The burning sensation qua burning sensation is not a contingent "bad', for there is no way to contextualize it that would diminish its badness. — Constance
There are all sorts of ways to contextual our it that would finish its badness Neurospsychologically speaking, the sensation itself always emerges as what it is out of a contextual field. Any alteration in that field
changes the perceived nature of the sensation. This is how accupuncture and biofeedback work. — Joshs
there is something else: the world apart from my systems of understanding DOES this. — Constance
This polarization of the world is a direct result of failing to reduce the basis of quality-value thoroughly enough. I believe we can reduce it to the point where we discover that good and bad are derivations of simple presence and absence. What it is that is present or absent is irrelevant to the meaning of good and bad. One would then say that the direction of the good is the world coming to know itself more and and more intimately, in a kind of condensation or invagination. Goodness is then a correlate of the ‘density’ of the presenting of presence in the flow of time.
This view explains concepts like evil, violence, god and polarization as derivatives of a more originary dynamic that is not itself any of these. — Joshs
As you say, presence or absence is irrelevant to the meaning of (ethical) good and bad. — Constance
There is nothing more originary than presence, granted. But as such, vacuous. It is the content that gives us existence. — Constance
So - would it be real were there no humans to be non-attached? Is it just an artefact of pyschology, do you think? — Wayfarer
That saying 'show me your original face' is a Zen koan, I believe. As others have commented, it's easy to repeat popular Zen sayings, but it's another matter to walk the talk. — Wayfarer
Because of an absence of knowledge on the other’s part, we were hurt.Greater insight ( a process of learning) would prevent the problem in future. — Joshs
If the Tathagata (“One who has arrived”) “understands everything that is perceived and pondered over by the mind”, “sees the disappearance of consciousness”, etc., this seems to suggest the presence of some form of consciousness or awareness that the Tathagata has. — Apollodorus
Buddha-nature has a wide range of (sometimes conflicting) meanings in Indian and later East Asian and Tibetan Buddhist literature, and the idea of Buddha-nature may refer to, among others, the luminous nature of mind,[7][8][9] the pure (visuddhi), undefiled mind,[7] "the natural and true state of the mind";[10] sunyata, an emptiness that is a nonimplicative negation (as emptiness is seen in madhyamaka);[8] the alaya-vijñana ("store-consciousness", a yogacara concept);[8] the interpenetration of all dharmas; and the potential for all sentient beings to attain liberation. — Wiki
For me, the most interesting word being done is in French post modern theology/phenomenology: Michel Henri, Jean luc Marion, Jean luc Nancy and others. Why are they so interesting? Because they pursue a line of thinking that goes to the experiential "presence" itself. It is in presence qua presence of the ordinary world we live in wherein lies the clue to enlightenment. — Constance
Reading a preface to the Tibetan Book of the Dead, I came across the remark that it was common for monks to talk freely about their most intimate meditative experiences. — Constance
Buddhist enlightenment, ot to put too fine a point on it, is. I think, exactly where all of this inquiry should be moving toward: toward the intuited apprehension of the world that yields....but then, there is the rub: SAYING what it is. — Constance
Enlightenment is concerned with truth, and therefore, to address the begged question we are forced to affirm that value is an essential part of this.
The matter then turns to value: what is it? An argument over the nature of value is THE philosophical discussion to have. Until the nature of value is revealed, talk about enlightenment is just question begging. This makes ethics/aesthetics the first order of affair. All that talk about Buddhists, theologians and Gods, rationalists and their quest for axiomatic assurance, all of these "narratives" come down to an analysis of value and its meaning. — Constance
They do sound interesting but I don't know if I'll ever read them, life is short and books are many. (But glancing at Marion's wiki entry, I read something that immediately resonates, "We live with love as if we knew what it was about. But as soon as we try to define it, or at least approach it with concepts, it draws away from us. — Wayfarer
But then that is within a domain of discourse where such expressions are meaningful, there's a shared understanding of what these experiences are. — Wayfarer
That is the area of hermenuetics, the interpretation of texts. It's a topic within Buddhism itself, because of doctrinal disputes that arose in the early part of the tradition. Some of the Mahāyāna Sutras (e.g. Ārya-saṃdhi-nirmocana-sūtra) purport to present the 'definitive interpretation' concerning various difficult or disputed points of the earlier tradition. In any case, the central concern of all the schools is with realising that state of enlightenment. — Wayfarer
What is an argument over the nature of value? Step it out if you have time.
I take the view that there is no capital T truth out there to be found. Humans make truth. Utility seems to me to determine the traction or value of any given narrative. How well does it work for us to meet our goals. — Tom Storm
I think what tends to happen is that when people don’t know about something but they know (or are told) that it exists, the mind will compensate for the lack of information by imagining things and this can be equivalent to getting “tangled in theories”.
In any case, no one expects a full-blown theory. But a better explanation might help people to understand. If not, it amounts to saying that Buddhists have nothing to say on the topic, which doesn't seem to be the case. — Apollodorus
The Blessed One said: "Suppose an elephant hunter were to enter an elephant forest and were to see there a large elephant footprint, long in extent and broad in width. A skilled elephant hunter would not yet come to the conclusion, 'What a big bull elephant!' Why is that? Because in an elephant forest there are dwarf female elephants with big feet. The footprint might be one of theirs.
"So he follows along and sees in the elephant forest a large elephant footprint, long in extent and broad in width, and some scratch marks high up. A skilled elephant hunter would not yet come to the conclusion, 'What a big bull elephant!' Why is that? Because in an elephant forest there are tall female elephants with prominent teeth & big feet. The footprint might be one of theirs.
"So he follows along and sees in the elephant forest a large elephant footprint, long in extent and broad in width, with some scratch marks and tusk slashes high up. A skilled elephant hunter would not yet come to the conclusion, 'What a big bull elephant!' Why is that? Because in an elephant forest there are tall female elephants with tusks & big feet. The footprint might be one of theirs.
"So he follows along and sees in the elephant forest a large elephant footprint, long in extent and broad in width, with some scratch marks and tusk slashes high up and some broken-off branches. And he sees that bull elephant at the foot of the tree or in an open clearing, walking, standing, sitting, or lying down. He comes to the conclusion, 'That's the big bull elephant.'
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.027.than.html
If the Tathagata (“One who has arrived”) “understands everything that is perceived and pondered over by the mind”, “sees the disappearance of consciousness”, etc., this seems to suggest the presence of some form of consciousness or awareness that the Tathagata has.
This may not be the ordinary consciousness (viññāṇa) associated with everyday experience, as the Tathagata is said to “see the disappearance” of that. But it may still be a higher form of consciousness, otherwise we couldn’t speak of “seeing” and “understanding”. — Apollodorus
The “melting away of I and mine”, etc., seems fairly clear. But this doesn’t answer the question of what remains in the end. In Western traditions like Platonism and Hindu ones like Advaita Vedanta, the answer would be “consciousness”.
The Buddhist answer seems less clear. — Apollodorus
Right, but only those who are really fuckwits won't let go once they see that the alternative is unacceptable, or else cannot see the alternative is unacceptable when its unacceptability is staring them right in the face. — Janus
But one can give up a greater unhappiness when one sees that will deliver them to a lesser unhappiness.
With such prospects, what can possibly motivate a person to give up their attachments, when they've got nothing higher to live for?
— baker
Being run over by a bus is not a prospect but merely an unlikely possibility. People of course will not be motivated to give up their attachments until they see that their attachments are causing them to suffer, and that if they were less attached they would suffer less.
No, we can enjoy non-attachment to some things, it is just questionable as to whether we could realize non-attachment to all things, and in any case that is not what is being claimed for the enlightened ones, since they are acknowledged to be attached to their practice if nothing else.
Also, you keep ignoring my suggestions that you might see it more favorably if you think in terms of 'reactivity' instead of attachment. Anyway if it's not for you it's not for you. It's not entirely for me: I have no intention of becoming a Buddhist monk or even an avowed lay practitioner, but I think the idea has practical merit. It is found in the Epicureans, the Pyrrhonian Skeptics, the Stoics and Spinoza, as well. — Janus
Batchelor equates the unconditoned with the state of non-attachment, which makes sense to me since our reactivity is based on concepts of what should be the case, how people and relationships should be, how I should be, what I am entitled to and so on, that have been socially inculcated (conditioned). "Your original face before you were born".
So, his interpretation (which he backs up with quotations from the Pali canon) is an non-metaphysical one — Janus
I just used it to symbolize original nature, what we are before the socialization process has worked its magic. — Janus
This kind of succintness is what makes Zen so easy to exploit and pervert, and to assume more familiarity with it than one actually has.
— baker
You're right, but what a westerner might call vagueness, mysticism, contrariness, or irony is a real part of eastern philosophies. — T Clark
In my OP, I was wondering if enlightenment means the same thing in different cultures. I guess I was asking if it is the case that enlightenment (if and when it takes place) transcends culture and religion. — Tom Storm
Enlightenment is no different to other things people believe. It isn't something outside of people to be found in some particular way. It's just a story, like so many others we tell. — Tom Storm
Perhaps enlightenment is a pissing competition recast as a meta-narative... — Tom Storm
Enlightenment, regardless of what in particular is meant by it, appears to be such that people tend to generate hostility or envy around it.
Have you ever met anyone who would be happy about another's claims of enlightenment? — baker
Buddha-nature has a wide range of (sometimes conflicting) meanings in Indian and later East Asian and Tibetan Buddhist literature, and the idea of Buddha-nature may refer to, among others, the luminous nature of mind,[7][8][9] the pure (visuddhi), undefiled mind,[7] "the natural and true state of the mind";[10] sunyata, an emptiness that is a nonimplicative negation (as emptiness is seen in madhyamaka);[8] the alaya-vijñana ("store-consciousness", a yogacara concept);[8] the interpenetration of all dharmas; and the potential for all sentient beings to attain liberation. — Wayfarer
Most modern commentators have emphasized the ontological aspect of Neoplatonism, which brings Plotinus into line with Plato (and behind him Parmenides). When this emphasis is in place, the parallels between Plotinus and the Upaniṣadic-Vedāntic tradition come to the foreground. But if, on the other hand, the mentalist-idealist aspect is emphasized, then quite a different set of parallels emerges – parallels which are in fact more striking and detailed – those between Plotinus and the consciousness-only (vijñānavāda) schools of Buddhism (p.571).
In the fourth century A.D., a century or a century and a half after Plotinus, the philosopher Vasubandhu sought to remedy this apparent contradiction through the concept of the Storehouse Consciousness (ālayavijñāna). The Storehouse is a level underlying all human mental activity and providing a bed in which the seeds of present thoughts can grow to fruition as future states of mind.
The Storehouse is pure subjectivity, yet the appearance of objectivity arises out of it as its dream, or aura, or emanation, or fume. It is the dynamic source of everything. Vasubandhu describes it as “flowing like a torrent” (Trimsikakārikā 4) … Plotinus describes Mind as “boiling with life” (Enn. VI.7.12) … In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra the conception of the highest realm is brought even closer to Plotinus’ One … (pp. 571-2).
the center point of Buddhism is suffering and the end of suffering. The Buddha said that he teaches only one thing: suffering and the end of suffering. — baker
Glossing over this, and instead trying to chart Buddhist doctrine in ontological and epistemological terms characteristic for some other philosophies/religions, is to miss the whole point of Buddhism. — baker
The way I see it, this new trend is mostly rooted in ignorance of Western traditions, which is part of the general cultural decline in the West. — Apollodorus
The “obliteration of consciousness” that is supposed to take place in enlightenment may well be only the obliteration of lower forms of consciousness. This would make the real Buddhist position compatible with that of other systems like Platonism and Advaita Vedanta, as McEvilley suggests. — Apollodorus
Have you ever met anyone who would be happy about another's claims of enlightenment? — baker
Careful, the joke may be on you. (Although on second reading, maybe I didn't pick up your intentional irony.) — Wayfarer
As mentioned by some others, those pithy Zen sayings are part of a vast and complex system of doctrine and practice. Once considered that way, they cease to seem vague, or mystical, contrary, or ironic. — baker
It seems to me that a large part of Zen Buddhism is intended to frustrate expectations and desires for accomplishment, advancement, and approval to the point that people surrender to the futility of trying not to try, desiring not to desire, working to accomplish a rejection of accomplishment. That's the joke I was talking about. — T Clark
The general view in the old days was that Western systems (especially those based on Christianity) were superior to anything the East had to offer. These days the attitude has been reversed. It has become customary to belittle all things Western and to idealize and idolize everything Eastern (or non-Western).
The way I see it, this new trend is mostly rooted in ignorance of Western traditions, which is part of the general cultural decline in the West. — Apollodorus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.