something beyond the psychological?
>>
>> Zen koan practice aims at dropping any belief about awakening - including
>> the big one.... the belief that one is not already awakened. In one
>> recorded teisho I listened to the teacher said that even the slightest
>> notion in the back of one's mind that awakening is something to be gained
>> in
>> the future is enough to actually block awakening. Complete absorption in
>> the koan practice is necessary. I'm not there yet, at this point,
>> obviously, since I'm still yakking about it here...<g>
>>
>> But for the sake of discussion, the words of those who have at least to
>> some
>> degree awakened indicate that the state of realization has implications
>> that
>> go beyond the psychological realm - for example Kapleau's "I have it! I
>> know! There is nothing, absolutely nothing. I am everything and
>> everything
>> is nothing!"; one of Kapleau's students said, describing their kensho:
>> "I
>> took one step and the universe turned inside out"; Koun Yamada said
>> "...The
>> big clock chimes - not the clock but Mind chimes. The universe itself
>> chimes. There is neither Mind nor universe...... The substance of Mind -
>> this is now luminously clear to me..."; and of course the Buddha saying
>> that
>> the concept of a being or a person is fallacious, and that "All forms are
>> unreal" (Dhammapada #279).
>
> Wow. You get worried that my approach asserts something about awakening,
> yet you go with these after the fact interpretations that assert some
> amazing ontological claims about nirvana and the Universe, Mind chimes,
> and on.
>
> You then boot-strap back by accepting these ontological claims as true and
> then conclude that the psychological approach is insufficient to make the
> leap to these amazing claims, therefore the psychological approach must be
> wrong.
You asked me: "So what in the Zen tradition requires you to believe that
awakening is something beyond the psychological?" So I went on and told you
why the psychological approach doesn't work for me. Specifically, if say
back in the 1970s when I first learned about Zen I had felt that awakening
is an entirely psychological experience, then I would have felt that
descriptions such as Kapleau's "I am everything and everything is nothing!"
and Yamada's "The big clock chimes - not the clock but Mind chimes.... The
universe itself chimes. There is neither Mind nor universe....", and (if I'd
seen it then) Nanananda saying that the Buddha stated that the concept of a
being or a person is fallacious, and that "What for us appears as the true
and real state of the world, the Buddha declares to be false and unreal"
.... statements such as those I would have felt were the crazy ramblings of
delusional fools, if I had believed that awakening is entirely psychological
with no real validity in it's implications outside of the psychological
realm. And not wanting to follow in Kapleau's, Yamada's and Buddha's
footsteps down their loony road of delusion, I would have wanted nothing to
do with Zen / Buddhism!
That's why the psychological approach doesn't work for me.... but from the
start I believed that awakening did have valid implications beyond the
psychological realm, so I accepted and started practicing Zen.
> But how about this? I didn't claim that the hammer could be used as an
> inter-dimensional transport device. So criticizing the hammer for what
> you desire it to do instead of what it does quite well, seems odd.
And that's just it - the others like Kapleau, Yamada, and Buddha who have
used the hammer talk (in their quotes above, for example), as if the hammer
ultimately is an "inter-dimensional transport device", in the way their
outlook had changed after awakening. So either the hammer really is
ultimately an "inter-dimensional transport device", or else it had turned
them all into blabbering delusional fools (if it is strictly a psychological
tool). If you can come up with any other options, please let me know...
>> If awakening really is entirely a psychological experience, then IMO it
>> fills one with delusion if it leads one to believe such things as those,
>> which clearly have implications outside of the psychological realm... and
>> I
>> know I wouldn't want awakening, if that were the case. It would be more
>> accurate to call that experience "delusioning".
>
> Try pounding nails and stop worrying about ringing your Mind chimes. If
> you get the foundation secure, then you can move on.
Well, I've been practicing daily zazen for 30+ years now (Zen koan practice,
on and off the mat), so how long do you think before I get to the point of
actually pounding nails and establishing a foundation? I'm beginning to run
out of time here!
(Also let me repeat that Zen koan practice aims at dropping any belief about
awakening, and that includes dropping any expectations such as 'Mind chimes'
and the universe turning inside out, etc. The aim is complete absorption in
the koan practice. I'm just mentioning these things here for the sake of
discussion.)
- Bodhidumba
DharmaTroll
> ========================================================
>
> But do you consider a person that you see (that group of aggregates that is
> not permanent and not unchanging) to be real and existing in any way, or
> else a "mirage" / "illusion"? (to use Nanananda's words.) For example, a
> few days ago DharmaTroll posted this to Keynes:
>
> "....trees exist. Trees are impermanent and have no self or essence. Trees,
> which by definition are selfless and impermanent, exist."
>
> So DharmaTroll acknowledges that although trees are "impermanent and have no
> self or essence", he still believes that they *exist* (because he can
> perceive them). That word *exist*, in that sense, is what I'm talking
> about. That's exactly how it is with me, too - I'm not awakened, and I
> believe that the trees (and also people, animals, etc.) that I see do exist
> and are real, though I also know that they're impermanent (and that they
> have no real, unchanging self or essence).
Good, we are in agreement about this. I press the issue because when
others say "the tree is an illusion", and then when I point out that I
can see the tree and indeed I can climb it, they back off and claim
they are talking about some kind of permanent tree with a tree-soul or
something, and then I'm like, WTF?
When I say exists, I mean I can touch it, or bounce something off of
it, or spray it, or whatever. If it's an illusion, then it's not
independent of my mind, causing me to experience it, but rather, I'm
making it up, as in a hallucination or dream, in which case there may
be a visual experience which in many ways resembles the experience of
seeing a tree. That's how I state it. But I never imply permanence or
essence or a self-caused thing completely separate from everything
else.
My problem with Tang, with his closed-loop strategy, btw, is that
while Tang avoids a lot of problems, he can't even talk meaningfully
about the difference between experiencing a real tree and having a
hallucination where one has an experience much like seeing a tree, but
not caused by a tree. And not making that distinction would be
pathological. So I don't think Tang actually follows his own
philosophy. I think he just wears it on the list so that he can be
invulnerable to argument that he is making any controversial claims.
Which is silly to me, because I don't just want to argue well, but I
want to say something meaningful and practical with respect to
everyday life as well.
> But regarding that, Nanananda says:
> "This is the outcome of a perception of form, which is tantamount to
> a pursuit of a mirage. It is an illusion." So he is saying that me thinking
> that the trees, people, animals, etc. that I perceive are 'real', that they
> 'exist', is an illusion (even though I also accept that they're selfless and
> impermanent). But the Buddha had seen through that illusion, so he said
> that the concept of a being or a person is fallacious.
Well, I'd have to see the passage in context. If N is saying that real
trees are illusions, then he's simply wrong, and I can disprove him
by, um, climbing up an apple tree and then pelting the idealist below
with apples.
I would suspect, however, than N is claiming that the 'mirage' would
be thinking that the tree is permanent or self-existing in some way.
As for the Buddha, he said in many places that the metaphysical
concept of being a person, or self, or soul, or Mind, is illusion, but
that we have a practical, empirical sense of self, which is a useful
fiction used in ordinary life.
> So when Nanananda says elsewhere that Nibbana is entirely psychological,
> there must be what he considers to be a real, existing person that he
> intends to apply that label to, or else he wouldn't have said that.
No, not at all. He's talking about an empirical self or person, and
he's not adding a metaphysical soul or Mind or self back into the mix.
> But how
> is that possible if ultimately, as he says in Nibbana Sermon 11, all things
> in the world are an "illusion" / "mirage"?
Statements like that, taken out of context, such as "all things are an
illusion" can be interpreted in a dozen ways. Boddhidumba, you like to
take such ambiguous statements out of context and then try to give
them some twist to suit you. If the statement is used to claim that
their are no trees, then it's simply false. If it's claiming that all
perceptions are interpretations created by the brain, then it's true,
though misleading, because it doesn't discern between perceptions
caused by trees or simply fabricated by brains without any trees
involved.
You read your own woo-woo into Buddhism again, then. The problem I've
had with zennies is that they simply trade the word 'soul' for 'Mind'
with a capital letter and then believe all sorts of woo-woo about
souls and so forth. I don't think that's what's going in in Zen at
all. That is, I don't have a problem with Zen, just with Western
zennies who crave magic and souls.
"I am everything and nothing" is a completely psychological statement.
And a healthy one. It's the conclusion you will reach if you study
science rigorously. And it is a 100% psychological statement that what
appears to be the true state of the world isn't so. That is, we add
our own spin and filtering to our experiences. None of your goblins
and witches and magic.
> That's why the psychological approach doesn't work for me....
> but from the start I believed that awakening did have valid
> implications beyond the psychological realm,
So then you should have become a Born-Again Christian.
> so I accepted and started practicing Zen.
Yet nothing in the quotes above is anything but 100% psychological.
Otherwise it's a contradiction. To say "not the clock but Mind
chimes.... The universe itself chimes. There is neither Mind nor
universe" is completely linquistic. It's only a statement about words
and concepts and their limitations. That is, 100% psychological. But
you say to yourself instead "Boy, oh Boy, this Zen stuff is really
saying that we're in the Matrix and everything is a dream and really
some magical woo-woo realm is the true reality -- Boy, oh, Boy, this
Zen stuff is for me!"
> > But how about this? I didn't claim that the hammer could be used as an
> > inter-dimensional transport device. So criticizing the hammer for what
> > you desire it to do instead of what it does quite well, seems odd.
>
> And that's just it - the others like Kapleau, Yamada, and Buddha who have
> used the hammer talk (in their quotes above, for example), as if the hammer
> ultimately is an "inter-dimensional transport device",
But they don't. You do, and you read your magic into the Buddha.
In fact, Boddhidumba, you are doing exactly the opposite of what the
Buddha taught. He taught that psychological health (nirvana) is to see
the world without adding extra concepts and filters, especially
craving, aversion, and delusion. Yet your spiritual goal is to not
just see the hammer, but to add your extra concepts and fantasies and
cravings for magic, and so you perceive an "inter-dimensional
transport device".
Anyway, there is amazing irony in this, where the Buddha's teachings
are meant to stop adding extra concepts and baggage onto experience,
whereas you claim you went for Zen so that you could add lots of extra
concepts and baggage, as that's what turns you on.
> > Try pounding nails and stop worrying about ringing your Mind chimes. If
> > you get the foundation secure, then you can move on.
>
> Well, I've been practicing daily zazen for 30+ years now (Zen koan practice,
> on and off the mat), so how long do you think before I get to the point of
> actually pounding nails and establishing a foundation? I'm beginning to run
> out of time here!
Well, at least you're no so lost in woo-woo that you don't claim that
there is no time to run out of! You're demonstrating something I've
seen in folks, when you just do navel-gazing without critical
thinking, then meditation serves as 30 years of cementing and
hardening of your dogma and beliefs. I suppose if you're not in pain
and not hurting anybody else, this is ok, but I prefer using
meditation to help let go of dogma and beliefs. If you float around
in the clouds for 30 years, it doesn't matter if you float around for
another 30 years -- you're never going to actually pound a nail into
the ground. Well, to each his own.
--DharmaTroll
Hollywood Lee
I think DT pretty much said all that I could say on the above when he
noted as follows:
"As for the Buddha, he said in many places that the metaphysical
concept of being a person, or self, or soul, or Mind, is illusion, but
that we have a practical, empirical sense of self, which is a useful
fiction used in ordinary life."
With that clarification, I don't see any conflict between the ideas of
Buddhism as a psychological/mental practice and the illusion of a
permanent, unchanging self.
I don't know I would go as far as he did with his tree analysis, but I
don't deny trees as an empirical fact.
That's where I'm not sure what you are saying. What, beyond the
psychological realm, does Zen imply?
>> But how about this? I didn't claim that the hammer could be used as an
>> inter-dimensional transport device. So criticizing the hammer for what
>> you desire it to do instead of what it does quite well, seems odd.
>
> And that's just it - the others like Kapleau, Yamada, and Buddha who have
> used the hammer talk (in their quotes above, for example), as if the hammer
> ultimately is an "inter-dimensional transport device", in the way their
> outlook had changed after awakening. So either the hammer really is
> ultimately an "inter-dimensional transport device", or else it had turned
> them all into blabbering delusional fools (if it is strictly a psychological
> tool). If you can come up with any other options, please let me know...
As for Kapleau and Yamada, I'm perfectly willing to have them branded
blabbering delusional fools. As for the Buddha, I don't believe he
talked of fancy hammers, but I'm also willing to admit that that is just
the way I (and Nanananda) interpret him. It may just mean you and I
disagree about the purpose of Buddhism. That's ok by me.
>
>>> If awakening really is entirely a psychological experience, then IMO it
>>> fills one with delusion if it leads one to believe such things as those,
>>> which clearly have implications outside of the psychological realm... and
>>> I
>>> know I wouldn't want awakening, if that were the case. It would be more
>>> accurate to call that experience "delusioning".
>>
>> Try pounding nails and stop worrying about ringing your Mind chimes. If
>> you get the foundation secure, then you can move on.
>
> Well, I've been practicing daily zazen for 30+ years now (Zen koan practice,
> on and off the mat), so how long do you think before I get to the point of
> actually pounding nails and establishing a foundation? I'm beginning to run
> out of time here!
>
> (Also let me repeat that Zen koan practice aims at dropping any belief about
> awakening, and that includes dropping any expectations such as 'Mind chimes'
> and the universe turning inside out, etc. The aim is complete absorption in
> the koan practice. I'm just mentioning these things here for the sake of
> discussion.)
That's the mystery of Zen as far as I'm concerned. It is a practice
that talks repeatedly of dropping everything, but seems quite insistent
that awakening has to be something momentous sounding that starts with a
capital letter.
Keynes
If the world as-one-thinks-it is the-world-as-it-really-is,
then what's the point of buddhism? Why struggle to
stop struggling? How is -that- supposed to work?
We can clearly see the mistakes that others make in
their warped and biased world views, and how it makes
them behave badly and suffer the consequences. Why
can't they just be as clever as 'me' and know exactly
what's what without a doubt? Then they would be
correct in all things, never make stupid mistakes,
and be happy just like... errr.... hmmm....
Look, there are persons and there are things. Who
can deny that? And these persons and things have
attributes (which we clearly understand). They have
properties, and powers, and of course severe limitations.
We have to understand these limitations and bow to
them and their inevitability. Just because that's the
way things are. Just because. Everybody says so.
It's all so simple and clear. THIS is how it is.
Just listen to me and I'll tell you the Real Truth,
and make you just as good as I am, and we can all
stop making fools of ourselves and be... er... hmmm...
Anyway that's why we have to sacrifice virgins to
appease the Great Sky Lizard, so he won't barf on
our cattle and watermelons. Everybody says so.
Why can't you be reasonable and listen to the Truth?
If you don't I'll have to pummel you until you do.
No problem. I love to do that.
And that's the truth.
herbzet
Huh? What quotes? I seemed to have missed the posts about hammers.
What's all this hammer talk about?
> as if the hammer
> ultimately is an "inter-dimensional transport device", in the way their
> outlook had changed after awakening. So either the hammer really is
> ultimately an "inter-dimensional transport device", or else it had turned
> them all into blabbering delusional fools (if it is strictly a psychological
> tool). If you can come up with any other options, please let me know...
>
> >> If awakening really is entirely a psychological experience, then IMO it
> >> fills one with delusion if it leads one to believe such things as those,
> >> which clearly have implications outside of the psychological realm... and
> >> I
> >> know I wouldn't want awakening, if that were the case. It would be more
> >> accurate to call that experience "delusioning".
> >
> > Try pounding nails and stop worrying about ringing your Mind chimes. If
> > you get the foundation secure, then you can move on.
>
> Well, I've been practicing daily zazen for 30+ years now (Zen koan practice,
> on and off the mat), so how long do you think before I get to the point of
> actually pounding nails and establishing a foundation? I'm beginning to run
> out of time here!
What is your koan? Is it not done to ask someone what their koan is?
My "natural" koan was "Who/What am I?". Now it's more like "What is this?"
Like:
What is this,
This dagger which I see before me
The handle toward my hand?
What is this?
> (Also let me repeat that Zen koan practice aims at dropping any belief about
> awakening, and that includes dropping any expectations such as 'Mind chimes'
> and the universe turning inside out, etc. The aim is complete absorption in
> the koan practice. I'm just mentioning these things here for the sake of
> discussion.)
--
hz
DharmaTroll
>
> If the world as-one-thinks-it is the-world-as-it-really-is,
> then what's the point of buddhism?
Because we add craving, aversion, and delusion to the world-as-it-is,
and that causes discomfort and angst. That's why.
> We can clearly see the mistakes that others make in
> their warped and biased world views, and how it makes
> them behave badly and suffer the consequences.
No we can't. Maybe they happen to both have different views and they
happen to be assholes.
> It's all so simple and clear. THIS is how it is.
> Just listen to me and I'll tell you the Real Truth,
Yeah, you and every other nutter, you see.
> Anyway that's why we have to sacrifice virgins to
> appease the Great Sky Lizard,
Better start takin' your meds again, Keynes.
--DharmaTroll
zenworm
uncertainty can help
when attention is in Moment
receiving with gratitude
this Moment
ZN :D
herbzet
Beerlet Dhiblang wrote:
I'm probably not as mature as I look.
> And going at it for 5 - or more - years running w/out a break?
I'm up to about 1+ year with Renli/Appledork -- he just won't go away!
> That said I generally have enjoyed reading & responding to posts from
> most everyone at one time or another. Amongst them there are those who
> are the least rancorous (I don't care to enumerate whom), the ladies
> in the front of the list.
>
> That much should be obvious... the rough housing in the rumpus room is
> mostly a boy thing. The guys don't like to back off, tend to hang on
> in negative thread going up in flames & be more obsessive in pushing
> their agenda over the others.
>
> IOW: Competitive.
True.
Some of us can be hooked by the idea that we're protecting our friends,
or the Dharma.
Same thing happens in sci.logic and sci.math, to a similarly insane degree.
Though not me, there.
--
hz
DharmaTroll
> Bodhidumba wrote:
> > "Hollywood Lee" <hollywood...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Hah! This reminds me of the great Battle-of-the-Buddhists Debate,
where a Tibetan Master and a Zen Master went at it in dharma-combat.
The two contestants were Kalu Rinpoche and Zen master Seung Sahn:
<<The two monks entered with swirling robes - maroon and yellow for
the Tibetan, austere gray and black for the Korean - and were followed
by retinues of younger monks and translators with shaven heads. The
Tibetan lama sat very still, fingering a wooden rosary (mala) with one
hand while murmuring, 'Om mani padme hung,' continuously under his
breath. The Zen master, who was already gaining renown for his method
of hurling questions at his students until they were forced to admit
their ignorance and then bellowing, 'Keep that don't know mind!' at
them, reached deep inside his robes and drew out an orange. 'What is
this?' he demanded of the lama. 'What is this?'
This was a typical Zen trick, and we could feel him ready to pounce on
whatever response he was given. The Tibetan sat quietly fingering his
mala and made no move to respond. 'What is this?' the Zen master
insisted, holding the orange up to the Tibetan's nose.
Kalu Rinpoche bent very slowly to the Tibetan monk next to him who was
serving as the translator, and they whispered back and forth for
several minutes. Finally the translator addressed the room: 'Rinpoche
says, What is the matter with him? Don't they have oranges where he
comes from?' At that point, the debate was stopped.>>
Bwahahahahaha. Kalu out-zenned the Zen master!
--DharmaTroll
"Reality isn't the way you wish things to be, nor the way they appear
to be, but the way they actually are."
-Robert J. Ringer
Keynes
wrote:
Give me a day or two and I'll give you a spontaneous answer.
herbzet
I stopped reading here. I can only take so much tedium.
--
hz
DharmaTroll
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:06:02 -0700 (PDT), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
Heh!
--DharmaTroll
"The effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things
that lifts human life a little above the level of farce, and gives it
some of the grace of tragedy."
-Steven Weinberg
Bodhidumba
news:4AE5E81C...@gmail.com...
[...]
===================================================
Oops, I see now that I should have put a comma between the words 'hammer'
and 'talk'. It should have read: "And that's just it - the others like
Kapleau, Yamada, and Buddha who have used the hammer, talk (in their quotes
above, for example),..."
It was Lee who earlier mentioned the word 'hammer' as a metaphor for
Buddhism (I believe), and when he said 'pounding nails', I took that to mean
actually practicing Buddhism. He can correct me if I'm wrong...
Mu. But that's not the only one I've worked on in the past...
> My "natural" koan was "Who/What am I?". Now it's more like "What is
> this?"
>
> Like:
>
> What is this,
> This dagger which I see before me
> The handle toward my hand?
>
> What is this?
I saw elsewhere you mentioned your fondness for that Shakespeare quote. So
when you question "What is this?" as a koan, do you do it referring to an
actual physical object, like the knife in the quote above, or do you ask
"What is this?" in a more general sense, as in "What is reality?" for
example?
There is something else I wanted to ask you about. About a month ago you
posted this to DharmaTroll, referring to Lee's original quoting of Nanananda
talking about Nibbana being a psychological, not metaphysical experience.
You said:
"Psychological feels like metaphysical when it's genuine (which is what
leads to the "error" discussed above)...."
http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.buddha.short.fat.guy/msg/20fdc6d2e364960e?hl=en
I'm wondering what leads you to the conclusion that "Psychological feels
like metaphysical when it's genuine". It sounds like you're also saying
that Nibbana is an entirely psychological experience, and that any (seeming)
metaphysical aspects the person may feel they have realized, are really not
valid - are illusions. Could you clarify / expand on that a bit? Like I
said elsewhere, if I believed that myself, I would give up Buddhism. I'm
interested in awakening, not 'delusioning'. Thanks....
- Bodhidumba
Déjà Flu
If there's an idea of something you want, give it up right now.
If there's no idea at all, but simply great doubt, swallow the
flaming iron ball with great determination.
--
Ubi dubium ibi libertas
oxtail
> Bodhidumba wrote:
>>
>> I'm wondering what leads you to the conclusion that "Psychological
>> feels like metaphysical when it's genuine". It sounds like you're also
>> saying that Nibbana is an entirely psychological experience, and that
>> any (seeming) metaphysical aspects the person may feel they have
>> realized, are really not valid - are illusions. Could you clarify /
>> expand on that a bit? Like I said elsewhere, if I believed that
>> myself, I would give up Buddhism. I'm interested in awakening, not
>> 'delusioning'. Thanks....
>>
>
> If there's an idea of something you want, give it up right now. If
> there's no idea at all, but simply great doubt, swallow the flaming iron
> ball with great determination.
He would need great blind faith to do that.
You probably can get by with just sitting.
Do you mind if I do nothing about it?
--
oxtail
herbzet
Bodhidumba wrote:
> "herbzet" wrote:
> > Bodhidumba wrote:
>
> [...]
> >> Well, I've been practicing daily zazen for 30+ years now (Zen koan
> >> practice,
> >> on and off the mat), so how long do you think before I get to the point
> >> of
> >> actually pounding nails and establishing a foundation? I'm beginning to
> >> run
> >> out of time here!
> >
> > What is your koan? Is it not done to ask someone what their koan is?
>
> Mu. But that's not the only one I've worked on in the past...
>
> > My "natural" koan was "Who/What am I?". Now it's more like "What is
> > this?"
> >
> > Like:
> >
> > What is this,
> > This dagger which I see before me
> > The handle toward my hand?
> >
> > What is this?
>
> I saw elsewhere you mentioned your fondness for that Shakespeare quote. So
> when you question "What is this?" as a koan, do you do it referring to an
> actual physical object, like the knife in the quote above, or do you ask
> "What is this?" in a more general sense, as in "What is reality?" for
> example?
Mostly ask about things that we would ordinarily class as mental objects
or faculties, rather than external things (although this presumes a
clear-cut distinction!)
Just btw, the Macbeth quote is about a knife that is a projection of
his ambition and guilt, or a vision from God, maybe. What is it, that
he sees before him? The question is especially pressing -- for him.
> There is something else I wanted to ask you about. About a month ago you
> posted this to DharmaTroll, referring to Lee's original quoting of Nanananda
> talking about Nibbana being a psychological, not metaphysical experience.
> You said:
>
> "Psychological feels like metaphysical when it's genuine (which is what
> leads to the "error" discussed above)...."
>
> http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.buddha.short.fat.guy/msg/20fdc6d2e364960e?hl=en
>
> I'm wondering what leads you to the conclusion that "Psychological feels
> like metaphysical when it's genuine".
Well, Macbeth is presented with a knife, utterly clearly before his
eyes, but his hand passes through it. Then it turns bloody, gouts
of blood all over it.
Perhaps it is just a hallucination issuing from his mind, but how is
he to know that it is not supernatural in origin, a call from God to
repent of his murder? It's a totally convincing external object,
except that he can't physically grasp it. So, what is it?
If you perceive yourself as being at one with everthing, is that
a psychological phenomenon or is it a metaphysical truth? Even
if it's pure schizophrenia, it appears as real, that's all I was
saying. You'll notice I put "error" in scare-quotes, in your quote
of me above, the idea being to suggest that it is not necessarily
an error.
> It sounds like you're also saying
> that Nibbana is an entirely psychological experience,
No, I'm not saying that.
> and that any (seeming)
> metaphysical aspects the person may feel they have realized, are really not
> valid - are illusions.
No, I'm not saying that at all.
> Could you clarify / expand on that a bit?
Well, I'm not making those claims, so there's nothing to expand on.
In general, I object to the categories of "self" and "other" as
delusional, hence to assert that something just happens "in the mind"
and not "in reality" just doesn't make sense, does not compute.
> Like I
> said elsewhere, if I believed that myself, I would give up Buddhism. I'm
> interested in awakening, not 'delusioning'. Thanks....
Forget about Buddhism. Conduct your own inquiry, as the Buddha did,
and advised us to do with his last breath.
So, Mu, huh?
--
hz
herbzet
Bodhidumba wrote:
Yeah, I thought he might have been referring to previous posts that I had
missed somehow.
> He can correct me if I'm wrong...
>
> >> as if the hammer
> >> ultimately is an "inter-dimensional transport device", in the way their
> >> outlook had changed after awakening. So either the hammer really is
> >> ultimately an "inter-dimensional transport device", or else it had turned
> >> them all into blabbering delusional fools (if it is strictly a
> >> psychological
> >> tool). If you can come up with any other options, please let me know...
> >>
> >> >> If awakening really is entirely a psychological experience, then IMO
> >> >> it
> >> >> fills one with delusion if it leads one to believe such things as
> >> >> those,
> >> >> which clearly have implications outside of the psychological realm...
> >> >> and
> >> >> I
> >> >> know I wouldn't want awakening, if that were the case. It would be
> >> >> more
> >> >> accurate to call that experience "delusioning".
> >> >
> >> > Try pounding nails and stop worrying about ringing your Mind chimes.
> >> > If
> >> > you get the foundation secure, then you can move on.
[...]
--
hz
zenworm
mind?
mind minding your mind mindfully
lest unmindful your mindingless mindfulness
becomes mindingly unmindful
of mind minding mindfulness unmindfully
thus mindless
oxtail
> On Oct 31, 5:24 pm, oxtail <oxt...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:10:15 -0400, Déjà Flu wrote:
>> > Bodhidumba wrote:
>>
>> >> I'm wondering what leads you to the conclusion that "Psychological
>> >> feels like metaphysical when it's genuine". It sounds like you're
>> >> also saying that Nibbana is an entirely psychological experience,
>> >> and that any (seeming) metaphysical aspects the person may feel they
>> >> have realized, are really not valid - are illusions. Could you
>> >> clarify / expand on that a bit? Like I said elsewhere, if I
>> >> believed that myself, I would give up Buddhism. I'm interested in
>> >> awakening, not 'delusioning'. Thanks....
>>
>> > If there's an idea of something you want, give it up right now. If
>> > there's no idea at all, but simply great doubt, swallow the flaming
>> > iron ball with great determination.
>>
>> He would need great blind faith to do that. You probably can get by
>> with just sitting. Do you mind if I do nothing about it?
>>
>
> mind?
>
> mind minding your mind mindfully
> lest unmindful your mindingless mindfulness becomes mindingly unmindful
> of mind minding mindfulness unmindfully thus mindless
Never mind.
Do you know how not to check your mind?
It does not mean saying whatever
that comes to your mind, you know?
--
oxtail
zenworm
Bodhidumba
===================================================
Ok... I haven't read Macbeth since I was in high school (long time ago), and
I don't remember a thing about it except for the title...
Ok, thank you. It seems I was misinterpreting.
> In general, I object to the categories of "self" and "other" as
> delusional, hence to assert that something just happens "in the mind"
> and not "in reality" just doesn't make sense, does not compute.
So would you go so far to say, then, that ultimately speaking the categories
of "self" and "other" are not delusional?
>> Like I
>> said elsewhere, if I believed that myself, I would give up Buddhism. I'm
>> interested in awakening, not 'delusioning'. Thanks....
>
> Forget about Buddhism.
I will do that, upon "reaching the other shore", as the Buddha suggested.
Seems like good advice to me. Until then, Zen / Buddhism helps inspire my
practice, and that's a good thing. But regarding practice itself, whenever
I keep attention focused on the koan, and do not pursue other thoughts that
may arise (including thoughts about Zen / Buddhism), I suppose in that sense
it could be said that I have forgotten about Buddhism. And that's the way
it is much of the time, on and off the mat - the aim being to make it total,
selfless absorption in the koan.
>Conduct your own inquiry, as the Buddha did,
AFAIK the Buddha was basically practicing breath awareness at the time of
his enlightenment, not the kind of inquiry / koan practice we're talking
about (which is more a centuries later Ch'an / Zen thing):
"...When the Blessed One sat at the foot of the Bodhi Tree and resolved not
to rise until he had reached enlightenment, he took up anapana sati [the
meditation on in-and-out breathing] as his subject of meditation...."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/ariyadhamma/bl115.html
> and advised us to do with his last breath.
Where did you hear that? According to the Maha-parinibbana Sutta:
----
Part Six: The Passing Away
The Blessed One's Final Exhortation
8. And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now,
bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive
with earnestness!"
This was the last word of the Tathagata.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html
----
> So, Mu, huh?
Yes. Mu is said to be by far the most commonly assigned initial /
breakthrough koan throughout the West and in Japan, after all...
- Bodhidumba
herbzet
No, I'm saying that ultimately speaking the categories of "self" and "other"
*are* delusional, and that the substance of awakening may be said to be the
crystal-clear, immediate comprehension of this fact; that we've been walking
around with a delusion deeply embedded in our understanding of the world.
(Of course, various facets "the substance of awakening" could be indicated
by various speakers for various purposes. It's just a phrase.)
> >> Like I
> >> said elsewhere, if I believed that myself, I would give up Buddhism. I'm
> >> interested in awakening, not 'delusioning'. Thanks....
> >
> > Forget about Buddhism.
>
> I will do that, upon "reaching the other shore", as the Buddha suggested.
> Seems like good advice to me. Until then, Zen / Buddhism helps inspire my
> practice, and that's a good thing. But regarding practice itself, whenever
> I keep attention focused on the koan, and do not pursue other thoughts that
> may arise (including thoughts about Zen / Buddhism), I suppose in that sense
> it could be said that I have forgotten about Buddhism.
Yes, just so!
> And that's the way
> it is much of the time, on and off the mat - the aim being to make it total,
> selfless absorption in the koan.
>
> >Conduct your own inquiry, as the Buddha did,
>
> AFAIK the Buddha was basically practicing breath awareness at the time of
> his enlightenment, not the kind of inquiry / koan practice we're talking
> about (which is more a centuries later Ch'an / Zen thing):
>
> "...When the Blessed One sat at the foot of the Bodhi Tree and resolved not
> to rise until he had reached enlightenment, he took up anapana sati [the
> meditation on in-and-out breathing] as his subject of meditation...."
>
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/ariyadhamma/bl115.html
Well, I'd like a little more textual quotation before I'm gonna say I
have any idea about what sort of meditation Siddartha Gautama was pracicing
at that particular juncture. I would agree that he was not engaging in koan
practice, as it hadn't really been invented yet (to my knowledge), though I
wouldn't rule out (in fact I think it very likely) that Siddhartha Gautama was
working on his "natural" koan, the question that had propelled him so strongly
on his quest, with such unsatisfactory results, for so long.
(Just noticed the "quest" in "question"!)
> > and advised us to do with his last breath.
>
> Where did you hear that? According to the Maha-parinibbana Sutta:
> ----
> Part Six: The Passing Away
> The Blessed One's Final Exhortation
>
> 8. And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now,
> bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive
> with earnestness!"
>
> This was the last word of the Tathagata.
>
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html
There are various translations. A fairly standard
rendering (in my experience) is given at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha#Death_.2F_Mahaparinirvana
"The Buddha's final words were, "All composite things pass away.
Strive for your own liberation with diligence."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha#Death_.2F_Mahaparinirvana
(Anybody: let me know it this link doesn't work.)
> ----
>
> > So, Mu, huh?
>
> Yes. Mu is said to be by far the most commonly assigned initial /
> breakthrough koan throughout the West and in Japan, after all...
Yes, it is said that that koan is very commonly assigned.
If I suggest that you have a "natural" koan, a question that propels
you on *your* quest, what would you say it is, boiled down to a sentence?
(More or less, if that's possible at all.)
--
hz
halfawake
here's mine:
"what is the true nature of human awareness?"
robert
herbzet
halfawake wrote:
> herbzet wrote:
> > If I suggest that you have a "natural" koan, a question that propels
> > you on *your* quest, what would you say it is, boiled down to a sentence?
> > (More or less, if that's possible at all.)
> here's mine:
> "what is the true nature of human awareness?"
That's an interesting question. But why is it so singularly significant
to you? Can you say a little about how you came to take up this question?
Would simply distinguishing human awareness from non-human awareness be
a satisfactory resolution?
--
hz
zenworm
Any question will do
(any statement too for that matter)
if the origin of its origin is looked into.
halfawake
>
> halfawake wrote:
>
>>herbzet wrote:
>
>
>>>If I suggest that you have a "natural" koan, a question that propels
>>>you on *your* quest, what would you say it is, boiled down to a sentence?
>>>(More or less, if that's possible at all.)
>
>
>>here's mine:
>>"what is the true nature of human awareness?"
>
>
> That's an interesting question. But why is it so singularly significant
> to you? Can you say a little about how you came to take up this question?
the fact of being an experiencer is the central problem of being alive
and the central theme of Buddhism. How does one experience anything?
Through consciousness or awareness. To be conscious, aware, awake to
the extent that one is able to actually take in and contemplate
experience, is also the distinguishing quality of being alive or human.
Animals are not self-reflective, although they are aware. Human
awareness alone has this capability. Therefore humans can go deeper
into the problem of being aware, whereas dogs can't. That doesn't solve
anything; it just denotes that dogs can't look into awareness, just
utilize it.
>
> Would simply distinguishing human awareness from non-human awareness be
> a satisfactory resolution?
no.
Robert
= = = =
Keynes
Isn't 'awareness' just a term for the subject-object split?
DharmaTroll
> Isn't 'awareness' just a term for the subject-object split?
There you are thinkind dualistically again, Keynes.
--DharmaTroll
Keynes
possum
i have to say, i found that a very helpful remark. i hadn't thought
of that before, and duh! slap forehead, and am still struggling to
express a thought about this, which i probably can't, but that's
better, thanks.
possum
Lee Rudolph
In terms of the nested (decreasing) sequence of "ranges in an
organism's environment" that I like to promulgate (ALL > ACCESSIBLE
> AVAILABLE > AWARENESS > ATTENTION, where ALL is, well, "all there
is", ACCESSIBLE cuts out what physics says is inaccessible [e.g.,
the future, space-time outside the organism's light-cone, etc.],
AVAILABLE cuts out what the organism has no way to "sense" [e.g.,
for humans at least, magnetic fields, neutrino flux, polarization
of light; for pigeons, however, the first and third *are* available],
AWARENESS cuts out what isn't presently actuating the organism's
sensoria, and ATTENTION cuts out those actuators of sensoria to
which the organism is not presently "attending"), I'd say rather
that ATTENTION is the locus of a subject-object split. But that's
just an idiosyncratic verbal tic, probably.
I do, however, think that it's perfectly reasonable to speak of
a tomato plant being "aware" of its environment, but not reasonable
to speak either of its "paying attention" to something or of its
making a "subject-object" split; which is at least consistent with
my proposal.
Lee Rudolph
Déjà Flu
Similarly, I know lots of dogs who have "buddha-nature".
Wu(f).
possum
thank you lee. i think all i have to do now is decide whether to
grass up HMRC to the joint committee on statutory instruments, or
resurrect my complaint with the information commissioner, do both, or
neither...
i think i'll have a shower and go to bed... : )
herbzet
This is not going to help, but:
What is this that is aware?
--
hz
herbzet
Keynes wrote:
> halfawake wrote:
> >herbzet wrote:
> >> halfawake wrote:
> >>>herbzet wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>If I suggest that you have a "natural" koan, a question that propels
> >>>>you on *your* quest, what would you say it is, boiled down to a sentence?
> >>>>(More or less, if that's possible at all.)
> >>
> >>>here's mine:
> >>>"what is the true nature of human awareness?"
> >>
> >> That's an interesting question. But why is it so singularly significant
> >> to you? Can you say a little about how you came to take up this question?
> >
> >the fact of being an experiencer is the central problem of being alive
> >and the central theme of Buddhism. How does one experience anything?
> >Through consciousness or awareness. To be conscious, aware, awake to
> >the extent that one is able to actually take in and contemplate
> >experience, is also the distinguishing quality of being alive or human.
> >
> >Animals are not self-reflective, although they are aware. Human
> >awareness alone has this capability. Therefore humans can go deeper
> >into the problem of being aware, whereas dogs can't. That doesn't solve
> >anything; it just denotes that dogs can't look into awareness, just
> >utilize it.
>
> Isn't 'awareness' just a term for the subject-object split?
Well, that's new.
What do you mean?
--
hz
Keynes
wrote:
We can learn much from tomato plants.
For example, if we become too beautiful,
conspicuous, or delicious, then some creature
will feel obliged to end our brilliant careers.
You've given the hierarchy of awareness from
the perspective of the subject-object split. Likely
there won't be much argument about that. But
there's another perspective possible. If awareness
is never without objects (as it seems to be), then
what is the need for discriminating seer and seen?
(It's an overlay of abstraction after all.)
It might be dangerous for me. Hollywood Lee is
just waiting for me to let down my guard so he
can run me over with his truck. And dramaTroll
is aiming to shoot me in the head.
(Heavy intellectual armaments for sure.)
Keynes
It's always "aware of" (subject perceives object).
There is no objectless awareness, nor objects unperceived.
(As in dTrolls woo-woo-land. But he doesn't realize that
he's dancing on thin ice, because his whole world view is
an abstraction spread over and concealing reality. For him
there are such spooks as past and future, and De Troof.
But I dare him to lay hands on them. He can't They're
just ideas in a cluttered mind. So spooky the materialist,
adrift on the Great Woo Woo River without a paddle.)
Subject-object are just a pair. Why separate them? It can only
be done conceptually, not actually. Here our 'understanding'
goes deeply hypothetical, drifting up and away from reality.
We are taught to do so, of course. And it can be more
or less useful (up to a point). But I'm not talking about
how to pay the bills, or which is a great investment in
commodities. This is an altogether different viewpoint
that will butter no bread. Totally, laughably useless.
But that's what it's all about imo.
If there is no-self, who can be aware?
If there is no-self, how can there be 'other'
as an object? No subject, no object.
There is yet 'something'. What is it?
Nobody knows. But here it is anyway.
Take it, or.. take it. There's no leaving it.
DharmaTroll
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:47:20 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 16, 10:28 am, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
>
> >> Isn't 'awareness' just a term for the subject-object split?
>
> >There you are thinkind dualistically again, Keynes.
>
> >--DharmaTroll
>
> Drunk again?
Nah, just without a spell-checker. Thinking Dualistically again?
--DharmaTroll
DharmaTroll
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:16:14 -0500, herbzet <herb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Isn't 'awareness' just a term for the subject-object split?
>
> >Well, that's new.
>
> >What do you mean?
>
> It's always "aware of" (subject perceives object).
> There is no objectless awareness, nor objects unperceived.
> (As in dTrolls woo-woo-land. But he doesn't realize that
> he's dancing on thin ice, because his whole world view is
> an abstraction spread over and concealing reality. For him
> there are such spooks as past and future, and De Troof.
> But I dare him to lay hands on them. He can't They're
> just ideas in a cluttered mind. So spooky the materialist,
> adrift on the Great Woo Woo River without a paddle.)
Oh, they're right here, in the present moment. This move, here and
now, in the chess game, contains all that had gone before, and is
chosen from what will happen. Denying the past and future is just an
excuse to follow a system, a dogma, an authority -- if you want to be
spontaneous and make a good move, you have to see the past and the
future coiled up in the present moment.
> If there is no-self, who can be aware?
Yo mama.
--DharmaTroll
Keynes
wrote:
>On Nov 17, 1:05 am, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:16:14 -0500, herbzet <herb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Isn't 'awareness' just a term for the subject-object split?
>>
>> >Well, that's new.
>>
>> >What do you mean?
>>
>> It's always "aware of" (subject perceives object).
>> There is no objectless awareness, nor objects unperceived.
>> (As in dTrolls woo-woo-land. But he doesn't realize that
>> he's dancing on thin ice, because his whole world view is
>> an abstraction spread over and concealing reality. For him
>> there are such spooks as past and future, and De Troof.
>> But I dare him to lay hands on them. He can't They're
>> just ideas in a cluttered mind. So spooky the materialist,
>> adrift on the Great Woo Woo River without a paddle.)
>
>Oh, they're right here, in the present moment. This move, here and
>now, in the chess game, contains all that had gone before, and is
>chosen from what will happen.
Chess is a game of skill. One has to know the rules
and have some experience to be good at it. Foresight
is of utmost importance if one wants to force mate
in three or four moves. Sure. But it's just a game.
Not everyone knows the rules. Tell a novice that
the object is to capture the enemy king, and he'll
just reach across the board and grab it. That works.
Chess is an abstraction, not a reality. Your world view is
completely game-like, based totally on undemonstrable
abstractions. You don't have your eye on the ball.
You don't even know that there is a ball. It's just
not in the rules that you play by.
>Denying the past and future is just an
>excuse to follow a system, a dogma, an authority
A system? An authority? Then why can't -you- do it?
Why can't anybody do it? It's been explained and described
hundreds of ways, yet even though many know all about it,
(Possibly even you) nobody can do it. It can't be -done-.
How to escape from a mind of gain and loss, life and death?
Well, just lose that mind of senselessly struggling abstractions.
Why don't you?
Otherwise all your reading and meditation are just
self-inflicted wounds giving you greater misery than
if you never even heard of buddhism.
>-- if you want to be
>spontaneous and make a good move,
Chess is not famous for spontaneity.
(You're thinking of ice hockey maybe?)
>you have to see the past and the
>future coiled up in the present moment.
Must imagine the future in chess.
The past in chess is irrelevant.
Kids play games. Some of them grow up.
Lee Rudolph
>What is this that is aware?
Is a fun-house mirror having any fun when it's not reflecting someone?
Lee Rudolph
herbzet
I like this.
--
hz
herbzet
Hm, somehow this got posted as a reply to Keynes, instead of to Robert.
Let me try again, just to see what happens:
This is not going to help, but:
What is this that is aware?
--
hz
zenworm
even if you capitalize it?
ZN ;D
jubilation for no reason owned by no one
herbzet
Keynes wrote:
Yes -- that seems to be the case.
> There is no objectless awareness,
Yes -- that seems to be the case.
> nor objects unperceived.
Yes -- that seems tautologically true to me, given the
present context of discussion.
Still, it seems hard to buy
no subject/object distinction ==> no awareness .
> (As in dTrolls woo-woo-land. But he doesn't realize that
> he's dancing on thin ice, because his whole world view is
> an abstraction spread over and concealing reality. For him
> there are such spooks as past and future, and De Troof.
> But I dare him to lay hands on them. He can't They're
> just ideas in a cluttered mind. So spooky the materialist,
> adrift on the Great Woo Woo River without a paddle.)
Well, I'm not sure whether that really captures DT's position
or not -- I'm not caring about DT's worldview anymore, really.
> Subject-object are just a pair. Why separate them? It can only
> be done conceptually, not actually.
Oh? It seems a very fundamental reality to most people.
> Here our 'understanding'
> goes deeply hypothetical, drifting up and away from reality.
For most people, it's not conceptual or theoretical at all;
it's very, very real.
> We are taught to do so, of course.
Hm. I saw where Marvin Minsky suggests that the higher cortical
functions include creating a model of the world, with a model of
our self in the model of the world.
Perhaps he was not the first to make this particular suggestion.
> And it can be more
> or less useful (up to a point). But I'm not talking about
> how to pay the bills, or which is a great investment in
> commodities. This is an altogether different viewpoint
> that will butter no bread. Totally, laughably useless.
> But that's what it's all about imo.
>
> If there is no-self, who can be aware?
> If there is no-self, how can there be 'other'
> as an object? No subject, no object.
A very logical conclusion.
> There is yet 'something'. What is it?
> Nobody knows. But here it is anyway.
>
> Take it, or.. take it. There's no leaving it.
Who would there be to take it or leave it?
--
hz
Keynes
>
>Keynes wrote:
>> herbzet wrote:
>> >Keynes wrote:
>> >> Isn't 'awareness' just a term for the subject-object split?
>> >
>> >Well, that's new.
>> >
>> >What do you mean?
>>
>> It's always "aware of" (subject perceives object).
>
>Yes -- that seems to be the case.
>
>> There is no objectless awareness,
>
>Yes -- that seems to be the case.
>
>> nor objects unperceived.
>
>Yes -- that seems tautologically true to me, given the
>present context of discussion.
>
>Still, it seems hard to buy
>
> no subject/object distinction ==> no awareness .
There is still experience, but unowned and undefined.
>> Subject-object are just a pair. Why separate them? It can only
>> be done conceptually, not actually.
>
>Oh? It seems a very fundamental reality to most people.
>
>> Here our 'understanding'
>> goes deeply hypothetical, drifting up and away from reality.
>
>For most people, it's not conceptual or theoretical at all;
>it's very, very real.
Because folks live by a cultural web of concepts.
Conceptualizing is more real than reality to them.
Delusion. Attempts at dualistic understanding
are delusion, a public and private madness.
>> We are taught to do so, of course.
>
>Hm. I saw where Marvin Minsky suggests that the higher cortical
>functions include creating a model of the world, with a model of
>our self in the model of the world.
>
>Perhaps he was not the first to make this particular suggestion.
>
>> And it can be more
>> or less useful (up to a point). But I'm not talking about
>> how to pay the bills, or which is a great investment in
>> commodities. This is an altogether different viewpoint
>> that will butter no bread. Totally, laughably useless.
>> But that's what it's all about imo.
>>
>> If there is no-self, who can be aware?
>> If there is no-self, how can there be 'other'
>> as an object? No subject, no object.
>
>A very logical conclusion.
>
>> There is yet 'something'. What is it?
>> Nobody knows. But here it is anyway.
>>
>> Take it, or.. take it. There's no leaving it.
>
>Who would there be to take it or leave it?
'Persons' looking for something.
Something other than what is present to them.
It isn't as simple as self or no-self.
Dualistically, it must be one or the other.
But dualism fails the empirical test of
efficacy (from an intermediate perspective).
Ultimately, efficacy has nothing to do with it.
Perfection/non-perfection? WTH is that about?
Just more ignorant and immaterial conceptualizing.
Away with the rotating progression of gain and loss.
It's just an ungrateful madness of self-ish imagination.
Things are as they are, and always will be so. Everything
has arrived at the complete fulfillment of the very end of time -
right now. There's nowhere to go for anything.
"Who would there be to take it or leave it?"
(I'm just talking to myself, if I had one.
Or to yourself, if you have one.)
What's it all about? I have no idea.
Ideas just aren't big enough.
herbzet
Lee Rudolph wrote:
>
> >What is this that is aware?
>
> Is a fun-house mirror having any fun when it's not reflecting someone?
Speaking of awareness, and nothing, and someone, and Hui-neng and mirrors
(but not of Borges), perhaps this is a good moment to recount the old story;
pull up a seat to the fire, kids:
"One day the Fifth Patriarch told his monks to express their wisdom
in a poem. Whoever had true realization of his original nature
(Buddha Nature) would be ordained the Sixth Patriarch. The head monk,
Shen Hsiu, was the most learned, and wrote the following:
The body is the wisdom-tree,
The mind is a bright mirror in a stand;
Take care to wipe it all the time,
And allow no dust to cling.
The poem was praised, but The Fifth Patriarch knew that Shen Hsiu
had not yet found his original nature, on the other hand, Hui Neng
couldn't even write, so someone had to write down his poem, which read:
Fundamentally no wisdom-tree exists,
Nor the stand of a mirror bright.
Since all is empty from the beginning,
Where can the dust alight?
The Fifth Patriarch pretended that he wasn't impressed with this poem
either, but in the middle of the night he summoned Hui Neng. The Fifth
Patriarch gave him the insignia of his office, the Patriarch's robe and
bowl."
http://sped2work.tripod.com/huineng.html
--
hz
herbzet
Keynes wrote:
> herbzet wrote:
> > Keynes wrote:
> >> Subject-object are just a pair. Why separate them? It can only
> >> be done conceptually, not actually.
> >
> >Oh? It seems a very fundamental reality to most people.
> >
> >> Here our 'understanding'
> >> goes deeply hypothetical, drifting up and away from reality.
> >
> >For most people, it's not conceptual or theoretical at all;
> >it's very, very real.
>
> Because folks live by a cultural web of concepts.
> Conceptualizing is more real than reality to them.
> Delusion. Attempts at dualistic understanding
> are delusion, a public and private madness.
Who told you all this?
--
hz
liaM
> possum <jhk00B0S...@spambox.us> writes:
>
>> On 16 Nov, 15:28, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
>>> Isn't 'awareness' just a term for the subject-object split?
>> i have to say, i found that a very helpful remark. i hadn't thought
>> of that before, and duh! slap forehead, and am still struggling to
>> express a thought about this, which i probably can't, but that's
>> better, thanks.
>
> In terms of the nested (decreasing) sequence of "ranges in an
> organism's environment" that I like to promulgate (ALL > ACCESSIBLE
>> AVAILABLE > AWARENESS > ATTENTION, where ALL is, well, "all there
> is", ACCESSIBLE cuts out what physics says is inaccessible [e.g.,
> the future, space-time outside the organism's light-cone, etc.],
> AVAILABLE cuts out what the organism has no way to "sense" [e.g.,
> for humans at least, magnetic fields, neutrino flux, polarization
> of light; for pigeons, however, the first and third *are* available],
> AWARENESS cuts out what isn't presently actuating the organism's
> sensoria, and ATTENTION cuts out those actuators of sensoria to
> which the organism is not presently "attending"), I'd say rather
> that ATTENTION is the locus of a subject-object split. But that's
> just an idiosyncratic verbal tic, probably.
Wow for an example of phenomenological "bracketing" (�poch�,
reduction) you begin brillantly. Indeed, "paying attention"
exemplifies duality.
Subject ATTENTION Object. Dog ATTENTION bone.
Your queer wording "actuator of sensoria" rings true, where ATTENTION
for the dog is a function combining selective cognition (recognizing
a bone) and desire (hunger, or desire to chew or play)
The main difference between the function ATTENTION for a dog
and a human, is that a human can give 100% ATTENTION to
imaginary objects. Note however that desire remains an essential
component of ATTENTION for both dog and human.
>
> I do, however, think that it's perfectly reasonable to speak of
> a tomato plant being "aware" of its environment, but not reasonable
> to speak either of its "paying attention" to something or of its
> making a "subject-object" split; which is at least consistent with
> my proposal.
>
Agreed.
> Lee Rudolph
>
Déjà Flu
you talk funny too, liamchop
;)
DharmaTroll
His momma, while he was breast-feeding.
--DharmaTroll
liaM
!
My t alk thi n ks so too bab y fU
Déjà Flu
:) how'z goatz?
DharmaTroll
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:13:58 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
No, that isn't chess. Just as I could say, "Oh, I can fix that by just
changing the gravitational constant." But that's not a move we can
make, either.
> Chess is an abstraction, not a reality.
But you say that reality is an abstraction, a Dualistic this or that.
So your distinctions are meaningless. I mean even more meaningless
than your normal babble.
> Your world view is completely game-like...
> You don't have your eye on the ball.
> You don't even know that there is...
The Wizard of Oz post was pretty good.
Now it's back to the you-you-you mode.
Is this what your mom did to you all childhood?
Zheezh.
Now I'll get another lecture on how I snipped the babble between the
you-you-you crap.
Skipping more insults and babble, I get to:
> Well, just lose that mind of senselessly struggling abstractions.
> Why don't you?
>
> Otherwise all your reading and meditation are just
> self-inflicted wounds giving you greater misery than
> if you never even heard of buddhism.
And now the old "Buddhism is about having a lobotomy" line.
> >-- if you want to be
> >spontaneous and make a good move,
>
> Chess is not famous for spontaneity.
> (You're thinking of ice hockey maybe?)
Then you've never watched Vishy Anand play. I've been a fan of his for
years, and his style is amazing. More like figure skating than Ice
Hockey. After years of rooting for him, Vishy finally became world
champion recently.
> >you have to see the past and the
> >future coiled up in the present moment.
>
> Must imagine the future in chess.
> The past in chess is irrelevant.
Not at all. The present position came from all the moves, the dance,
performed by the two players. The past moves were done for reasons,
with tactical and strategic goals. In fact, there is an interesting
psychological dilemma that occurs quite often in chess. You may have
made a move, and then after your opponent responded, you see that the
move you made was a mistake, and made your situation worse. Often, the
very best move would be to completely undo that move and move the
piece right back to its previous square. But usually players, even
masters, will not do so, and will try to force some plan that involves
the mistaken move, rather than just move the piece back.
There are also some interesting, but unproven, conjectures in chess,
such as that an attack can never be successful unless your opponent
has first made a mistake, and tipped the balance in your favor. The
past and future of the game is always tied up within the present
position. Each move is a "what's the best move" puzzle, yet the
solution to that puzzle is usually to continue with a long-term
strategic plan. So both long term goals, and the question of what's
the best move in the present position, turn out to be intimately
connected, as in the rest of life.
> Kids play games. Some of them grow up.
No, some just grow old and rigid and just spew "you-you-you".
Whereas a famous wise-man said that in order to enter the kingdom of
heaven, one must become again like a child.
--DharmaTroll
liaM
going to bed
Keynes
wrote:
>On Nov 17, 1:28 pm, herbzet <herb...@gmail.com> wrote:
Lies.
I never breast fed my momma.
Keynes
wrote:
>
>And now the old "Buddhism is about having a lobotomy" line.
>
"In the seen, just the seen."
DharmaTroll
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:37:41 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >And now the old "Buddhism is about having a lobotomy" line.
>
> "In the seen, just the seen."
Not "In the seen, the seen, which is illusion, and also the NonDual
Undifferentiated Transcendental Ineffable Mind".
--DharmaTroll
Keynes
wrote:
>On Nov 17, 9:32 pm, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
I didn't even have to squeeze your head this time.
^@%>---*=#**
"DharmaTroll" <dharm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:d253b803-9bef-4226...@m11g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
>And now the old "Buddhism is about having a lobotomy" line.
they don't do lobotomies anymore,
not in civilized countries anyway.
the new procedure is called a
trans-orbital leukotomy. supposed
to be [hahaha] less invasive.
halfawake
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:44:45 -0500, halfawake <epste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>herbzet wrote:
>>
>>
>>>halfawake wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>herbzet wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>If I suggest that you have a "natural" koan, a question that propels
>>>>>you on *your* quest, what would you say it is, boiled down to a sentence?
>>>>>(More or less, if that's possible at all.)
>>>
>>>
>>>>here's mine:
>>>>"what is the true nature of human awareness?"
>>>
>>>
>>>That's an interesting question. But why is it so singularly significant
>>>to you? Can you say a little about how you came to take up this question?
>>
>>the fact of being an experiencer is the central problem of being alive
>>and the central theme of Buddhism. How does one experience anything?
>>Through consciousness or awareness. To be conscious, aware, awake to
>>the extent that one is able to actually take in and contemplate
>>experience, is also the distinguishing quality of being alive or human.
>>
>>Animals are not self-reflective, although they are aware. Human
>>awareness alone has this capability. Therefore humans can go deeper
>>into the problem of being aware, whereas dogs can't. That doesn't solve
>>anything; it just denotes that dogs can't look into awareness, just
>>utilize it.
>>
>>
>>>Would simply distinguishing human awareness from non-human awareness be
>>>a satisfactory resolution?
>>
>>no.
>>
>>Robert
>>
>>= = = =
>
>
> Isn't 'awareness' just a term for the subject-object split?
>
>
no.
robert
Keynes
>Keynes wrote:
>> Isn't 'awareness' just a term for the subject-object split?
>
>no.
>
>robert
Can you say how or why?
Sentient beings may be defined as those that are 'aware',
or conscious. They have experience and know it. So we say.
I think experience of any sort, ordinary or extraordinary,
is wonderful, and something that we can't do without.
Ultimately is seems to be the one irreduceable quality
that is truly 'oneself'.
But the term 'awareness' limits it by giving it an owner,
and requiring an external otherness for any experience.
Separation is solidly built into the term. It begs the
question of what reality may be. If the conclusion
is assumed even before the question is asked, it may
be that further inquiry on that line will not be fruitful.
'Awareness of awareness' makes no sense to me, since
awareness is the necessary logical conceptual connection
between seer and seen. It's just a half-term for a hypothetical
process. Awareness is always "awareness of" something external.
In actual experience (without intellectual analysis)
seer and seen are indistinguishable. 'Awareness' by
itself (subject without object) looks like just an
imaginary concept. To search for and to find it
would just be to reify an empty abstract concept.
(It couldn't actually be done.)
Rational abstraction is the problem, not the solution.
Expansionism is better than reductionism imo.
Somewhere I read that "objects are objects because
of subject. Subject is subject because of objects."
It seems to be just a conventional distinction and
not a fundamental reality.
(This may all be just a semantic difficulty.)
Keynes
wrote:
>On Nov 17, 2:11 am, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
Are game rules as fundamental as the laws of physics?
Really. You drift so easily into absurdities.
If the object is to capture the king, why should any rules apply?
Going through the learned-prescribed motions is the habit
of abstraction for abstraction's sake. Artificial, and even
if publicly sanctioned, comically ineffective. By these rules
folks pursue wealth and success, fame and fortune, assuming
that they actually are rewards in themselves. But happiness
has nothing to do with those imagined 'goods'.
Crime is shocking because it breaks the rules.
It gets right down to the nitty gritty without any
conventional rigamorole. It works. In most
cases it pays. Screw the rules if you can.
Become a thought-criminal.
>> Chess is an abstraction, not a reality.
>
>But you say that reality is an abstraction, a Dualistic this or that.
No. This is what -you- say. Over and over.
I disagree and it drives you mad.
>So your distinctions are meaningless. I mean even more meaningless
>than your normal babble.
>
>> Your world view is completely game-like...
>> You don't have your eye on the ball.
>> You don't even know that there is...
>
>The Wizard of Oz post was pretty good.
>Now it's back to the you-you-you mode.
>Is this what your mom did to you all childhood?
>Zheezh.
>
>Now I'll get another lecture on how I snipped the babble between the
>you-you-you crap.
>Skipping more insults and babble, I get to:
>
Let's just put that inconvenient babble right back in.
DramaTroll >>
>Denying the past and future is just an
>excuse to follow a system, a dogma, an authority
A system? An authority? Then why can't -you- do it?
Why can't anybody do it? It's been explained and described
hundreds of ways, yet even though many know all about it,
(Possibly even you) nobody can do it. It can't be -done-.
How to escape from a mind of gain and loss, life and death?
>> Well, just lose that mind of senselessly struggling abstractions.
>> Why don't you?
>>
>> Otherwise all your reading and meditation are just
>> self-inflicted wounds giving you greater misery than
>> if you never even heard of buddhism.
>
>And now the old "Buddhism is about having a lobotomy" line.
>
>> >-- if you want to be
>> >spontaneous and make a good move,
>>
>> Chess is not famous for spontaneity.
>> (You're thinking of ice hockey maybe?)
>
>Then you've never watched Vishy Anand play. I've been a fan of his for
>years, and his style is amazing. More like figure skating than Ice
>Hockey. After years of rooting for him, Vishy finally became world
>champion recently.
Top players can play multiple lighning games at once.
Very impressive. Some can even do it blindfold.
Lesser players can't afford not to think hard.
>> >you have to see the past and the
>> >future coiled up in the present moment.
Poetic, but ridiculous.
>> Must imagine the future in chess.
>> The past in chess is irrelevant.
>
>Not at all. The present position came from all the moves, the dance,
>performed by the two players. The past moves were done for reasons,
>with tactical and strategic goals. In fact, there is an interesting
>psychological dilemma that occurs quite often in chess. You may have
>made a move, and then after your opponent responded, you see that the
>move you made was a mistake, and made your situation worse. Often, the
>very best move would be to completely undo that move and move the
>piece right back to its previous square. But usually players, even
>masters, will not do so, and will try to force some plan that involves
>the mistaken move, rather than just move the piece back.
Retracting a move loses tempo and initiative.
Besides being quite humiliating.
>There are also some interesting, but unproven, conjectures in chess,
>such as that an attack can never be successful unless your opponent
>has first made a mistake, and tipped the balance in your favor.
If one wins, he's made no fatal mistakes.
If one loses, he's made some mistake by defintion.
Questionable moves can be winners, providing
the opponent can't find the advantage offered.
Gambits, lures, traps. I actually used the legal's
mate on my brother in law. He would never
play me again after that.
>The past and future of the game is always tied up within the present
>position. Each move is a "what's the best move" puzzle, yet the
>solution to that puzzle is usually to continue with a long-term
>strategic plan. So both long term goals, and the question of what's
>the best move in the present position, turn out to be intimately
>connected, as in the rest of life.
Chess is good for learning to think strategically.
(Rather than the tactical blundering that is so common.)
However, great leaders and generals have stunk at chess.
And chess masters like Staunton and Fischer have stunk
in ordinary life.
>> Kids play games. Some of them grow up.
>
>No, some just grow old and rigid and just spew "you-you-you".
Some cut the posts of others like paper dolls,
thinking others will find them cute and charming.
>Whereas a famous wise-man said that in order to enter the kingdom of
>heaven, one must become again like a child.
Children know nothing of chess, and nothing of any tomorrow.
DharmaTroll
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:37:41 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
Yep. You can't change the rules of physics, either, even though you
like to think you can make them up, and even change the speed of
light. Not a legal move.
> If the object is to capture the king, why should any rules apply?
The king is never captured in chess, ever. Apparently you've never
payed attention to the actual rules. The game concludes in a win if
the king is under attack and cannot get out of check. That's called
checkmate. The dance is over. But the king is never captured, nor is
the goal to capture the king. The goal is to checkmate the king.
> Going through the learned-prescribed motions is the habit
> of abstraction for abstraction's sake. Artificial, and even
> if publicly sanctioned, comically ineffective. By these rules
> folks pursue wealth and success, fame and fortune, assuming
> that they actually are rewards in themselves. But happiness
> has nothing to do with those imagined 'goods'.
Nor does happiness have anything to do with our fundamentalist dogma
of NonDualism and denial of reality.
> >> Chess is an abstraction, not a reality.
>
> >But you say that reality is an abstraction, a Dualistic this or that.
>
> No. This is what -you- say. Over and over.
No, I say that the world is real, that cats and stones and trees and
stars exist in their wonderful diversity. You deny the world, deny the
speed of light, deny rationality and critical thinking as you wave
your swastika of Oneness, of NonDuality, of your dogma, Keynes. And
you call that Zen. Hah.
--DharmaTroll
Keynes
wrote:
>On Nov 19, 3:25 am, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
Have you considered becoming a mohel?
DharmaTroll
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:23:54 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
A model? No, I'm way to ugly for that.
--DharmaTroll
brian mitchell
>your >>swastika<< of Oneness, of NonDuality, of your dogma, Keynes.
Could you explain this reasoned argument thing to me again?
^@%>---*=#**
>Nor does happiness have anything to do with our fundamentalist dogma
>of NonDualism and denial of reality.
>No, I say that the world is real, that cats and stones and trees and
>stars exist in their wonderful diversity.
then just show us some actual
proof that your "reality" is "real".
DharmaTroll
> "DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
The sun rises every morning.
--DharmaTroll
DharmaTroll
What you quoted is a metaphor. I'm alluding to the problem of how
dogmatic folks who talk about "Oneness" and "Undifferentiated" act
when they are in power. I much prefer diversity and plurality in the
universe.
--DharmaTroll
^@%>---*=#**
this isn't proof this is just something that you
see. i see my dreams every night too. by your
evidence my dreams are also real.