Well, "going crazy" (psychotic) might be one way to escape from awareness of the psychic sufferings of reality. But, I don't recommend it. Also, I suppose that some cynics might consider prematurely reaching Nirvana (quenching the flame) via meditation to be a form of "mental suicide". In a more literal sense, the self-immolating monk apparently committed suicide, while meditating, but without actually quenching the flames. Yet, again, I don't recommend it. :sad: — Gnomon

I wonder, "where" do you think Thich Quang Duc was when he set himself ablaze? I think the event tells us something about the relationship between the self, the "deep agency" of the self, that can remove itself from sense perception completely. If a person can do this, then it makes for an argument that gives unqualified independence to this self, if you will, within the self, if he can put this kind of distance between suffering and his own meditating self, where does this place any identifying features at all of the if one say say, apophatically, well, this is not the self?

put this kind of distance between suffering and his own meditating self, — Constance

Yes, some deep meditators are supposed to be able to shut-out physical pain while they retreat into an inner world of their own. Years ago, I knew a man, who had been through rigorous Erhard Seminars Training (EST), which included a form of non-buddhist meditation. He flew from California to my state to set-up an aerial mapping office in my college town. But, when he arrived, he realized that he was coming down with the flu. Since he couldn't take several days off for such personal problems, he decided to get it over-with in one night. So, he began to meditate, focusing on his bad feelings instead of a mantra. For about an hour, he felt really really sick. But, then got-up and went about his business with no more flu symptoms. That's what he told me. And I had no reason to doubt him. But what the monk did was pretty extreme. He took a quick but all-in path to Nirvana. :gasp:

In a more literal sense, the self-immolating monk apparently committed suicide, while meditating, but without actually quenching the flames. — Gnomon

do you know the meaning of 'siddhi'? They are the super-normal powers which yogis are supposed to attain through the perfection of dhyana. (I suppose your account of your friend who fought off a viral infection might also be an example, although obviously I don't know.) Those who master them are called 'siddhas'. I would say that the ability of that monk to remain immobile while being incinerated was an example of such a power. I'm not saying that on this account, self-immolation is a worthy act, there have been many such cases of self-immolation in Tibet over the last few decades in protest at Chinese rule, which I think can only be seen as a tragedy. But the fact of that monk's immobility in that photograph is something that I think needs to be explained.

Incidentally, there are some obscure passages in the early Buddhist texts which suggest that some monks formed the view that, having attained the Path, then death by suicide was an acceptable act, based on the view that they would no longer face an unfavourable re-birth. I seem to recall that the Buddha gave the monks a stern talking to about the matter, firmly discouraging suicide, although I can't remember the details.

Yes, some deep meditators are supposed to be able to shut-out physical pain while they retreat into an inner world of their own — Gnomon

Well, Thich Quang Duc would be the definitive case in point. After all, being burned alive ON PURPOSE has got to be a whole other universe of superhuman feats. Makes Houdini look like mere dabbler. I put a lighted match to my finger in a microsecond it's too much to bear.

He was not in this world when he lit the match.

If you said that in an essay on Buddhist philosophy, you'd get an 'F', unfortunately. — Wayfarer

:rofl: That's all I could manage with the little that I know.

There is no eternally-persisting anything in Buddhism. That's why, again, many of the early Western scholars characterised it as nihilistic - but it's not that, either. — Wayfarer

I would like you to clarify a matter that's been bothering me for quite some time now. It's about the epistemological nature of what comes across as the Buddhist practice of denial - the neither x nor not-x position which seems to be at the heart of Buddhist thought, a fact that inheres in your posts such as the one above, exemplified in the denial of "...eternally-persisting anything..." and also the denial of the "...nihilistic...". Is this the famous middle path?

Anyway, what I'm particularly concerened about is whether the Buddhist practice of denial emerges from knowledge or ignorance. Perhaps a simple example will get the point across better than trying to explain my predicament so, here goes: Imagine a pot of water standing on the floor of the room. In reality, the water contained in the pot is tepid/lukewarm.

Suppose there are two people, X and Y and while X is allowed to feel the water Y isn't.

X feels the water and discovers the water is neither hot nor cold - X, epistemologically, now has knowledge of the water's thermal state.

Y, on the other hand, hasn't touched the water i.e. he doesn't know the water's temperature and comes to the conclusion that he's too ignorant to claim that the water is cold or that the water is hot.

As is obvious, X and Y both are identical in the sense they agree that water in the pot is neither hot nor cold but X has knowledge (X touched the water) while Y is ignorant (Y never touched the water).

In summary, a neither x nor not-x denial stance can arise from either knowledge or ignorance. In the case of Buddhism, which is it?. Buddhism, according to some sources, shares a deep connection with skepticism and that would suggest that at some level the Buddhist habit of denial of both thesis and anti-thesis has got more to do with ignorance than knowledge. If that's true, it would be disappointing:

Before one studies Zen, mountains are mountains and waters are waters; after a first glimpse into the truth of Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and waters are no longer waters; after enlightenment, mountains are once again mountains and waters once again waters — Dogen

Anyway, what I'm particularly concerened about is whether the Buddhist practice of denial emerges from knowledge or ignorance. Perhaps a simple example will get the point across better than trying to explain my predicament — TheMadFool

There’s a pattern here. Recall the other day, you were arguing that hot and cold are on a continuum, and so couldn’t really be considered opposites. Here you’re using a similar argument in a different context.

Anyway - in this case, the hypothetical doesn’t really do justice to the subject matter. If you study Buddhism, it doesn’t really consider hypothetical abstracts of the kind you’re considering here. To appreciate what it is concerned with, you have to study it or discuss it or learn it from a teacher. But I presume you’re familiar with the outline that is given as the ‘four noble truths’. The concern of that is always ‘the cause of suffering’ and the way to the cessation of suffering. It’s easy enough to state it in summary form but the depth of the subject matter is enormous.

When ‘mindfulness meditation’ is taught, even in a modernised, secular context, the emphasis is always on ‘observing’ - observing the flow of thoughts and feelings, observing the way they arise and fall, observing all of the feelings in the body and mental phenomena. The theoretical aim of these practices are to understand, to get insight into, the transient nature of such phenomena. That is where ‘detachment’ starts to become meaningful. ON a mundane level, consider an annoying traffic incident - idiot driver swerves into your lane without even looking, causing you to brake sharply. That will set off a whole series of autonomic and other reactions - adrenal, heart-rate, swearing, anger, ‘IDIOT!’ And so on. The theory is that at this exact point, if your mindfulness training is effective, that awareness will short-circuit this chain reaction. Don’t worry, I myself still get adrenal and yell IDIOT - but that’s the theory, and in some areas of my life, mindfulness training has been very effective. But that’s the kind of subject-matter that Buddhism really is concerned with. Not theoretical analyses of hypothetical claims (although you do sometimes find hypotheticals in the literature).

Given all that, what is the subject matter of the ‘x and not-x’ claims you’re referring to? The canonical case is the Ananda Sutta. And the question at issue is, ‘does the self exist’? The Buddha declines to answer that question. If you read the sutta, he gives an account to his attendant, Ananda, as to why. That sutta is the origin of the middle way. It’s very simple in some ways, but also a very deep issue.

I see you're learning the basic lesson of religion/spirituality: becoming authoritarian.

On what grounds do you believe that I am becoming authoritarian, because what you have said is a sweeping statement in itself?

Perhaps I shouldn’t use this word. In essence I was pondering the existence of some “opposite/contrasting” state (That I will now leave unnamed haha) to that of suicide. One that is not typical to the average Human experience just as suicide is not typical of the average human experience but is an extreme end.

I might instead describe parameters without naming the phenomenon. Suicide once committed is permanent. So this alter ego state would also be (once established) permanent for the remaining lifespan of the person.
Instead of losing all hope, this state would be a self generating state of full hope/optimism that is unperturbed by suffering/ bad luck and negative experiences. Instead of suffering one is in a state of tranquility despite circumstances. — Benj96

In terms of early Buddhism, what you're describing in roundabout fits what is called bhava tanha and vibhava tanha: the craving for becoming (for existence) and the craving for non-becoming (for non-existence, annihilation).

Nirvana is neither of them. A "self generating state of full hope/optimism" is consistent with bhava tanha; the desire for suicide is consistent with vibhava tanha.

It's not clear whether "a self generating state of full hope/optimism that is unperturbed by suffering/ bad luck and negative experiences" is even possible in early Buddhist thought.

A buddha isn't optimistic or hopeful, though he is unperturbed by bad luck and negative experiences and he does not suffer.

Based on how you talk down to me, and that you see fit to comment on my posts without even reading them.

I wonder, "where" do you think Thich Quang Duc was when he set himself ablaze? — Constance

Deep in martyrdom. His self-immolation was a political protest, similar to others of this kind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_self-immolations .
People are willing to die for their ideas, it's nothing new.

I certainly don't see myself as talking down to you. That is your interpretation. Really, I just want to discuss philosophy and not get into petty arguments and I feel that such discussions as you are initiating with me here are interfering with the thread topic. I will try to make sure that I read all your comments fully before replying, but I do struggle with links because the phone signal in my area is poor.

There’s a pattern here. Recall the other day, you were arguing that hot and cold are on a continuum, and so couldn’t really be considered opposites. Here you’re using a similar argument in a different context. — Wayfarer

Thanks for the gentle reminder. From the perspective that I had suggested in that previous thread, dualism would be an illusion for each pair of opposites would be unified as simply two aspects of an underlying harmonious oneness - they're not two conflicting sides like, say, good and evil, but are more like the aging of a person with time, the ignorant child, say, gradually being replaced by a knowledegable adult - ignorance is the opposite of knowledge and are contradictories but both can be brought under the rubric of, let's name it knowledge shall we? This knowledge would be a scale extending from 0 to an arbitrary number, suppose 10, with 0 = ignorance and 10 = omniscience. It's kinda like an Amazonian setting eyes on a man for the first time and coming to the realization that men too, just like them, are also people - people being the cornerstone of unity, oneness, and gender being the preeminent reason for a dualistic worldview.

However, the neither x nor not-x is not just a rejection of dualistic weltanschauungs is it? If not for any other reason than that the mathematical perspective I offer is, whether it makes sense or not, well, new and wasn't available in Buddha's or succesive Buddhist masters' time.

hypothetical claims — Wayfarer

My example was hypothetical but the point it makes is as central to any philosophy as it is to Buddhism. I really wouldn't want to build a way of life around ignorance all the while thinking that I'm in posession of knowledge. However, if Buddhism comes forward and accepts its skeptical roots, I'm game.

How does one resolve to treat everyone equally (love thy neighbour) without being chastised for not putting family first? — Benj96

Who is commanding you, and where, to "treat everyone equally"??

However, the neither x nor not-x is not just a rejection of dualistic weltanschauungs is it? — TheMadFool

I suggest you look up neti neti and ex negativo.

It's a way to define something by pointing out what it saliently is not.

Who is commanding you, and where, to "treat everyone equally"?? — baker

I think this is a generally accepted human ideal no? Egalitarianism both underpinning ethics (do no harm/ attempt the greatest good, spiritualism/ religious scriptures, moral in philosophy and biology - equilibrium/ balance in systems.

Of course there are other approaches but this is no doubt a popular one. No one is commanding me it simply appeals to me as a lifestyle structure/goal

In summary, a neither x nor not-x denial stance can arise from either knowledge or ignorance. In the case of Buddhism, which is it? — TheMadFool

Self-realized masters are said to have first-hand knowledge, while aspirants don't.

For an aspirant, Buddhist doctrinal claims are epistemically, dogmas, things he takes for granted, on faith.

I think this is a generally accepted human ideal no? Egalitarianism — Benj96

Not at all.

For further discussion, you need to be more specific which religion or culture you want to talk about.

seeing as suicide and suffering vs non suffering is a continuum common to all cultures ways of life and doctrines, I would simply like to discuss the existence of an opposite state and you may however you please choose to tackle that from a cultural context, philosophical one, personal experience or any other relevant insight.

seeing as suicide and suffering vs non suffering is a continuum common to all cultures ways of life and doctrines — Benj96

In dharmic religions, suicide is not seen as an end to suffering. In those religions, killing oneself in an effort to end suffering only leads to another rebirth/reincarnation, and generally not a good one.

do you know the meaning of 'siddhi'? They are the super-normal powers which yogis are supposed to attain through the perfection of dhyana. — Wayfarer

Whenever magic is involved in super-normal claims, I become skeptical. I don't know so much about Buddhist magic, but Hinduism has a long tradition of magical feats performed by "spiritual" tricksters, for gullible audiences. One example, that I'm familiar with, occurs in the US. It's called "Yogic Flying", or "Levitation by Meditation". This trick works best in still photos, because in videos it's obvious that it's muscles, not magic that levitates the meditators.

I don't doubt that meditation is a good discipline for those with unruly minds. But back when I tried Alpha-Theta meditation, I discovered that my normal state of mind is pretty close to the meditative state. And Lucid Dreaming was more suited to my rational nature. So I decided I had better uses for my time, such as exercising my brain by posting on philosophical forums. :cool:


Siddhi is the term given for a spiritual or seemingly magical power or capability, which is obtained through rigorous and accomplished spiritual practices such as yoga and meditation.
https://www.yogapedia.com/definition/5172/siddhi

Yogic Hopping :
https://youtu.be/UUnxnuUVEOs

Hopping while Sitting :
https://medium.com/@transcendentaldeception/yogic-flying-sore-knees-getting-conned-by-transcendental-meditation-433ac4dc59ff

Well, Thich Quang Duc would be the definitive case in point. After all, being burned alive ON PURPOSE has got to be a whole other universe of superhuman feats. Makes Houdini look like mere dabbler. I put a lighted match to my finger in a microsecond it's too much to bear. — Constance

Ordinary humans can do some amazing, and disgusting, things when entranced by faith. In some Catholic countries, people celebrate holy-days by whipping themselves, til their flesh is in shreds. In Japan, disgraced Samurai (not necessarily Zen Buddhists) sometimes committed ritual suicide by hara kiri (belly cut). Self-disembowelment is one of the slowest and most painful ways to pay for the shame of public dishonor. That's just one of many reasons I try to avoid the mind-control methods of Faith. They too often require horrendous self-sacrifice for reasons that seem ridiculous to non-believers. :sad:

Hara Kiri : https://www.interactiongreen.com/why-samurai-commit-seppuku/

Whenever magic is involved in super-normal claims, I become skeptical. — Gnomon

Of course. It is a cultural taboo, and such purported powers are obviously ripe for explotiation. In fact there's a rule in Buddhist orders right back to Buddha's day never to exploit psychic powers, on pain of expulsion from the order. But that rule assumes there are powers to exploit. I was well aware of the 'psychic flying' scam from the transcendental meditation movement, it was very dissappointing to see such chicanery.

I don’t know. I think these “siddhi” if they were real word be of a more subtle and rationally achievable vein than flying or pain tolerance.
More believable or philosophically grounded siddhi from a state of mental clarity, focus and understanding would be say (and I only speculate);

1. “foresight/ prophecy” due to the a). Relinquishing the minds false belief/ delusions, b).heightened awareness of the patterns, cycles and nature of reality and human behaviour c). Time to concentrate on the future and maximising the calculative and probabilistic algorithms used by the brain.

2. “Healing”- because of an understanding the interconnectedess of the mind and body and it’s environment, intuition as to the imbalances impacting the health of a specific individual, maybe even interacting with a person in such a way as to subconsciously correct poor autonomic nervous function/ stabilise hypothalamic regulation of body rhythms etc.

As I said to Gnomon, it cuts against the grain. Sensible folks don’t believe in magic. But Buddhism has been rife with magic from the outset, and bear in mind the image that lead to this conversation.

//Hasten to add, I'm not trying to persuade that there are such things as miraculous powers. If someone claimed to have them, or to have seen an example, then I'd certainly have to be persuaded by evidence. But surveying the grand sweep of history, I think it's mistaken to rule them out entirely as a matter of principle, because the principle that rules them out, namely, scientific rationalism, is a leaky sieve.//

Of course. It is a cultural taboo, and such purported powers are obviously ripe for explotiation. — Wayfarer

It's not just a Western "cultural taboo". Throughout history, miracle-workers, including Gandalf & Dumbledore, have warned against frivolous use of magic powers. And modern stage magicians tend to be careful when & where they perform. Probably, because those who get the big head, and believe their own tricks, may get careless, and allow their exploited onlookers to see through their smoke & mirrors. :gasp:

Serious vs Frivolous Magic :
A magician, also known as a mage, warlock, witch, wizard/wizardess, enchanter/enchantress, ... As a result, competent wizards do not use their magic frivolously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magician_(fantasy)

Of course, no argument from me there. But the picture of the monk self-immolating was hardly 'frivilous', I'm sure you would agree. That was the context that prompted my remark about 'siddhi'.

As I said, there are passages in the early Buddhist texts where the Buddha specifically forbids any monk from using such powers for profit or gain, which, you can imagine, if they really do exist, would be a constant temptation in that situation. I recall a very homely sermon comparing monks who showed off their psychic powers to impress others with 'maidens who show off their undergarments' - in other words, unseemly and vulgar.

I don’t know. I think these “siddhi” if they were real word be of a more subtle and rationally achievable vein than flying or pain tolerance. — Benj96

Actually, there are some people, who achieve seemingly supernatural feats, not by magic, but by self-control. In the article linked below, the "spiritual" elements seems to be profound self-confidence (faith), and the human body's response to the Placebo Effect (what you believe, the body will try to do). :brow:

The Science Behind Miracles : "For thousands of years, humanity has occasionally glimpsed man’s capacity to do the seemingly impossible or the miraculous using only force of will . . . . Hof, for his part, sees the whole thing in a much more spiritual light—getting back to a purer, more primitive version of ourselves. . . . But he’s not magic, and we should be careful about trusting important health decisions to any belief-based technique."
https://www.outsideonline.com/2146421/limits-endurance

↪Gnomon
Of course, no argument from me there. But the picture of the monk self-immolating was hardly 'frivilous', I'm sure you would agree. — Wayfarer

I agree. But his martyrdom was no more miraculous than that of the Islamic Jihadiists who willingly blow their pain-feeling fleshly bodies into smithereens, motivated by their faith that they will instantly go to heaven, restored to whole youthful bodies, comforted forever by a bevy of beautiful babes. Apparently, the monk believed that he would achieve liberation from Samara (cycles of mundane rebirth & suffering).

Presumably, he would achieve Moksha, Nirvana, Mukti or Kaivalya. However, his sacrifice may also have been a supreme example of altruism. Which is a primary virtue in almost all religions. I'm in favor of moderate altruism, but I'm not prepared to go quite that far to prove my faith & virtue. :cool: