The idea that the self = nirvana, or that once the defilements are done away with, what is left is pure goodness and joy, is an idea that can be found in some Buddhist circles (esp. in Mahayana, and modern developments of Buddhism), but to the best of my knowledge, it has no support in the Pali Canon (ie. the text that is generally considered the authoritative text of what the Buddha taught). — baker
My thoughts are that once the constructed self is eliminated, what remains is not nothing, but a depth of existence and well being that goes entirely beyond the pragmatic existence of everyday living. Nirvana, throughout the literature, confirms this. — Constance
Nirvana is a related topic that deals with the extinguishment of the personality. Complete nirvana, more officially called "Fifth Nirvana," is the final extinguishment. — eduardo
Why do you quote or cite anything, instead of just making stuff up and ascribe it to another person?Why, I wonder, should this original doctrine hold sway? — Constance
Hold your horses!Go ahead and empty the self of its contents I like this on "annihilation":
There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly, proclaim this world and the next after having directly known and realized it for themselves.
/..../
It doesn't go far enough, does it?
This is Mahayana doctrine. Why choose Mahayana over the Pali Canon? Can you explain?This is annihilation, and the method is one of apophatic philosophy. My thoughts are that once the constructed self is eliminated, what remains is not nothing, but a depth of existence and well being that goes entirely beyond the pragmatic existence of everyday living. Nirvana, throughout the literature, confirms this.
This is Mahayana doctrine. Why choose Mahayana over the Pali Canon? Can you explain? — baker
Why do you quote or cite anything, instead of just making stuff up and ascribe it to another person? — baker
This is a false dichotomy.As with any doctrine, one can either dogmatically receive it, then take this as an authoritative representation , disseminate what it says, learn by rote the utterances, divide into schools of thought, and call oneself a scholar. Or, one can talk the matter itself seriously, which means, while having respect for ancient ideas and those who founded them, realizing that these are interpretations of their own experiences and have no fixed, timeless say in the matters of determining what meditation is about, its nature and meaning, its revealed actualities. — Constance
The point is that the teachings in the Pali Canon are regarded as being taught by an enlightened being, and a unique one at that, someone who is categorically different than an ordinary person. As such, it is assumed that the teachings in those texts contain insights that an ordinary person simply cannot have.Because I am not arguing about who said what, when or where. I care little for this.
You're missing the point. The Buddhist teachings in the Pali Canon aren't just "some more philosophy; yet another philosophical text"; that is, the texts themselves claim to be more than that.I only care about ideas and how they come into play in understanding the world and the rest is incidental. Now if I had the job of teaching this, it would be the same as it would be for Heidegger, Sartre, Levinas, Walt Whitman, Wordsworth, or anyone: incidental facts become part of the lecture.
You're not serious.Don't be silly. No one is making things up.
If someone wants to make up their own idea of enlightenment and the path toward it, that's their thing, and they have the freedom to do so. But it is misleading, to say the least, to then call this "Buddhism" or "what the Buddha really taught". — baker
The point is that the teachings in the Pali Canon are regarded as being taught by an enlightened being, and a unique one at that, someone who is categorically different than an ordinary person. As such, it is assumed that the teachings in those texts contain insights that an ordinary person simply cannot have. — baker
Later texts are taught by someone other than the Buddha, by people who may not even be enlightened. As such, they aren't assumed to have such insight and such value as those by the Rightfully Self-Enlightened One. — baker
You're missing the point. The Buddhist teachings in the Pali Canon aren't just "some more philosophy; yet another philosophical text"; that is, the texts themselves claim to be more than that.
Whether you accept them to be such is up to you. But when a text itself makes such claims about itself, it's not clear how come people so often ignore that bit and just go on reading it as if it was yet another text. — baker
What amazes me the most in relation to Buddhism is how ready people are to bastardize it. Orignally, in the Pali Canon, a path of practice toward enlightenment is layed out, in considerable detail. But despite that, so many people make up their own ideas of enlightenment, but nevertheless believe they are legitimized by the Buddha, and even call those ideas "Buddhist." — baker
Why disputatious??What did Kant "really" teach? If he were here to tell you, would his thought be any less disputatious? — Constance
This is the thinking of someone who is not a Buddhist.This is what Buddhism is. Everything the Buddha said begs many questions, which is why it continues on as an open concept. Taken as a path of liberation, even, a practical method, it still is open. I would say as with Kant, even if the Buddha stood before us and told us exactly what he meant, it would still remain just as conceptually open as it is now.
That's a bizarre claim to make in relation to a religious text.Where is the proof? In the pudding. One has to read and confirm for oneself.
*sigh*Buddhism's great contribution is that is provides a practical guide to liberation, but such a concept is absolutely open, it presents a landscape of fascinating theo-philosophical thought, and there is so much in this that takes the matter of liberation into extraordinary fields of inquiry.
That's your claim. I neither agree nor disagree with it.I disagree. Buddhism laid out clearly as a method in achieve liberation is not the only way to achieve liberation.
I'm saying that in early Buddhist texts, he is called the Rightfully Self-Awakened One, and Buddhists texts say there can be only one such being per one cosmic entity of time. That's all I'm saying.And you seem to think he was the only one ever to be "enlightened".
*sigh*I've read the four noble truths and find them simply superfluous, not wrong, but certainly not exclusively right. They are extraneous to the essential idea: liberation.
Why disputatious?? — baker
This is the thinking of someone who is not a Buddhist. — baker
That's a bizarre claim to make in relation to a religious text.
Religion is dogma to which one is supposed to align oneself. It's not something to discover, or verify. — baker
That's your claim. I neither agree nor disagree with it.
What proof do you have that there is more than one way to achieve liberation? As in, liberation as it is defined in the early Buddhist texts? — baker
I'm saying that in early Buddhist texts, he is called the Rightfully Self-Awakened One, and Buddhists texts say there can be only one such being per one cosmic entity of time. That's all I'm saying. — baker
There are all kinds of ideas of what "liberation" is.
Theravadans have their own idea of what liberation is.
Mahayanis have their own idea of what liberation is.
Hindus have about a dozen ideas of what liberation is.
California Buddhists have their own idea of what liberation is.
Western psychologists have their own idea of what liberation is.
Every meth head has their own idea of what liberation is.
But these ideas of liberation are not all the same. Not all paths lead to the same goal. All things that are called "liberation" aren't the same. You're arguing for an equivocation. — baker
Based on what do you think that??I think if the Buddha were here with us now, he would agree: all of our endeavors are at the most basic level, a yearning for this extraordinary one thing. — Constance
What have you heard about the Buddha, and which can reasonably be ascribed to the Buddha, that makes you think the above? — baker
Not sure what this external reality is meant to be. Not that externality is not meaningful, but what you mean is unclear. Of course, this is a big issue. Seems to me that the mirror of external reality would hold within it that of the others, but then, what do you mean by "other"?The mental raise of the self: The mental “model-of-the-world” is a representational mirror of the external reality, a second mental mirror comes from the mental representation of “the others” that makes the self to happen/emerge when the mental process realizes the “invariants” between the other and I (confronting both mirrors). Two confronted mental mirrors that create the self’s singularity. — Raul
The Self bio-basis: The self process is confined to synchronous integrated information exchange activity between the cortex pre-frontal ventro-median area and the temporal and parietal (praecuneus) lobes. — Raul
I don't understanding this. Unconscious experience? This needs explaining.Self and experience: The self is not required for experience to happen or to be communicated. A conscious and an unconscious brain can be able to communicate its emotions without being self-conscious, i.e. reflex actions. — Raul
Self and time: The Self process "emerges" gradually as our brain matures and as we grow as individuals in a proper stimulating cultural context.
The Self is not something permanent, it dissolves gradually when we address our attention to specific tasks and/or non-referential thoughts. It dissolves and disappear as well when we sleep or die, — Raul
The self and evolution: The self makes us more adaptive and effective in our survival and homeostatic goals as a species.
As consciousness, the Self enables even more complex (larger, longer, more realistic and more integrated) models-of-the-world as it enables, i.e., evaluating our judgments against the other’s. — Raul
The self and evolution: The self makes us more adaptive and effective in our survival and homeostatic goals as a species.
As consciousness, the Self enables even more complex (larger, longer, more realistic and more integrated) models-of-the-world as it enables, i.e., evaluating our judgments against the other’s. — Raul
Self and memory: Access to memories is necessary for the self to happen. More accurate and longer memories that contain external descriptions of the world (i.e. science) the more empowered the self is. — Raul
Self and the existential delusion: The Self is necessary for the emergence of the concepts of "infinite" and "finite" that foster the generation of fear, anxiety and depression as the "model-of-the-world" it generates is much larger than himself. This idea of confinement gets in conflict with its primordial instinct of survival. Systems of believes that sustain a teleological illusion mitigate these negative feelings (religions, intelligent design, spiritualism, mysticism,...). — Raul
Based on what do you think that??I think if the Buddha were here with us now, he would agree: all of our endeavors are at the most basic level, a yearning for this extraordinary one thing. — Constance
I am only interested in how we interpret something like this, and have limited regard for what the Buddha actually said. — Constance
Do you believe that what you quoted there is Buddhist doctrine?? — baker
My thoughts are that once the constructed self is eliminated, what remains is not nothing, but a depth of existence and well being that goes entirely beyond the pragmatic existence of everyday living — Constance
[The Buddha:] "By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
There is a striking resemblance here to post modern thinking that denies a center to any proposition. Husserl's epoche, — Constance
Later texts are taught by someone other than the Buddha, by people who may not even be enlightened. — baker
The Mahāyāna sūtras were not recognized as being Buddha word (buddhavacana) by various groups of Indian Buddhists and there was lively debate over their authenticity throughout the Buddhist world. Buddhist communities such as the Mahāsāṃghika school and the Theravada tradition of Sri Lanka became divided into groups which accepted or did not accept these texts.[8] Theravāda commentaries of the Mahavihara sub-school mention these texts (which they call Vedalla/Vetulla) as not being the Buddha word and being counterfeit scriptures.[36]
Various Mahāyāna sūtras warn against the charge that they are not word of the Buddha and defend their authenticity in different ways.[37] Some Mahāyāna sūtras like as the Gaṇḍavyūha often criticize early Buddhist figures, such as Sariputra for lacking knowledge and goodness, and thus, these elders or śrāvaka are seen as not intelligent enough to receive the Mahāyāna teachings.[38]
The reason these accounts give for the historically late disclosure of the Mahāyāna teachings is that most people were initially unable to understand the Mahāyāna sūtras at the time of the Buddha (500 BCE) and suitable recipients for these teachings had not yet arisen.[39] Some traditional accounts of the transmission of the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras claim that they were originally stored or hidden in the realm of the nāgas (serpent-like supernatural beings). Later, these sūtras were retrieved by Nāgārjuna.[40] Other Mahāyāna sources state that they were preached or preserved by bodhisattvas like Mañjuśrī or Buddhas like Vajradhāra.[41][42] — Wikipedia
The Buddha of the Pali Canon is not like that. He's an aristocrat, authoritarian, dogmatic. — baker
Buddhism realized this in its own way centuries ago, but phenomenology gave Buddhism its meta-discussion. — Constance
I think you're looking at the Buddha in a very romantic, idealistic way. A modern re-imagining: egalitarian, politically correct, democratic. Non-sexist.
The Buddha of the Pali Canon is not like that. He's an aristocrat, authoritarian, dogmatic. Even when he goes for alms or sleeps in the forest covered with leaves.
The Buddha of the Pali Canon doesn't care how you're doing or what your "hopes and dreams" are. You think he would agree that all of our endeavors are at the most basic level, a yearning for this extraordinary one thing? No, he's not a New Ager.
There are many metadiscussions of Buddhism. Starting with the ones in traditionally Buddhist Asian cultures. Then the metadiscussions in the many Western imports/exports of Buddhism that try so hard to make Buddhism seem palatable to modern Western sensitivities, that try so hard to present it as the one religion that isn't really a religion, but a philosophy.
But as one reimagines the Buddha and Buddhism this way, selectively regarding old sources, keeping things one likes, discarding those one doesn't, making changes here and there, as one prefers: What is the result of that? Is that something that can be relied on as a path to liberation?
The old tradition (that can be traced back to the historical Buddha and his disciples) came with a declaration of a guarantee: Do things the way you're told, the way preserved by the tradition, and this is your best bet to become liberated.
One might accept that guarantee, or not; but at least it's there and has some historical validity.
But the new reimaginings can offer no such guarantee. This is free-style, anything-goes, reinventing-the-W/wheel kind of "Buddhism". An ivory tower populated mostly by youngish able-bodied males who told society to go suck on a lemon and escaped into their own minds. Are they enlightened? Are they liberated? Maybe they even are, but they sure can't teach others how to become liberated as well. — baker
Sure. And let's not forget that Mahayana is the "Buddhist" tradition that came up with a "spiritual" justification for killing, raping, and pillaging. I'm talking about the Secondary Bodhisattva Vows, of course.That's not what the Mahāyāna says of itself, although it is what the Theravada says about it. — Wayfarer
Really? The Buddha of the Pali Canon who in the beginning, after he attained enlightenment, didn't want to teach at all, because he concluded from his first post-enlightenment experiences with humans that humans are just too stupid and too worthless to be taught?The Buddha of the Pali Canon is not like that. He's an aristocrat, authoritarian, dogmatic.
— baker
I think that's completely incorrect. Having renounced his family and household, he also renounced any aristocratic rank, and besides there are questions as to whether his lineage really was aristocratic. The Sangha was open to members of all castes, which is one of the reasons Buddhism died out in India. And he was not authoritarian, as anyone was free to join the Sangha - sure, they would be expelled for breaking the monastic code, but that is not 'authoritarianism'.
Sure. But I don't see how you can do any of this in some relation to Buddhism. Neither the Buddha nor Buddhists would tolerate you doing that in their presence. What you describe is something they criticize severely.After all, the actuality of the world, the "presence" of being here, cannot be spoken, and if a person can realize this at the perceptual level, that is, in the plain apprehension of objects in the world, in the midst of implicit knowledge events there is the palpable mystery in all things, and one experiences an extraordinary intimation of depth and profundity, then one knows without a doubt s/he is in the proximity of enlightenment, though its consummation may be light years away. It is what inspires one to move forward, do the hard work endlessly looking. — Constance
It's not a vehicle for what you're describing at all.I don't think the Pali canon is the exclusive vehicle for this at all.
Well, that was a short conversation. — Wayfarer
That's a bizarre claim to make in relation to a religious text.
Religion is dogma to which one is supposed to align oneself. It's not something to discover, or verify.
— baker
Sorry, this is most emphatically wrong. — Constance
Not sure what this external reality is meant to be. — Constance
how does epistemic affirmation occur? That is, how does a physical object like a brain, ever "know" an external object to affirm the out "thereness" of external reality? — Constance
Unconscious experience? — Constance
If the pragmatists are right about knowledge, and what is known is pragmatically known, then ALL claims to knowing are relegated to the bin of unknowables. — Constance
all the evolved self is, isentirely OTHER than these processes and have to be understood only in their manifest qualities. — Constance
there remains that elusive "middle" world of actuality where the self has its center. — Constance
Science does not even pretend to be about the self; rather, it yields to the interpretative standards that have no regard for the actualities in the human self's world. — Constance
Physicality? A meaningless term, ontologically. — Constance
You think all things reducible to the physical, yet, the concept itself is without predicative possibilities, — Constance
This external reality is the world that interacts with our senses: the light that hits our eyes, the sounds that hit our ears, the feelings on our skin, etc... One of the capabilities of our brains is to reproduce/mirror that external reality so that he can then make models and simulations of the "future". Example: it creates a model of the room you're in and this is useful for you to move around, it creates a model of your friend's personality what helps your talk to him and understand each other... — Raul
Those are categories and concepts we develop as we grow, as our brain grows. We learn how to categorize physical objects as well as conceptual objects that are communicated by the social context we grow in. The relationships of those objects and our brain assigns value to them, cognitive value, emotional value to achieve its main goal: keep the homeostatic equilibrium.
The episteme, the knowing, happens when the internal objects and categories, ideas have a external correlate. There is a "symbiosis","correlation" between the cognitive objects and the external world. When the cognitive predictions (manipulations of the internal objects that represent the external world) correlate with reality. Example: if I tell my wife I love her she will react in certain way, if I eat an apple I'll like the taste, etc... Pure biological activity. — Raul
Yes, there re experiments that show a person saying he doesn't see anything (consciously not seeing) but he behaves and moves avoiding obstacles. Search for "blindsight" in wikipedia. — Raul
Yes, there re experiments that show a person saying he doesn't see anything (consciously not seeing) but he behaves and moves avoiding obstacles. Search for "blindsight" in wikipedia. — Raul
Not all of them but many of them. Could you put some examples? — Raul
Our Self shares many qualities with the self of primates for example. We have more capabilities mainly related to language that enable deeper reasoning and manipulation/simulation of realty for our evolutionary advantage. Evolution is about patterns that survive longer and adapt better. Our brain have created this capability of the "Self" that enables evolutionary advantages. At least for now. Why do you see it is entirely OTHER? There are no "new qualities" in our brain, just more powerful. I don't think our Self has a singularity. — Raul
Our Self shares many qualities with the self of primates for example. We have more capabilities mainly related to language that enable deeper reasoning and manipulation/simulation of realty for our evolutionary advantage. Evolution is about patterns that survive longer and adapt better. Our brain have created this capability of the "Self" that enables evolutionary advantages. At least for now. Why do you see it is entirely OTHER? There are no "new qualities" in our brain, just more powerful. I don't think our Self has a singularity. — Raul
Agree, and a good example si this "Seven Seconds memory" man you can find in youtube. — Raul
Agree, and a good example si this "Seven Seconds memory" man you can find in youtube. — Raul
This is incorrect. Heterophenomenology deals with actualities in the human consciousness and the self (I'm thinking on Dennett and Dehaene works, you should not ignore them).The success of science studying the self is that it brings "the new" and "actual new" not based on speculation but on scientific dialogue with our brain and our subjective manifestations. Thanks to this we can today not only better understand our limits and how the brain creates the "illusions of the self" (distorted reality in order to make it useful for our survival, pleasure, ...). Thanks to this we have reached levels of manipulation never reached in the past (for the better and the worst). — Raul
Sure. But I don't see how you can do any of this in some relation to Buddhism. Neither the Buddha nor Buddhists would tolerate you doing that in their presence. What you describe is something they criticize severely. — baker
To be clear: By doing what you suggest, one asserts one's supremacy over the text and the ideas it presents.Begs the question" Buddhism?? This is my point. Read about what is said at all, and you will find not a closed system of thought, but an openness of possibilities. Those who try to contain religion and philosophy to a doctrine put up barriers to understanding. — Constance
I can see how it can be read that way, but I don't agree with it.Read about what is said at all, and you will find not a closed system of thought, but an openness of possibilities.
Those who refuse to acknowledge the origins and the systemicity of (a) religion are forcefully superimposing themselves and their own ideas onto (the) religion, thus making (the) religion their subordinate.Those who try to contain religion and philosophy to a doctrine put up barriers to understanding.
He was a Protestant living off a trust fund, flriting with Catholic ideas from a safe distance. Of course he could afford to fiddle and flirt this way, never actually committing to the religious community which produced him and to which he was indebted. Ungrateful brat.What is Christianity? Kierkegaard claimed that what Jesus, "Christ," was actually talking about lay with an existential analysis of the self, not in Christendom, not in orthodoxy.
To be clear: By doing what you suggest, one asserts one's supremacy over the text and the ideas it presents.
If this is what one is going to do, then why bother with the text at all? You might as well buy a blank notebook and write down your own ideas. — baker
If i were putting forward something to replace Buddhism, this would be right. I just want to understand what it has to say. At the center is not a doctrine for me. It is an existential engagement.Those who refuse to acknowledge the origins and the systemicity of (a) religion are forcefully superimposing themselves and their own ideas onto (the) religion, thus making (the) religion their subordinate. — baker
He was a Protestant living off a trust fund, flriting with Catholic ideas from a safe distance. Of course he could afford to fiddle and flirt this way, never actually committing to the religious community which produced him and to which he was indebted. Ungrateful brat.
In other words, I judge, I condemn the areligious, "spiritual" approach to religion. Religious texts were not written for just anyone to read them any way they like and to do with them whatever they like.
It's a matter of common decency to akcnowledge that and the religious tradition of which they are part — baker
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.