Back to Basics (Was Re: The non-symbolical mind)
Dave K
> Keynes wrote:
> > On 13 Jan 2007 18:44:55 -0800, "DharmaTroll" <dharm...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Hollywood Lee wrote:
> > >> Keynes wrote:
> > >> > On 13 Jan 2007 08:38:29 -0800, "DharmaTroll" <dharm...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >> >> Indeed, for the superstitionist, words don't refer (e.g., 'God',
> > >> >> 'ghost', 'soul', 'heaven'). Yet many or most of the words that sane,
> > >> >> rational people use do refer.
> >
> > "Sane rational people" are called "deluded" in buddhism.
> > Look it up.
>
> DT> No, deluded people are called deluded. If you define sane and
> rational as deluded, no wonder you think that the world doesn't exist.
> Does your nose run? Do your feet smell? You're upside-down!
>
> > >> > For such a thoughtful educated guy, you're pretty slow.
> > >> > How can you prove there are external referents?
> > >> >
> > >> > Don't you dream?
> > >> > And in your dreams do you ever doubt anything is real?
> > >> > You can be as cock sure asleep as you are 'awake'.
> > >> > (But thinking you are awake, you suppose you 'know' something.)
> > >>
> > >Lee:
> > >> This has always struck me as an odd sort of argument. I would agree,
> > >> for example, that a person may not be justified in asserting something
> > >> is "real" in some deep ontological sense just because the appearance
> > >> references something that appears to the senses with some regularity to
> > >> the person and to others who roughly agree as to its features. But
> > >> lacking certainty regarding the reality of this appearance hardly
> > >> justifies running to the other extreme and declaring that it is unreal
> > >> or of no more reality that what appears in a dream.
> >
> > Ontology is baseless without sound epistemology.
>
> DT> No, in fact, in a "Realism" philosophy seminar I took, I remember
> that one of the reason that people get lost in idealism is that they
> tend to put the epistemological cart before the ontological horse.
> What we know and can know is totally independent of what there is.
> For example, there may be spooky aliens in another dimension that are
> observing us right now. I will whine and say that it's silly to
> believe in them as we can't know whether they exist or not, and I'm
> right -- yet they still may exist, whether I can know of them or not.
> There are an infinite number of facts that I can and will never know
> about the universe. (Such as, did the Buddha's mom have a pimple on
> her butt.) That doesn't mean that such things don't or didn't exist.
>
> > How can you know what IS if you don't know what's knowable?
>
> DT> Look at what you just wrote! That's still an epistemic question!
> Again, I might not know what is, or even of some things that are,
> whether they are knowable or not. But they might still exist, whether
> I know them or can know of them. This is where you really get all
> muddled, you see.
>
> > The greatest obstacle to buddhist progress is one's supposition
> > that he already knows what's what.
>
> DT> Actually, I've found much greater obstacles after practicing
> Buddhism for years. It's actually quite easy to know that I don't
> really know much of anything at all. That one hit me in my first
> freshman philosophy class. And ever since, I've always been a big fan
> of Socrates.
>
> > The Buddha called the common view of self-in-a-world-
> > of-things "delusion", the cause of stress-suffering.
> > (Make a note of that DT. You seem to have missed it.)
>
> DT> Actually, I agree with that. But believing in spooks 'a self' is
> about as irrational as it gets. Somehow you equated this with "the
> Buddha called the view that the world exists 'delusion'," and that's
> not what he said at all. The Buddha didn't cling to such irrational
> views. You do. That is, I hate to tell you (actually I love to tell
> you), that the Buddha would have said that you were deluded, clinging
> to your view of denial of the existence of the world. You lose.
>
> > >DT> No, my view is quite compatible with Buddhism (in fact, I'll quote
> > >a definition of Naturalism below that even positively compares it to
> > >Buddhism).
> >
> > Sorry. You are wrong. Naturalism is naturalism, not buddhism.
>
> DT> True, but Naturalism fits perfectly with Buddhism. So does
> idealism. But your clinging to one metaphysical view and then trying
> to glue it to Buddhism doesn't fit with Buddhism. You lose again.
>
> > Reason is much more limited than you think.
> > You are apparently a prisoner of it BTW.
>
> DT> I simply make claims that "if I walk in front of a truck, I'll get
> hit and die." That's reason. If your irrationality is so superior,
> put your money where your mouth is and prove to me that trucks don't
> exist by walking in front of one. If you survive, I'll take your
> spookery seriously. If you don't, I'll attend your funeral and pray
> that you are reincarnated as a slug.
>
> > >Just not with your idealism. Your own obsessive clinging
> > >to a particular view of reality, regardless of it being an absurd one,
> > >still has nothing to do with awakening, as Tang points out. I'm
> > >agreeing with Tang and disagreeing with you that only one view (such as
> > >your absurd one) is tethered to Buddhism or awakening. Furthermore I'm
> > >saying that you, Keynes are full of blue sky BS.
> >
> > I'm clinging to no views.
>
> DT> You're the most obsessive view-clinger I've read in these parts.
>
> > But I'm pointing out that your clinging to rational physicalism
>
> DT> If I did. But note that I don't "believe" in physicalism.
> Rather, I claim that some physicalist theory (actually I waffle among
> eliminatavist, reductionist, and functionalist views, and can't even
> decide among them, much less actually believe or cling to any of them,
> fyi) best explains the data, and that no non-physicalist theory is as
> coherent as physicalist ones, so that I infer to the most reasonable
> theory as a working hypothesis. I also, in just about every post
> (including this one above) claim that idealism as well as various
> neutral monisms and dualisms all are compatible with Buddhism and have
> nothing to do with awakening (indeed, Tang and Lee and I are all in
> agreement on that one); it is you who whines that only your crackpot
> metaphysics is Buddhist. So shut your fat trap and stop accusing
> others of your own sins, you twinkle-toad troglodyte.
>
> > >> Don't you dream?
> > >
> > >DT> Yes, and often lucidly.
> >
> > Liar.
>
> DT> Now with personal attacks? No, I'm not lying or pulling your leg.
> I have had lucid dreams since I was a kid, and at various points in
> dreams I suddenly become lucid and realize I'm dreaming. I used to
> think that was because I had all sorts of spiritual and psychic powers,
> and then I realized that I probably am half-awake but still in the
> dream and that's why they are lucid. I used to have 'dream paralysis'
> as a child. I remember my earliest memories were dreams that were
> partially lucid. I'd dream over and over of parking meters that ticked
> loudly and then wiggled like snakes and try to strangle me. Then I'd
> half open my eyes and see I was in my bedroom and I'd try to scream but
> I was paralyzed and couldn't. I'd try to open my eyes with all my
> strength while the parking meters tried to strangle me, and when I was
> able to open them a crack further, then the dream would end and I'd be
> awake, and then I'd scream for real. I had such nightmares and dream
> paralysis until I was about six years old. Since then, no nightmares,
> but lots of lucid dreams, sometimes which then drift back into normal
> dreams.
>
> > >> And in your dreams do you ever doubt anything is real?
> > >
> > >Yes! Quite often. In fact, I doubt reality in dreams so often that
> > >I've come up with a criteria that has worked every single time! I read
> > >a paragraph in a book, and then re-read it. So far, every single time
> > >the paragraph has been different. Apparently my 'slow' brain can
> > >remember the paragraph, but can't hold an entire linear stream of
> > >well-formed sentences in memory for that long to reproduce them. In no
> > >dream have I ever read the same paragraph twice; and in real life, in
> > >no case has a book has ever yielded a different stream of words upon a
> > >rereading of a paragraph. So I have a very good test and way to
> > >differentiate when there are no objects of my experience, versus when
> > >real objects are causing my experiences. Got it, Berkeley-brain?
> >
> > Oh sure. You're saying that you're wiser in your dreams
> > than you are when awake.
>
> DT> No, silly, I'm saying that in my dreams I'm wiser than YOU when
> YOU'RE awake! That was my point.
>
> > >> You can be as cock sure asleep as you are 'awake'.
> > >
> > >DT> No. I'm more open-minded even in my dreams than you are in waking
> > >life, it seems! One dream last year, nothing made sense and something
> > >physically possible happened. I blurted out, "this can't be real", and
> > >then I walked through a wall! I then said, "Oh wow, I'm dreaming," and
> > >I looked around and I was sitting up in my bed and the dream ended.
> > >I've also dreamed that I was in the Matrix, fighting agents and so
> > >forth, and I swallowed the red pill, and then I woke up in real life!
> > >Boy, my unconscious has one hell of a sense of irony, eh?
> > >
> > >In this case, we can do all sorts of tests like this. But as Lee
> > >pointed out, certainty isn't necessary. It is always possible that
> > >Decartes' genie (The Matrix) has us fooled. However, the chances of
> > >The Matrix, or your version of anti-realism, is so less possible than
> > >winning the biggest lottery in the country, that it just doesn't worry
> > >me. As I've mentioned over and over, it's not about possibility, but
> > >about what's actually going on. And when I look out my window, the
> > >explanation that a real, organic tree is reflecting light into my
> > >retina and causing these qualia I experience in the appropriate way is
> > >the most economical, simple, and elegant explanation that fits the
> > >data. So I infer to the best explanation as my working pragmatic
> > >hypothesis to live by, until better evidence for another theory comes
> > >along (evidence which you sorely lack, spookie-head).
> >
> > You have ideas but no evidence.
>
> DT> Actually, I have good evidence. As I said, I even found a nice
> test, that I read a paragraph in a book, and then try to read the same
> paragraph over and over again, and it will constantly be a different
> paragraph, without exception. That's really good evidence that my
> brain just can't keep up the illusion, whereas with a real book causing
> the experience, the book consistently reads the same.
>
> It's like Macbeth hallucinating the dagger. Remember he sees the
> dagger, and then suddenly it has gouts of blood on it; whereas he
> passes his hand through it. The inconsistency that the image changed,
> along with the contradiction from his other sense of touch allows
> Macbeth to make the reasonable inference, "There's no such thing" and
> that it's only a "dagger of the mind".
>
> > >Lee > Perhaps nouveauDT is a hard materialist.
> > >If so, then whack him hard.
> > >
> > >DT> Nah, save your virtual violence. DT is more of a soft naturalist.
> > >If by materialist you mean hedonist, not at all. I possess little,
> > >have never spent more than $20 on any article of clothing in my life,
> > >and even my computer here I got for $100 used. I have a nice
> > >collection of books and clothes that I've collected cheaply mostly over
> > >eBay, and I only eat plants. I've only seen a material doctor once
> > >since high school, and that was for all the blood-work just because
> > >it's been so long, to make sure I was ok, and I'm in perfect
> > >physicalist health, it seems. The only material attachment I can think
> > >of is to the form of the female body, but unfortunately, I haven't had
> > >one of them let me do more than crave at a distance, at least not in
> > >this millennium, and hardly ever in the last. So hardly a materialist
> > >there, Lee. Though I am in perfect agreement with the philosophy of
> > >naturalist Tom Clark, who states on his excellent website,
> > >www.natrualism.org
> >
> > Ain't easy to find a soul mate. Good luck.
>
> Thanks. I'll need it. At least I would if I believed in luck...
>
> > >"To see how naturalism might improve on traditional religious and
> > >secular dualism as a basis for spirituality, I want first to outline
> > >briefly its essential characteristics. Standard definitions of
> > >naturalism often contrast it with supernaturalism, meaning simply that
> > >naturalism denies the existence of a separate, categorically different
> > >supernatural realm that exists outside the natural world. As seen
> > >above, the supernatural realm often is taken to involve an agent, or
> > >agency, that acts as a first cause. Such an agent is causally
> > >privileged, in that from its supernatural vantage point it gets to
> > >influence events in the natural world (e.g., create it) without being
> > >at the effect of that world. God, typically, is unconstrained by the
> > >physical laws and constants that we find everywhere in nature.
> > >Naturalism denies that there are any such causally privileged agents or
> > >entities; rather, anything that exists is entirely embedded among other
> > >existents which account for its origins and characteristics. Nothing
> > >gets to cause without being caused in turn; nothing gets to be
> > >unconstrained by its context. In Buddhist philosophical terminology,
> > >this is called 'dependent arising': all phenomena are ineluctably
> > >relational, there are no causally independent monads at any level of
> > >being."
> > >
> >
> > Naturalism (if it depends on science) says that everything
> > came from nothing at no time and in no place,
>
> DT> No it doesn't. When you don't like something, you just conjure up
> all sorts of poop. Most naturalists actually go for cyclic universes.
> Theists go for creation ex nihilo, or whatever, not naturalists. In
> fact, naturalists explicitly deny any first causes or uncaused causes.
>
> > and from this first cause without a cause comes
>
> DT> Are you deaf? Again, naturalism explicitly denies any uncaused
> causes. As I quoted to you above:
>
> "Naturalism denies that there are any such causally privileged agents
> or entities; rather, anything that exists is entirely embedded among
> other existents which account for its origins and characteristics.
> Nothing gets to cause without being caused in turn; nothing gets to be
> unconstrained by its context. In Buddhist philosophical terminology,
> this is called 'dependent arising': all phenomena are ineluctably
> relational, there are no causally independent monads at any level of
> being."
>
> And then you go saying the opposite. Were I a Lutheran, you'd say
> "Lutheran's don't believe in God and think that Jesus Christ was
> actually a Hindu" or something like that. What is your problem,
> Keynes? Oh I get it, are you a knave? As in the boolean island of
> knaves and knights where knaves always lie about everything and knights
> always tell the truth. (Of course I just asked a dumb question, as
> you'll say 'no' in either case.)
>
> > Nobody is capable of thinking-resolving the big bang,
> > and not even the big guns of reason - math - can do it either.
>
> DT> I don't know what you're talking about with the hyphenated
> "thinking-resolving". All I'm saying is that from the Doppler effect,
> and background radiation, we come up with theories, and try to make
> them pass the most difficult tests we can. If they fail, we discard
> them. If they pass, we tentatively infer the most simple theory that
> explains the most and passes the most falsifying tests, and work with
> it until we get enough evidence for a better theory. There is no
> 'resolving' anything. Only taking the most reasonable practical guess
> until the evidence tells us otherwise. Now get over it.
>
> > >Keynes> Animals are natural dualists. They have only two inclinations,
> > >yes or no, right or wrong, true or false, good or bad.
> > >
> > >DT> Animals aren't dualists, nor are they monists, because they don't
> > >even mentate, "there are two types of stuff in the world," or "there is
> > >only one type of stuff in the world". And they certainly don't mentate
> > >"right and wrong" either, as far as they know.
> >
> > Their actions are all by attraction and aversion, good and bad.
>
> DT> That's the pleasure principle, which has a good evolutionary
> survival rate, and is why shit smells bad to us, and strawberries
> sweet.
>
> > >And in fact, smart
> > >mammals such as dogs and horses, seem to have more than two
> > >inclinations and show a wide range of emotions. So you seem to be
> > >wrong on all counts, rogue. But that's never stopped you before.
> >
> > What'll you do when you run out of slime?
>
> DT> Why, are you and stumper planning to leave the list soon?
>
> > >Keynes> Does the world really yield to human logical understanding?
> > >
> > >DT> Strange you ask, as it is -you- anti-realists who claim that the
> > >world yields to and is even created by the mental. Whereas as a
> > >naturalist, I seek to let human logical understanding yield to the
> > >world, that is to test and -observe- the natural structures of the
> > >world, rather than -create- them, as you idealists claim.
> >
> > How can you tell work from play?
>
> DT> 'Work' and 'play' aren't natural kinds, like gold and silver, which
> I can tell you how to distinguish. Rather, they are sociological
> terms. Now I'll agree with you that social worlds and cultures are
> mind-dependent, sure. But in terms of reality, I'm talking natural
> kinds, which has to do with natural existing differences in the world
> that are not dependent on minds or on whether anyone is aware of them
> or even can become aware of them.
>
> > You fail to realize how the world is distorted by delusion.
>
> DT> No, our experience of the world is distorted. The world remains
> the world. That is, the stars are still stars and still exist in the
> same way whether our sensing them is distorted. That is, we can
> experience them twinkling, but that's distortion by air currents,
> whereas if we were in orbit, they wouldn't twinkle to us. But they
> never twinkle, you see; it's only our distorted sensing of them where
> twinkling occurs. You don't seem to get that.
>
> > >Which is why I go for Einstein and you go for whatever astrology you go for
> >
> > I can go toe to toe with you on science, as you know.
> > Big deal.
>
> DT> Well, you know some terms, but you sound like a crackpot
> astrologer. Also, not being a scientist, I can't answer detailed
> questions, be it about astrophysics or microbiology. I know more about
> the philosophy of science and the history of science than I do current
> theories, except for pop articles I read.
>
> > >I go for the evidence that the universe has a zero or flat geodesic
> > >because the latest evidence points to that,
> >
> > Did you go with cold fusion as well?
>
> DT> See, it's comments like that which make me think you're really an
> astrologist and are just throwing science terms around or googling them
> up and quoting them at me. Cold fusion was never a serious theory.
>
> > Do you like dark matter and dark energy?
>
> DT> I don't know much about them. I'd like to read more about them.
>
> > How about earth, air, fire, and water?
>
> DT> Actually I loved Plato's theory of these, and he added heavenly
> matter as a fifth element. Each of the elements is associated with a
> regular solid. Earth is assigned the cube, because the cube has the
> most stable base. Fire, Air, and Water are assigned the tetrahedron,
> octahedron, and icosahedron, respectively. It was a brilliant theory,
> in my opinion.
>
<some snippage>
> > >it is -you- anti-realists who claim that the
> > >world yields to and is even created by the mental. Whereas as a
> > >naturalist, I seek to let human logical understanding yield to the
> > >world, that is to test and -observe- the natural structures of the
> > >world, rather than -create- them, as you idealists claim. Which is why
> > >I go for Einstein and you go for whatever astrology you go for, and why
> > >I go for the evidence that the universe has a zero or flat geodesic
> > >because the latest evidence points to that, whereas you believe it is a
> > >positively curved hypersphere with no reason except it suits your
> > >mental fancy, and you criticize me for simply inferring to the best
> > >explanation given the evidence so far, you scoundrel!
> >
> > While your opinion is based on reading the
> > fantasies of strangers of supposed repute.
> > Sign of the cross-reference and Holy-piss-water IMHO.
>
> DT> Well, Plato was fun just because he is creative. As for the
> current "fantasies of strangers", as I said, I go with what the
> evidence says. As I said, it's not the 'strangers', but rather the
> evidence. I follow what the hard, phsysical scientific tests say.
> If the data say that the universe is a saddle-shaped hyperbolic
> paraboloid, then I'll go with that as a working model until better
> evidence says otherwise. Whereas you rigidly claim that your views are
> right no matter what the evidence. Which one of us is attached to a
> view? Which one of us is rigid and which flexible. You lose once
> again.
>
> > You'd do well in an atheist group.
> > You have the arrogant psychobabble
>
> DT> So, lacking evidence or arguments, it's time to hurl judgments, eh?
> Just like a true astrologist!
WOW! What an argument. If this is a contest to see who is being more
or less Buddhist I am proposing to out-Buddha you by telling you that
neither of you seem to be acting very Buddhist here. Besides the fact
that you are both acting like children, there are a lot of -isms
floating around. Now you can get together and team up on me. See how
much I delight in concord? O, how it gladdens me...
People like to quote the Kalama Sutta. To death. DT has even said it
is his favorite or one of his favorites. But I think the specificity
of it is being ignored. Time for some un-scholarly running commentary
by a half-assed Buddhist practitioner! (me)
[http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wheel008.html#kal]
The criteria for rejection:
"Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing."
This includes all talks, all posts, all sutras.
"nor upon tradition"
Oh, we like that one don't we. Rejection of tradition is popular among
we rebellious western-buddhist types.
"nor upon rumor"
Does that include this sutra? Could just be a rumor...
"nor upon what is in a scripture"
Why, yes it does!
"nor upon surmise"
surmise :
infer from incomplete evidence
guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence
Oh snap! DT is in trouble here!
"forget about certainty and keep a "don't know" mind, then weigh the
percentages and take your best guess, see what happens, and learn from
it."
DT was doing ok until he started talking percentages.
"nor upon an axiom"
Axiom: A self-evident or universally recognized truth
I think we can call this the "duh!" factor. Any statement you put
"duh!" in front of you have turned into an axiom. example: "Of course
X exists. DUH!"
Also, any statement that you have put forth and expected any "sane,
rational person" to agree with. i.e. "Well if you were sane and
rational, you would know that X is true."
"nor upon specious reasoning"
spe·cious:
Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious: a
specious argument.
Deceptively attractive.
Ah, "A clever phrase means nothing."
"nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over"
Don't believe everything you think!
"nor upon another's seeming ability"
So much for DTs cleverness, Tang's scholarship, the silver-fingered
Keynes knack for prose, the linguistic talents of buddhapest "the
human thesaurus", or Stumper's...uhhh... Well you get the idea. :)
"nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' "
Again, we like this one "in the west." Screw authority. Even bald and
gentle mannered authority.
In another translation, BTW:
"...by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement
through pondering views, by probability..."
(Thanissaro Bhikkhu)
So, logic is out, inference is out, and damn, even probability! The
Buddha shows no mercy here. If you are going to claim your view is
"Buddhist" or that someone else's is not, you can't skip over this
stuff.
So....What's left?
"...when you yourselves know: 'These things are bad; these things are
blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and
observed, these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them."
"...when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are
not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and
observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and
abide in them."
What falls into the realm of identifying skillfull and unskillful
behavior, without using the rejected criteria above? Sid the merciless
seems to give us no ground to stand on here. But I think this is where
we get a good flavor for what Buddhist wisdom is supposed to be about.
It's the wisdom of a Buddha, and not a philosopher, ethicist, logician,
naturalist, or idealist. It's "panna," not knowledge or reason.
Personally, I do not know how to avoid using the (rejected) criteria
above in juding whether my actions are skillful or not. But reflecting
on this sutra tells me that those criteria are tentative at best. They
are also for me and for me only. He says this *specifically* with the
words "When you yourselves know." In some translations "When you know
for yourselves." If I'm going to use them I'm going to use them for
*myself* until something better (awakening?) comes along.
Additionally, since that criteria is limited to judging what is
skillfull and unskillful for myself, it still weeds out a lot of -isms.
Any -ism that doesn't help me judge skillful or unskilful behavior is
a complete waste of time. This includes idealist or naturalist, and
hell, even anything in between!
Let's look at this problematic moving vehicle example of DTs:
"if I walk in front of a truck, I'll get hit and die."
According to DT, if I agree with this statement, it means I believe the
truck and myself exists.
This is "specious reasoning." (see above) It is tough to get around
becuase it is pretty clever. Of course any sane and reasonable person
would get out of the way of the truck, becuase, of *course* the truck
exists. "duh!" (self-evident, axiomatic truth, see above)
But where DT would file this under "reason" I file it under "skillful."
[Scene: a busy city street, DT begins to cross the street when a truck
comes rapidly speeding towards him]
Keynes: DT! Watch out!
DT: Well, seeing as I exist, and the truck exists, and judging by the
speed of the oncoming vehicle, it is logical to assume that I should-
[SPLAT!]
Buddhapest: bulk transportation agendas congeal into velocity induced
splattering scenarios [sad sniffle]
One of problems with reason is that it is not quick enough to keep up
with reality, or fast moving vehicles. There is no need to surmise
"this truck exists, I exist." There's no need to imagine that you are
imagining it either. There's just "Watch out!" (skillful) Or there
is just "SPLAT!" (unskillful)
-Dave "twinkle-toad troglodyte" K
Tang Huyen
Dave K wrote:
> DharmaTroll wrote:
>
> WOW! What an argument. If this is a contest to see who is being more
> or less Buddhist I am proposing to out-Buddha you by telling you that
> neither of you seem to be acting very Buddhist here. Besides the fact
> that you are both acting like children, there are a lot of -isms
> floating around. Now you can get together and team up on me. See how
> much I delight in concord? O, how it gladdens me...
It's good for people to bring out the worst in each other,
otherwise it would be hidden. Stumper and Jen are
great gate-keepers of TRB, in that they flip poseurs,
fakers and pretenders very fast, with the latter's own
energy, too.
> People like to quote the Kalama Sutta. To death. DT has even said it
> is his favorite or one of his favorites. But I think the specificity
> of it is being ignored. Time for some un-scholarly running commentary
> by a half-assed Buddhist practitioner! (me)
>
> [http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wheel008.html#kal]
>
> [snip]
>
> So, logic is out, inference is out, and damn, even probability! The
> Buddha shows no mercy here. If you are going to claim your view is
> "Buddhist" or that someone else's is not, you can't skip over this
> stuff.
>
> So....What's left?
>
> "...when you yourselves know: 'These things are bad; these things are
> blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and
> observed, these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them."
>
> "...when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are
> not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and
> observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and
> abide in them."
But remember, Dave, that some people reject "...when
you yourselves know". It's delusion to them. What's
left in the Kalama scripture, experience by oneself of
oneself, cannot be trusted, to them.
Tang Huyen
Hollywood Lee
You worry too much about this, dad. Those who can't believe experience
by oneself of oneself probably can't even find their computer. And if
they believe more than that? Well, just remember, it's all fluff, eh?
Evelyn
On Jan 14, 10:58 am, Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]>
wrote:
> Dave K wrote:
> > DharmaTroll wrote:
>
> > WOW! What an argument. If this is a contest to see who is being more
> > or less Buddhist I am proposing to out-Buddha you by telling you that
> > neither of you seem to be acting very Buddhist here. Besides the fact
> > that you are both acting like children, there are a lot of -isms
> > floating around. Now you can get together and team up on me. See how
> > much I delight in concord? O, how it gladdens me...It's good for people to bring out the worst in each other,
Hmmmm... not so sure about that part, Tang. Never forget that good
judgement comes from having experienced the results of bad judgement
and learned from it. There is hope for all, given that. Even those
that apparently can not be trusted. Given time, perhaps they can be.
Evelyn
- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Dharmatroll
more or less Buddhist I am proposing to out-Buddha you by telling you
that neither of you seem to be acting very Buddhist here.
DT> "Acting Buddhist" is like middle-school kids "acting cool". I have
no desire to act Buddhist. I'm out to have fun and stimulate my brain.
Dave> Besides the fact that you are both acting like children, there
are a lot of -isms floating around. Now you can get together and team
up on me.
DT> So now Dave cries out, "I wanna play" and "give me attention"?
Anyway, I enjoy sorting out the different 'isms'. And I haven't had
this much fun since I was a kid. Or at least arguing this stuff in
philosophy classes in college. In Philosophy of Science class, I took
the side of the flat-earthers and made mincemeat of the round-earthers
(we were only allowed to use the evidence available at that
time-period, and so I had them way out-gunned).
Dave> People like to quote the Kalama Sutta. To death. DT has even
said it is his favorite or one of his favorites. But I think the
specificity of it is being ignored.
DT> Well, the Kalama Sutta is the only time a big-shot founder of a
religion says "don't accept anything on faith, not even because I, the
wisest of the wise, say it, but rather think for yourself, and only
accept that for which there is evidence". Whereas Jesus says to the
Doubting Thomas, "blessed are those who believe blindly without
evidence". Ok, that's attributed to Jesus after he becomes a vampire,
so it's probably a p.r. trick added later by disciples. But still, you
get the point.
<snip>
> "nor upon surmise"
>
> surmise :
> infer from incomplete evidence
> guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence
>
> Oh snap! DT is in trouble here!
> "forget about certainty and keep a "don't know" mind, then weigh the
> percentages and take your best guess, see what happens, and learn
> from it."
>
> DT was doing ok until he started talking percentages.
DT> I think you're making a category mistake here. The Buddhist was
talking psychology, in particular, from a subjective phenomenological
view. He wasn't giving a guide about how to do physics or chemistry.
> Let's look at this problematic moving vehicle example of DTs:
>
> "if I walk in front of a truck, I'll get hit and die."
>
> According to DT, if I agree with this statement, it means I believe the
> truck and myself exists.
>
> This is "specious reasoning." (see above) It is tough to get around
> because it is pretty clever. Of course any sane and reasonable person
> would get out of the way of the truck, because, of *course* the truck
> exists. "duh!" (self-evident, axiomatic truth, see above)
Btw, Dave, in the Matrix, you would still die, but there is no you or
the truck. Actually, there would be a you in a vat somewhere, and as
with all idealism, you would have to posit such a hyper-reality, or
Cosmic Self that is doing the master deluding, and so forth. Hence
common sense realism ends up being a simpler and more practical view,
which is why I prefer it to non-dual-spookism.
Sometimes idealists and spookists claim that the universe didn't even
exist before there were observers, as nobody could know or experience
its existence. Yet while not positing the cosmos that was around for
billions of years before it grew critters to observe it, to make their
views work, they have to posit magical hyper-worlds of ideal forms or
ineffable Oneness, or a Cosmic Mind or God that is constantly dreaming
the world. And thus they violate their own dislike for positing what
they can't know, except that they do it in spades!
> But where DT would file this under "reason" I file it under "skillful."
>
> [Scene: a busy city street, DT begins to cross the street when a truck
> comes rapidly speeding towards him]
>
> Keynes: DT! Watch out!
>
> DT: Well, seeing as I exist, and the truck exists, and judging by the
> speed of the oncoming vehicle, it is logical to assume that I should-
>
> [SPLAT!]
>
> Buddhapest: bulk transportation agendas congeal into velocity induced
> splattering scenarios [sad sniffle]
DT> Oh come on: buddhapest is the one who should go SPLAT!
I'd be bragging about how physicalism wins again.
> One of problems with reason is that it is not quick enough to keep up
> with reality, or fast moving vehicles. There is no need to surmise
> "this truck exists, I exist." There's no need to imagine that you are
> imagining it either. There's just "Watch out!" (skillful) Or there
> is just "SPLAT!" (unskillful)
>
> -Dave "twinkle-toad troglodyte" K
DT> Ok, how about this:
"Don't mentate the world -- just get the hell out of the way, fool!"
However, when you're not standing in the road, you can discuss the
existence of trucks, calculate their momentum, and even test their
existence by leaving small objects on the road and then observing if
they get flattened. However, when you are in the middle of the road
it's not good to endlessly speculate on the ontology of trucks.
Tang> But remember, Dave, that some people reject "...when you
yourselves know". It's delusion to them. What's left in the Kalama
scripture, experience by oneself of oneself, cannot be trusted, to
them.
Lee> You worry too much about this, dad. Those who can't believe
experience by oneself of oneself probably can't even find their
computer. And if they believe more than that? Well, just remember,
it's all fluff, eh?
Evelyn> Hmmmm... not so sure about that part, Tang. Never forget that
good judgment comes from having experienced the results of bad judgment
and learned from it.
DT> Yes, I also disagree if Tang is saying to just blindly trust the
conclusions and opinions one draws from experience. Look at Tang, who
in his experience claims to "know" that I'm not I, and claims endlessly
that I'm his evil arch-nemesis Jigme in disguise, and by sticking to
his "experience by oneself of oneself", Tang continues his deluded
interpretations and continues to get it wrong and never corrects his
errors, and thus continues to be the laughing stock of the usenet
underworld. In the same way, Plato did science like this and if it
sounded good, one was in touch with the cosmic order -- but only when
scientists like Francis Bacon started to test their ideas in the world
did science start to rock and get to the hard physical truths that led
us to walk on the moon!
So it's simple and practical for me: rather than be like Tang and
accept my own deluded opinions endlessly, I want to test them in the
objective world (short of walking in front of trucks) and be more in
touch with reality, whatever that may turn out to be. Like I said
before, I prefer to be the honeybee.
--My Divine Grace Yabba Dabba Dukkha Dharmakaya Trollpa
"The men of experiment are like the ant, they only collect and use; the
reasoners resemble spiders, who make cobwebs out of their own
substance. But the bee takes the middle course: it gathers its material
from the flowers of the garden and field, but transforms and digests it
by a power of its own. Not unlike this is the true business of
philosophy; for it neither relies solely or chiefly on the powers of
the mind, nor does it take the matter which it gathers from natural
history and mechanical experiments and lay up in the memory whole, as
it finds it, but lays it up in the understanding altered and digested.
Therefore, from a closer and purer league between these two faculties,
the experimental and the rational (such as has never been made), much
may be hoped."
-Francis Bacon
buddhapest
"Dharmatroll" <dharm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1168793695.3...@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
> Hence common sense realism ends up being a simpler and more practical
view,
> which is why I prefer it to non-dual-spookism.
> I can imagine a Cosmic Beastie called God saying "Let there be Light!"
> and then POOF!
go dt go
Dharmatroll
DT> Your point? I can imagine a God or flying saucers, as they are
possible, but they aren't the simplest, most likely view. And the
simplest, most likely case is that there is only the natural physical
world, with no spooks, no flying saucers, no gods, and no "the
ineffable". And until you produce one of those, I'm gonna keep kickin'
your Brahmanist butt!
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
"There are two ways to slide easily through life:
to believe everything or to doubt everything;
both ways save us from thinking."
-Alfred Korzybski
Dave K
Dharmatroll wrote:
> Dave> WOW! What an argument. If this is a contest to see who is being
> more or less Buddhist I am proposing to out-Buddha you by telling you
> that neither of you seem to be acting very Buddhist here.
>
> DT> "Acting Buddhist" is like middle-school kids "acting cool". I have
> no desire to act Buddhist. I'm out to have fun and stimulate my brain.
>
> Dave> Besides the fact that you are both acting like children, there
> are a lot of -isms floating around. Now you can get together and team
> up on me.
>
> DT> So now Dave cries out, "I wanna play" and "give me attention"?
YOU STARTED IT YOU STARTED IT
> Anyway, I enjoy sorting out the different 'isms'. And I haven't had
> this much fun since I was a kid. Or at least arguing this stuff in
> philosophy classes in college. In Philosophy of Science class, I took
> the side of the flat-earthers and made mincemeat of the round-earthers
> (we were only allowed to use the evidence available at that
> time-period, and so I had them way out-gunned).
>
> Dave> People like to quote the Kalama Sutta. To death. DT has even
> said it is his favorite or one of his favorites. But I think the
> specificity of it is being ignored.
>
> DT> Well, the Kalama Sutta is the only time a big-shot founder of a
> religion says "don't accept anything on faith, not even because I, the
> wisest of the wise, say it, but rather think for yourself, and only
> accept that for which there is evidence". Whereas Jesus says to the
> Doubting Thomas, "blessed are those who believe blindly without
> evidence". Ok, that's attributed to Jesus after he becomes a vampire,
> so it's probably a p.r. trick added later by disciples. But still, you
> get the point.
Yes, but my point is to address how specific this sutra is in telling
us what to ignore. BTW, it doesn't mention evidence.
> <snip>
> > "nor upon surmise"
> >
> > surmise :
> > infer from incomplete evidence
> > guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence
> >
> > Oh snap! DT is in trouble here!
> > "forget about certainty and keep a "don't know" mind, then weigh the
> > percentages and take your best guess, see what happens, and learn
> > from it."
> >
> > DT was doing ok until he started talking percentages.
>
> DT> I think you're making a category mistake here. The Buddhist was
> talking psychology, in particular, from a subjective phenomenological
> view. He wasn't giving a guide about how to do physics or chemistry.
Right, which works out, given the nature of this forum. Doesn't it?
> > Let's look at this problematic moving vehicle example of DTs:
> >
> > "if I walk in front of a truck, I'll get hit and die."
> >
> > According to DT, if I agree with this statement, it means I believe the
> > truck and myself exists.
> >
> > This is "specious reasoning." (see above) It is tough to get around
> > because it is pretty clever. Of course any sane and reasonable person
> > would get out of the way of the truck, because, of *course* the truck
> > exists. "duh!" (self-evident, axiomatic truth, see above)
>
> Btw, Dave, in the Matrix, you would still die, but there is no you or
> the truck. Actually, there would be a you in a vat somewhere,
Right, so it's more like "you're not what you think you are," which is
an ok analogy to Buddhism. Rather than claim there was a self, or not,
the Buddha advised against identifying with the aggregates as a self.
Yet he still refused to debate about whether the self actually existed
or not.
> and as
> with all idealism, you would have to posit such a hyper-reality, or
> Cosmic Self that is doing the master deluding, and so forth. Hence
> common sense realism ends up being a simpler and more practical view,
> which is why I prefer it to non-dual-spookism.
Which is where the matrix and where idealism falls apart in realtion to
Buddhism, where the deluder and the delusion are the same thing.
> Sometimes idealists and spookists claim that the universe didn't even
> exist before there were observers, as nobody could know or experience
> its existence. Yet while not positing the cosmos that was around for
> billions of years before it grew critters to observe it, to make their
> views work, they have to posit magical hyper-worlds of ideal forms or
> ineffable Oneness, or a Cosmic Mind or God that is constantly dreaming
> the world. And thus they violate their own dislike for positing what
> they can't know, except that they do it in spades!
And again I don't care much about idealists. I propose neither the
existence or lack of existence of anything, and have only my experience
to go on. My experience is not your experience. There are people who
experience God all the time yet without positing that such a creature
actually exists. The problem with "-isms" is that it not only posits
some kind of reality, but attempts to recruit others into an experience
which is personal.
> > But where DT would file this under "reason" I file it under "skillful."
> >
> > [Scene: a busy city street, DT begins to cross the street when a truck
> > comes rapidly speeding towards him]
> >
> > Keynes: DT! Watch out!
> >
> > DT: Well, seeing as I exist, and the truck exists, and judging by the
> > speed of the oncoming vehicle, it is logical to assume that I should-
> >
> > [SPLAT!]
> >
> > Buddhapest: bulk transportation agendas congeal into velocity induced
> > splattering scenarios [sad sniffle]
>
> DT> Oh come on: buddhapest is the one who should go SPLAT!
> I'd be bragging about how physicalism wins again.
The problem is that the truck came faster than you could think of which
-ism to go with.
But if it makes you feel better I'll splatter him next time...
> > One of problems with reason is that it is not quick enough to keep up
> > with reality, or fast moving vehicles. There is no need to surmise
> > "this truck exists, I exist." There's no need to imagine that you are
> > imagining it either. There's just "Watch out!" (skillful) Or there
> > is just "SPLAT!" (unskillful)
> >
> > -Dave "twinkle-toad troglodyte" K
>
> DT> Ok, how about this:
> "Don't mentate the world -- just get the hell out of the way, fool!"
>
> However, when you're not standing in the road, you can discuss the
> existence of trucks, calculate their momentum, and even test their
> existence by leaving small objects on the road and then observing if
> they get flattened. However, when you are in the middle of the road
> it's not good to endlessly speculate on the ontology of trucks.
As my Dad used to say "What are you gonna do? Work in a philosophy
factory when you grow up?"
-DaveK
Keynes
>
>Right, so it's more like "you're not what you think you are," which is
>an ok analogy to Buddhism. Rather than claim there was a self, or not,
>the Buddha advised against identifying with the aggregates as a self.
>Yet he still refused to debate about whether the self actually existed
>or not.
The Buddha did remark that no theory of self
can lead to liberation, since every one of them has
fatal flaws and inevitable unintended consequences.
He also said that 'self' as a being with powers is
an obvious absurdity in every way.
But this stuff is pretty advanced, and not for
hard headed beginners who will reject it out of hand.
Probably since the beginning of conjectures there
has been the irreconcilable dualism of mind and
matter. That the thought requires a thinker is just
the common assumption of subject-object dualism.
And so rationality marches on and on right off the cliff.
Dave K
It might sound as if I am stepping into this dangerous territory of
defining reality. But I would say that the problem with "it" is that
we think it's a thing, when it's more of an event. I think there is
some connection to nonduality/duality and what I might call a "verbal"
perspective over a "thing" oriented perspective.
And I believe this is relevant becuase the Buddha did not say there was
no self, but he advised against "I-making" and "my-making." He advised
againt the *process* of self identification, not existence. It's the
process of self-creation that creates the process called suffering. It
has little to do with things.
The reason I think impermanance is so hard to grasp on an intuitive
level is becuase we are thing-oriented. I have even heard it said that
one of the reasons the Chinese have a better grasp of Buddhism and
Taoism has a lot to do with their language. (Tang perhaps can help me
out here. Doesn't he mentate in 8 different languages or something?)
You can get an idea across in Chinese (so I have heard) without the use
of a subject or object. To a native speaker of english this is
incomprehensible..
The Way gave birth to unity
Unity gave birth to duality,
Duality gave birth to trinity,
Trinity gave birth to the myriad creatures
(TTC 42)
So the Tao happens even before there is even such a thing as "unity."
The Tao is a process, not a thing. When we translate it to "way" we
probably think of something like a road or trail. I am betting that,
untranslated, the connotation has more to do with what is taking place
on that trail. "The Walk" might even be better, but it's not as
poetic.
-DaveK
stumper
> Keynes wrote:
Some says it's a guideline.
I usually say it's an emergent pattern.
You can try to figure that out;
but expecting to find a fixed answer
would be un-Daoistic.
Similarly, asking what is self
is asking the wrong question.
It's usually not skillful
to ask whether self exists or not.
It's usually quite helpful
to ask whether we can be mindful
without getting attached to self
or selfish emotions.
--
~Stumper
Robert Epstein
Time for some un-scholarly running commentary
> by a half-assed Buddhist practitioner! (me)
Take that back! You are a serious practitioner, dude.
robert
- - - - - - -
Robert Epstein
> So, logic is out, inference is out, and damn, even probability! The
> Buddha shows no mercy here. If you are going to claim your view is
> "Buddhist" or that someone else's is not, you can't skip over this
> stuff.
>
> So....What's left?
>
> "...when you yourselves know: 'These things are bad; these things are
> blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and
> observed, these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them."
>
> "...when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are
> not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and
> observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and
> abide in them."
>
> What falls into the realm of identifying skillfull and unskillful
> behavior, without using the rejected criteria above? Sid the merciless
> seems to give us no ground to stand on here.
That is not correct. You correctly quoted where the ground is, and it
is extremely specific and limited. Thanks for the help here by the way.
Sid the merciless says that the *only* criteria for skillful, correct
knowledge and practice is that which "you yourself know." He includes
in what "you yourself know" not only "what is bad" and "what is good"
which you would have had to learn from experience, but "what is
censured" or "praised" by the wise. And that is all.
Boiled down to a nutshell, he is saying that when you know that someone
is wise, you should take their advice about how to proceed; when you
yourself have experienced that something is good or bad, you should
enter and abide in them.
And anything else that is based on conjecture, logic or non-experiential
knowledge should be held in abeyance until it is confirmed by either
"the wise" or oneself.
In fact this view is so pragmatic it shows Buddhism to be almost wholly
based on two very ancient factors: personal experience and
experimentation, and apprenticeship. And nothing else.
I don't think I could very easily discipline myself to hold in abeyance
anything that is not told to me by the few people I really and truly
know are wise; or the limited set of things I have proved to myself are
useful and helpful, but it is worth a try.
I doubt that Tang or DT or Keynes or anyone else around here will easily
stick to these criteria either. It is clearly what the Buddha wanted us
to do.
Robert
- - - - - - - - - - -
dkots...@yahoo.com
Robert Epstein wrote:
> Dave K wrote:
>
> > So, logic is out, inference is out, and damn, even probability! The
> > Buddha shows no mercy here. If you are going to claim your view is
> > "Buddhist" or that someone else's is not, you can't skip over this
> > stuff.
> >
> > So....What's left?
> >
> > "...when you yourselves know: 'These things are bad; these things are
> > blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and
> > observed, these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them."
> >
> > "...when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are
> > not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and
> > observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and
> > abide in them."
> >
> > What falls into the realm of identifying skillfull and unskillful
> > behavior, without using the rejected criteria above? Sid the merciless
> > seems to give us no ground to stand on here.
>
> That is not correct. You correctly quoted where the ground is, and it
> is extremely specific and limited. Thanks for the help here by the way.
> Sid the merciless says that the *only* criteria for skillful, correct
> knowledge and practice is that which "you yourself know." He includes
> in what "you yourself know" not only "what is bad" and "what is good"
> which you would have had to learn from experience, but "what is
> censured" or "praised" by the wise. And that is all.
But the koan is, does this conflict with the rejected criteria of "this
contemplative is our teacher," or the use of logic, guessing, etc. etc?
> Boiled down to a nutshell, he is saying that when you know that someone
> is wise, you should take their advice about how to proceed; when you
> yourself have experienced that something is good or bad, you should
> enter and abide in them.
>
> And anything else that is based on conjecture, logic or non-experiential
> knowledge should be held in abeyance until it is confirmed by either
> "the wise" or oneself.
It still seems to me that even this self-knowledge is still partly
based on that rejected criteria. That's the part of "no-ground" I was
referring to. I don't dismiss it as a contradiction, but accept it as
something I don't have the wisdom to fully see yet. To me it is a
glimpse of true wisdom, panna, for which I can't offer conjecture or a
logical explanation. I see it essentially as a koan I have not
"passed," so that all I can do is act based on the information and
experience I have at the time.
> In fact this view is so pragmatic it shows Buddhism to be almost wholly
> based on two very ancient factors: personal experience and
> experimentation, and apprenticeship. And nothing else.
>
> I don't think I could very easily discipline myself to hold in abeyance
> anything that is not told to me by the few people I really and truly
> know are wise; or the limited set of things I have proved to myself are
> useful and helpful, but it is worth a try.
>
> I doubt that Tang or DT or Keynes or anyone else around here will easily
> stick to these criteria either. It is clearly what the Buddha wanted us
> to do.
I think it's about bringing your life into your practice rather than
your practice into your life.. or maybe it's the other way around.
Anyway, putting this teaching, as I currently understand (or
misunderstand) it immediately into effect seems insurmountable to me if
I do not proceed carefully and with discrimination.
In other words I will probably continue to waste a bit of time with
apparently trivial and non-buddhist pursuits for awhile, rather than
risk the frustration that comes with an immediate renunciation of
worldly life. Such frustration could lead one to abandon practice
altogether.
-DaveK
Keynes
wrote:
The Buddha says "Don't be gullible."
So we gullible-ly take his advice.
Whatever is said has got to be one-sided because
that's the way reasonable language always works.
All profiles and silhouettes. Bluff and bluster.
If you watch your feet you can't see the horizon.
Trust no one. Least of all your own reason.
There is no one and nothing to rely on.
Take care of yourself.
>I think it's about bringing your life into your practice rather than
>your practice into your life.. or maybe it's the other way around.
>Anyway, putting this teaching, as I currently understand (or
>misunderstand) it immediately into effect seems insurmountable to me if
>I do not proceed carefully and with discrimination.
>
>In other words I will probably continue to waste a bit of time with
>apparently trivial and non-buddhist pursuits for awhile, rather than
>risk the frustration that comes with an immediate renunciation of
>worldly life. Such frustration could lead one to abandon practice
>altogether.
>
>-DaveK
>
>> Robert
>>
>> - - - - - - - - - - -
Ideally Buddhism transcends the unhappy distinctions,
but does not erase 'life as we know it'. Sinners don't
have all the fun. Otherwise, what's the point?
While buddhism looks like a dismal deprivation to the
happy go lucky it isn't really that way at all. As in all
the spiritual traditions, awakening is boundless bounty
and no bills to pay.
Everybody wants to get to heaven,
but nobody wants to die. Go figure.
buddhapest
"Keynes" <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote in message
news:4jcnq2p5nrmaogsqe...@4ax.com...
it's because heaven is thought to contain
rewards equivalent to parameters set by
your alive awake reality. death itself per se
has no living equivalent thus making it a fear
of an unknown.
when i was young at catholic school the priests
would get perturbed at me because i asked them
why they could tell me what occurs in hell, what
with all of the fire and brimstone and burning for
eternity in a lake of fire and such, yet they couldn't give
a reasonable explanation of what would take place
in heaven.
Tang Huyen
Robert Epstein wrote:
> I doubt that Tang or DT or Keynes or anyone else
> around here will easily stick to these criteria either.
> It is clearly what the Buddha wanted us to do.
Don't worry, dear. I don't claim to be there, but
awakening is normless, standardless, criterialess,
referenceless. Nothing sticks to it and it sticks to
nothing. That's what a Buddhist should orient
himself to.
Tang Huyen
Lee Rudolph
Teflon.
Lee Rudolph
stumper
Awakening cannot be powerless.
It's supposed to end suffering.
Is it more like washing it off
or like burning it off
or rather like pulling it out?
--
~Stumper
Robert Epstein
Of course it does; but I don't see the koan. Conflict with 'rejected
criteria' is surely not a problem.
>>Boiled down to a nutshell, he is saying that when you know that someone
>>is wise, you should take their advice about how to proceed; when you
>>yourself have experienced that something is good or bad, you should
>>enter and abide in them.
>>
>>And anything else that is based on conjecture, logic or non-experiential
>>knowledge should be held in abeyance until it is confirmed by either
>>"the wise" or oneself.
>
>
> It still seems to me that even this self-knowledge is still partly
> based on that rejected criteria. That's the part of "no-ground" I was
> referring to. I don't dismiss it as a contradiction, but accept it as
> something I don't have the wisdom to fully see yet.
I don't see the contradiction. He is rejecting external and objective
logic, as well as speculation and surmise, in favor of knowledge and
trust of those proven to be wise. Where is the contradiction? To me,
the only koan is: how does one "know" something. But I think that is
probably a creature of idle speculation. I know that I can trust my
father, for instance, in certain areas in which he has expertise. I
know I can trust myself in certain areas where my knowledge is
dependable. Other areas I would be more skeptical, so there is some
judgment there, but it is not statistical reasoning, idle speculation,
or mere logic which could be based on false information or false
premises. It is saying that only that knowledge which is most personal
and certain is admissible.
To me it is a
> glimpse of true wisdom, panna, for which I can't offer conjecture or a
> logical explanation. I see it essentially as a koan I have not
> "passed," so that all I can do is act based on the information and
> experience I have at the time.
Seems more simple to me.
>>In fact this view is so pragmatic it shows Buddhism to be almost wholly
>>based on two very ancient factors: personal experience and
>>experimentation, and apprenticeship. And nothing else.
>>
>>I don't think I could very easily discipline myself to hold in abeyance
>>anything that is not told to me by the few people I really and truly
>>know are wise; or the limited set of things I have proved to myself are
>>useful and helpful, but it is worth a try.
>>
>>I doubt that Tang or DT or Keynes or anyone else around here will easily
>>stick to these criteria either. It is clearly what the Buddha wanted us
>>to do.
>
>
> I think it's about bringing your life into your practice rather than
> your practice into your life.. or maybe it's the other way around.
> Anyway, putting this teaching, as I currently understand (or
> misunderstand) it immediately into effect seems insurmountable to me if
> I do not proceed carefully and with discrimination.
>
> In other words I will probably continue to waste a bit of time with
> apparently trivial and non-buddhist pursuits for awhile, rather than
> risk the frustration that comes with an immediate renunciation of
> worldly life. Such frustration could lead one to abandon practice
> altogether.
>
> -DaveK
Who is asking you to abandon worldly life?
I don't see where you are getting that at all. It seems to me we are
reading two different suttas.
Robert Epstein
Have fun orienting to such. You will not stick to it and it will not
stick to you. You have to drop the self if you want to stick.
Robert Epstein
It is more like dropping yourself.
Impossible to do, without letting go.
robert
Tang Huyen
Lee Rudolph wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
>
> >Robert Epstein:
>
> >> I doubt that Tang or DT or Keynes or anyone else
> >> around here will easily stick to these criteria either.
> >> It is clearly what the Buddha wanted us to do.
>
> >Don't worry, dear. I don't claim to be there, but
> >awakening is normless, standardless, criterialess,
> >referenceless. Nothing sticks to it and it sticks to
> >nothing. That's what a Buddhist should orient
> >himself to.
>
> Teflon.
Right. The Daoist saying in eight Chinese characters
summarises the situation perfectly:
wu-xin yu wu, wu-wu yu xin
"no mind in things, no things in mind."
It's not that there is only a homogeneous blank, for
everything still happens like before and all is cognised
just like before, but one does not focus on something,
make some thing of it and carry the box and its
content around. One does not engage in
"mind-making", in chunking and bagging, that's all.
Tang Huyen
Keynes
Drop that stick!
stumper
How can you yourself drop yourself?
Better just wait for it
to forget about itself.
--
~Stumper
Lee Rudolph
You are your horse, your driver, and your carriage;
you are your hangman, your rope, and your platform.
Lee Rudolph
Lazarhat
"Holding neither view, nor position (nor orientation),
one is left with none to defend nor one with which
to maintain attachment...."
-Laz
Tang Huyen
Lee Rudolph wrote:
> stumper:
>
> >How can you yourself drop yourself?
>
> You are your horse, your driver, and your carriage;
> you are your hangman, your rope, and your platform.
The irony is that to awaken one has to drop everything,
including any stand on anything and any stop at anything,
in other words one has to drop all platforms on which
one can stand (including the self), mentally speaking of
course, but that after awakening, one becomes one's
own Archimedian platform, in other words one is
compleat in oneself, stable in oneself and sufficient to
oneself.
Another irony is that whilst one drops everything as it
happens, and sticks to nothing and nothing sticks to
one, so that one is like Teflon, one also acts as a whole,
in total action (and not as scattered, even less as
broken up into pieces that don't know each other and
that fight with each other). And yet whilst acting as a
whole, in a single piece, one has no self so that there is
nobody there acting. There is the act, in full
engagement (and not absentmindedly or reluctantly),
but no actor. There is full presence (and not
scatteredness or fragmentation), but there is nobody
there to be present.
Tang Huyen
stumper
It's nice to dream about it.
But, that does not seem to be
such a good practice.
Got anything better?
--
~Stumper
buddhapest
"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
news:12qqml6...@news.supernews.com...
> The irony is that to awaken one has to drop everything,
even the irony? that's one thing i can't
seem to shake no matter how much
dropitization i wield.
> including any stand on anything and any stop at anything,
no stand may means that you may be
crawling to that fabled utopia of peace
and serenity, but what the hell, it's the
same goal and result of pub crawlers
who drink themselves stupid going
from bar to bar. but if we are truly
dropping everything, peace and serenity
gotta go too doncha know.
> in other words one has to drop all platforms on which
> one can stand (including the self),
in other words? what other words have
you got? do they end up in backwater
cesspooling cul de sacs and dead ends
like the words that are usually used?
> mentally speaking of
> course,
you speak with your mentality? on that
note, how is it that you can hear thoughts?
are their ears in your brain? another thing is,
try and shout or scream in your thoughts.
seems it only goes so loud huh? who's
regulating the volume of your thoughts?
>but that after awakening,
ah so you're the one who has that
awakening manual and has all the
particulars on exactly what it is.
one becomes one's
> own Archimedian platform, in other words one is
> compleat in oneself, stable in oneself and sufficient to
> oneself.
so instead of depending on stands one
becomes one? do others then stand on
you? what page of the awakening manual
is this on anyway? are you by chance
improvising here?
> Another irony is that whilst one drops everything as it
> happens, and sticks to nothing and nothing sticks to
> one,
except of course a non-sticking agenda
which in and of itself could be seen to be
stickier than any of the other previous
stuck to thingies.
so that one is like Teflon, one also acts as a whole,
> in total action (and not as scattered, even less as
> broken up into pieces that don't know each other and
> that fight with each other).
broken into pieces and fighting with each
other is the music of the spheres.
And yet whilst acting as a
> whole, in a single piece, one has no self so that there is
> nobody there acting.
except a whole self which gave up fragmentation
for fractalization which is just more bait and switch
word correctedness addictionality.
There is the act, in full
> engagement (and not absentmindedly or reluctantly),
if it's an act it could easily be absentmidedly
in denial of its absentmindedness.
> but no actor.
words words words. you can't define
the denial of commonly used definitions
by decrying the words used there when
you only switch to new words in your version.
> There is full presence
are we back to the awakening manual?
what page are we on? i seem to have
purposely lost my place.
(and not
> scatteredness or fragmentation), but there is nobody
> there to be present.
i fell into the looking glass.
can you toss me your keys?
Robert Epstein
drop each remnant of egoity
as it arises.
it's kind of slow, but can be done.
gives you something to do while waiting.
you should try it sometime, just to see.
robert
- - - - - - - -
Robert Epstein
"you don't know where you are going
nor why you are going,
enter anywhere, reply to anything,
they'll no more kill you than if you were a corpse..."
[rimbaud]
robert
- - - - - - - - -
stumper
I'm usually rather busy
to imbue my awareness
with compassion and loving-kindness.
Thanks anyway.
--
~Stumper
Dave K
Robert Epstein wrote:
> dkots...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Robert Epstein wrote:
> >>That is not correct. You correctly quoted where the ground is, and it
> >>is extremely specific and limited. Thanks for the help here by the way.
> >> Sid the merciless says that the *only* criteria for skillful, correct
> >>knowledge and practice is that which "you yourself know." He includes
> >>in what "you yourself know" not only "what is bad" and "what is good"
> >>which you would have had to learn from experience, but "what is
> >>censured" or "praised" by the wise. And that is all.
> >
> >
> > But the koan is, does this conflict with the rejected criteria of "this
> > contemplative is our teacher," or the use of logic, guessing, etc. etc?
>
> Of course it does; but I don't see the koan. Conflict with 'rejected
> criteria' is surely not a problem.
Hey there Robert, sorry for the delay. Busy week.
What I'm asking is, how do you reconcile not being able to use
knowledge by "this contemplative is our teacher" with "that which is
censured or praised by the wise"? Logically speaking, it's a
contradiction. If you can explain to me how it's not, that'd be great.
For the meantime I tend to think of it as pointing towards a kind if
wisdom I don't have, or haven't realized in myself yet. This could be
coming from my inner zennie. Zen teachers give you no place to stand
when it comes to wisdom. When you think you've got it, that means you
are stuck, and so a zen teacher will pull the rug, or actually the
whole floor, out from under you. This forces you to continue your
practice and to keep searching. That's why I see this as a koan.
Of course this is a Therevadan and not a zen text, but I think if you
are going to look for a precedent for zen in the Pali Canon, (an
interesting idea for a thread) I think this is one of the Suttas that
is going to come up.
> >>Boiled down to a nutshell, he is saying that when you know that someone
> >>is wise, you should take their advice about how to proceed; when you
> >>yourself have experienced that something is good or bad, you should
> >>enter and abide in them.
> >>
> >>And anything else that is based on conjecture, logic or non-experiential
> >>knowledge should be held in abeyance until it is confirmed by either
> >>"the wise" or oneself.
> >
> >
> > It still seems to me that even this self-knowledge is still partly
> > based on that rejected criteria. That's the part of "no-ground" I was
> > referring to. I don't dismiss it as a contradiction, but accept it as
> > something I don't have the wisdom to fully see yet.
>
> I don't see the contradiction. He is rejecting external and objective
> logic, as well as speculation and surmise, in favor of knowledge and
> trust of those proven to be wise. Where is the contradiction? To me,
> the only koan is: how does one "know" something. But I think that is
> probably a creature of idle speculation. I know that I can trust my
> father, for instance, in certain areas in which he has expertise. I
> know I can trust myself in certain areas where my knowledge is
> dependable. Other areas I would be more skeptical, so there is some
> judgment there, but it is not statistical reasoning, idle speculation,
> or mere logic which could be based on false information or false
> premises. It is saying that only that knowledge which is most personal
> and certain is admissible.
I will say that for my own sake, it is admissible but that I would
still regard it as suspicious and temporary at best. For the time
being I am a deluded practitioner working to the best of my current
ability, but as I have not yet realized the wisdom of the Buddha. So
anything I think I know could be wrong, but I have to do the best I can
and keep working towards it.
> To me it is a
> > glimpse of true wisdom, panna, for which I can't offer conjecture or a
> > logical explanation. I see it essentially as a koan I have not
> > "passed," so that all I can do is act based on the information and
> > experience I have at the time.
>
> Seems more simple to me.
Well lucky you! :)
I am taking it within the context of other Suttas. (Though I entirely
admit the possiblity of over-analyzing this one) The Buddha elsewhere
tells us that we should take actions that lead to our long-term welfare
and happiness and abandon those that don't. That is a further
definition of skillfull action. Now to me, that is HARD. It's
correct, but it's difficult. It tends away from wordly concerns which
tend to gratify short term desires. Truthfully, from this
perspective, we should always be asking the question "will this lead to
my long term welfare and happiness?" And to be honest, I am not ready
to answer that question when it comes to many of my actions, becuase I
know the answer will be "no."
So why do I keep doing them? Becuase I still have a lot of greed,
anger, and delusion. But hey, the first step is admitting you have a
problem. At least I can be mindful of them.
-DaveK
Robert Epstein
> Robert Epstein wrote:
>
>>dkots...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Robert Epstein wrote:
>>>
>>>>That is not correct. You correctly quoted where the ground is, and it
>>>>is extremely specific and limited. Thanks for the help here by the way.
>>>> Sid the merciless says that the *only* criteria for skillful, correct
>>>>knowledge and practice is that which "you yourself know." He includes
>>>>in what "you yourself know" not only "what is bad" and "what is good"
>>>>which you would have had to learn from experience, but "what is
>>>>censured" or "praised" by the wise. And that is all.
>>>
>>>
>>>But the koan is, does this conflict with the rejected criteria of "this
>>>contemplative is our teacher," or the use of logic, guessing, etc. etc?
>>
>>Of course it does; but I don't see the koan. Conflict with 'rejected
>>criteria' is surely not a problem.
>
>
> Hey there Robert, sorry for the delay. Busy week.
>
> What I'm asking is, how do you reconcile not being able to use
> knowledge by "this contemplative is our teacher" with "that which is
> censured or praised by the wise"? Logically speaking, it's a
> contradiction. If you can explain to me how it's not, that'd be great.
I *think* that what you get when you put those two together is the
following:
1/ It's good to follow the advice of those who have proven to be wise.
That would put you in the right direction.
2/ However that advice should still be put into practice and verified
for oneself.
3/ It is not enough to say "my teacher told me to do it, so it must be
right."
To me these two contradictory-seeming statements point to the difference
between the blind follower and the worthy apprentice. At least that's
how I would take it.
> For the meantime I tend to think of it as pointing towards a kind if
> wisdom I don't have, or haven't realized in myself yet. This could be
> coming from my inner zennie. Zen teachers give you no place to stand
> when it comes to wisdom. When you think you've got it, that means you
> are stuck, and so a zen teacher will pull the rug, or actually the
> whole floor, out from under you. This forces you to continue your
> practice and to keep searching. That's why I see this as a koan.
I think that's one valid way of working with a teacher, and doesn't
change the idea that you are taking the advice of a trusted wise person,
then rolling with his/her punches, so that fits in okay.
> Of course this is a Therevadan and not a zen text, but I think if you
> are going to look for a precedent for zen in the Pali Canon, (an
> interesting idea for a thread) I think this is one of the Suttas that
> is going to come up.
I doubt the sutta is purposely trying to contradict itself to mess with
the student's head.
That's the path. Hopefully you have the support of wise friends of one
kind or another, including a teacher if one is available, and you also
keep self-correcting through letting go of views and practicing mindfulness.
I remember it being said by more than one person that Vipassana is a
more self-contained path that one can practice safely without a teacher.
If you stay simple and work from moment to moment with sati, the
natural gradual result is accumulation of panna and moments of insight.
But zen is more dependent on the skillful means of the teacher, as is
koan penetration and certification.
>> To me it is a
>>
>>>glimpse of true wisdom, panna, for which I can't offer conjecture or a
>>>logical explanation. I see it essentially as a koan I have not
>>>"passed," so that all I can do is act based on the information and
>>>experience I have at the time.
>>
>>Seems more simple to me.
>
>
> Well lucky you! :)
maybe I'm simple-minded. :)
I think what you say is true, but I also think that there is a
difference between giving up greedy, avaricious and delusory clingings
and concepts and abandoning worldly life. Buddha always allowed for the
possibly more difficult lifestyle of the "householder" who never retires
to a monastery and keeps engaging with family and business dealings, yet
practices releasing bad tendencies and developing wisdom while in the
world. So one can aim for being "in the world though not of it" if one
is not slated to be a retiring monk. And of course the occasional or
less than occasional retreat can give you a boost if you are a "worldly"
type. Anyway, I see the possibility in what the Buddha says of making
genuine progress towards enlightenment without "giving up worldly life."
Also, having a realistic assessment of how far you are from giving up
conceits and delusions should not be a cause for self-blame and
discouragement. We're all far off, and have to develop the patience to
keep going at whatever pace we can. Joshu didn't teach until he was 80,
although he experienced awakening a lot earlier. And Hui-Neng was a
bonafide Bodhisattva but went off to "ripen" in the woods for 12 years.
Even after enlightenment, it's a long path.
Robert
- - - - - - - - - - -
Robert Epstein
compassion and lovingkindness on top of egoity
is a rather messy structure.
stumper
You would not need
compassion and loving-kindness
if you have no self.
--
~Stumper
Evelyn Ruut
news:gEKdnRqH16c...@ptd.net...
But he would surely still appreciate it, if shown to him.
--
Best Regards,
Evelyn Ruut
stumper
Of course, he would be kind and compassionate.
He just would not be self-conscious about being so.
--
~Stumper
Robert Epstein
then why are you cultivating the former instead of examining the latter?
robert
- - - - - - -
stumper
> stumper wrote:
>> Robert Epstein wrote:
>>> stumper wrote:
>>>> Robert Epstein wrote:
>>>>> stumper wrote:
>>>>>> Robert Epstein wrote:
>>>>>>> stumper wrote:
>>>>>>>> Lee Rudolph wrote:
I think I told you many times.
There are many ways to awake.
One is to examine self mindfully.
Another is to be kind and compassionate.
Even just chanting might work.
Or just reading some sutras.
If you want, do them all.
BTW, if you are not sure
whether you are being egoistic
when you are trying to be
kind and compassionate,
you should simply ask
"How am I doing?"
--
~Stumper