Pardon me, but I'm unable to see the relevance of your comment. Do you not believe in causation? . .

---"Millions upon millions of people supported the Iraq invasion, including me. Why don't you simply ASK (not TELL) them (or ask me!) what their motive was? "...

I assume their motive was to interfere in other people's business for the sake of having their own way, reagardless of the cost in human lives and the cultural devastation. Then there was support for Israel, revenge for Bush;s father's failure and other factors. No doubt some people were fooled by the lies told to support the cause, as was the purpose of the lies. , , ,

History is not your side. It is now perfectly clear what happened.

---"Even if you assume that Bush is some sort of alien space bat who hates countries that begin with the letter "I", what difference does that make? Millions upon millions of people (including me) got THEIR policy implemented"

No difference. If they wanted the war they got it. He was the right man for the job for those who think unmnecessary wars are a good idea, as folks over there the US generally seem to believe.

I will never live down the shame of the British PM endorsing this war. I would apologise unreservedly to Iraqi';s everywhere for my country's involvement. But please note that Tony Blair hardly dares show his face in Britain anymore. We did learn the lesson. .

-

Error

If matter and energy are not ultimate forms of being and can be destroyed, then would the purported "something yet more basic" continue to exist?


Not in the ordinary sense of the word. The Ultimate would be real and would exist in a real sense, while all the rest would exist only in he sense of 'standing out' or being distinguishable.

After all, energy cannot come from energy, or matter from matter, or existence from existence. There has to be a phenomena that transcends these things in order that it can be their source. Kant's argument for the 'thing-in-itself' is relevant here. . . . .

I don't think Hippyhead's patterns are in conflict with what Schrödinger said.

Nor me. These patterns are bang in line with what Schrodinger said. But he also notes that as well as the patterns there is 'the canvas on which they are painted'.

The canvas is what is revealed when the patterns are seen for what they are. As the Upanishads say, 'the voidness of one thing is the voidness of all'. ,

So I can't die, nor do I live. It seems unsatisfactory, somehow.

You have to assume there is a third state, and this would be immortality. With practice one can discover this state. Then one knows one is not subject to life and death. This is the basic message. .. .

In Buddhism refuge is taken in the Buddha (ultimate authority), the Dharma (the nature of reality or metaphysics), and the Sangha (tribe).

reply="praxis;466844"]

It would be impossible to know what the Buddha's teachings mean without knowing they are true, so the word 'authority' here should be treated with caution. Clearly Buddhists believe he knew his onions, but most of them are still in the process of discovering what they mean. When they discover this, they will know whether he was an authority. . .

I haven't argued against the idea that some individual's regard for Buddhism is to some extent influenced by subjective feeling. In fact, in my opinion, that has been the obstacle all along. I've not denied the lack of objectivity. Indeed, I've alluded to it on several occasions, only to be attacked for doing so with claims that I'm baiting or trolling.

But surely you are trolling. Why keep sniping away when you already agree that whether Buddhism is a religion is a matter of definitions? We all agreed about this days ago.

If I were a newcomer to Buddhism I;d probably dismiss it for being unreliable, as indicated by its internal disagreements. — FrancisRay

"Maybe my thinking's a little out there (I think you had pointed out that my understanding of koans was not correct), but to me that reminds me of so many classic Zen stories. The teacher says something apparently contradictory, and the student is just confused. Sometimes maybe they leave, but those who stay learn -

This is not what I was talking about. I was talking about the disagreement within Buddhism as to what is true. (I don't remember saying your understanding of koans was incorrect). .

I don't know much about Nagarjuna, and I'm not saying his arguments are wrong. But at least, from my understanding, understanding metaphysical arguments just isn't totally necessary in practice to get the results.

You're right, of course. But this in no way changes the fact that a doctrine that is not metaphysically sound is a mistake. As Aurobindo notes, and as the Buddha implies when he invites us to apply our critical reason to his teachings. metaphysics is a reliable guardian against error. .

"This isn't to shoot you down. I don't know much about your practice (you say it's not Buddhist). But for some people who are prone to digging themselves too deep into a book, I would say: Do what HippyHead does. Go out in the woods and just sit there and enjoy it.

I think you misunderstand where I'm coming from. This is a philosophy forum,and so I do not appeal to experience. My point is that a study of metaphysics reveals that Buddhism doctrine is the only one that works, as Nagarjuna shows, and this is the case regardless of our beliefs, faiths, hopes and dreams. ,If this was a Buddhist forum full of practitioners I;d come at it differently.

In Theravada metaphysics is bound to be played down since it reveals things best left unrevealed. In Mahayana metaphysics is an easy way to show the sound logical basis of the Buddha's teachings.

Most Buddhists I've met have no interest and no knowledge of metaphysics and have some funny ideas about it. Yet analysis allows us to shed light on the teachings and to demonstrate their sense and plausibility. Zen koans would be impossible to explain (as opposed to 'grok') without a grasp of logic and metaphysics.

Maybe we should thrash this one out properly on a separate thread.


.
. . .

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about in your comment.

I cannot grasp the point that you've been trying to make for so long.

Why not just concede that Buddhism is a religion among others things? Why not just concede that how we define religion is to some extent merely a matter of taste? Then we can all relax.

Or is there some point you're trying to make?

o, my policy for Iraq (and other countries) at this stage in world history is to install democracy and let the winners of democratic elections kill people who take up arms against the democratic government. Nothing more, nothing less. And that is something everyone should be able to get behind.


Thank the Lord you're not in charge. Such hubris and condescension is rare outside of the White House.

Perhaps we should gather a huge UN force and send it into the US to install social cohesion into the US.

I rather liked Trumps idea of a wall, We could all contribute and extend it around the whole place.

i. I have spent an enormous amount of effort, starting in 2002,

You'll never explain the Iraq invasion,. It was a family feud for the Bushes against Israels most capable opponents supported by a pathetic British PM who wanted to bolster his importance. There is no explanation for human perfidy and foul play, If we put such people in charge then we get what we deserve.

Tony seems to be having great success bringing peace to the Middle East. ;)

Erwin Schrödinger : “There is obviously only one alternative, namely the unification of minds or consciousnesses. Their multiplicity is only apparent, in truth there is only one mind. This is the doctrine of the Upanishads.”

The great physicist was always on the ball. Thus Hippyhead's patterns do not really exist. Consciousness is Reality and all the rest is smoke and mirrors.

After all, to suppose otherwise it to suppose space-time is fundamental. . . . .

If you have an explanation of how calling Buddhism a religion limits possibilities it would be interesting to know.

It's fine to call it a religion. But it's also a philosophy, a practice, an art and a science. I don't know why you cannot see this. If you think it;s just a religion (whatever he definition) then you're missing much of what it;s about. It's limiting to pigeon-hole before you do the study. Find out what it is and then you'll know what it is.

If you understood BUddhism you would not be asking these questions. Surely the best idea would be to forget your theories and just study it. . .

Thanks, That's a nice description of the history. There are lots of schools, but Theravada is the only one that causes me difficulties.

I'm afraid that I believe Nagarjuna is entirely correct about metaphysics and Reality. I'm unable to grasp why anyone would want to disagree with him.

This doesn't matter generally, each to his own and all that, but it means that when you and I describe Buddhist teachings we present two quite different pictures. I feel this is a tragedy for Buddhism and more generally religion.

If I were a newcomer to Buddhism I;d probably dismiss it for being unreliable, as indicated by its internal disagreements.

Not sure we can do much about this but I'm happy to delve deeper if you wish.

My objection is metaphysical. It doesn't matter what a practitioner believes because they;re going to find out for themselves who is right. But our interpretation of the sutras is crucial in metaphysics., Nagarjuna has the only metaphysical scheme that works, so to say his philosophical exegesis of Reality is wrong is to say that Buddhism has no coherent philosophical foundation. This does it no favours and renders it incomprehensible to outsiders. . ,

the ocean is where I come from — Hippyhead

You can't know that. Maybe you come from a very different place and upon death will return there, wherever that is. The ocean is far too big for you to even begin to imagine, in other words. Scary thought?

Sorry to butt in but this is an interesting point. Yes, the ocean cannot be imagined, But it can be known and inhabited. The analogy of an ocean is used to describe a realisation. So Hippyhead can know this. Whether he does is another matter. . . ,. .

In theory at least, profoundly simple things might be best explained in profoundly simple language.

Quite so. But then there are questions and objections and the complications multiply.

,,

but this particular reader may require more dumbed down translation in to armadilloese.

It is my mission to explain how profoundly simple metaphysics is and debunk the academic discipline, , but it ain't easy.

Agreed. In our world extension is the flip side of experience (this does not mean it is in any way fundamental).

Good to meet another timeless being!

Ha. It's not a difficult ideas intellectually, but conceptually challenging in the extreme.

What is extension?

Space and time appear to be extended phenomena. 'Extension' just means they are spread out in space and time, as modeled by the number line.

To believe spatial or temporal extension is fundamental is realism. This is denied by non-dualism and Middle Way Buddhism. The Perennial philosophy endorses a neutral philosophical theory for which space and time are reducible for a fundamental theory. . . . .

We do not experience extension. We are always here and now. This is well discussed by the physicist and mathematician Hermann Weyl in his writings on the continuum. Extension is a theory, not an experience.

Thus God is always here and now, watching every sparrow. He cannot be elsewhere because there is no 'elsewhere'.

This allows us to avoid the endless paradoxes that arise for the idea that space-time is more than an idea. . .

. . .
. . . ,.

That's a really rich comment coming from someone who dragged out the book of Buddhist Romanticism, a work that goes to exhausting length to distinguish the other. This is one of the worst aspects of religion, its limited inclusion that always seems to require an other to help define itself.

I would point out, for the sake of not confusing the hell out of you, that the view you are opposing here is not 'one of the worst aspects',. It's a critique of Theravada, a particular interpretation that, right or wrong, does not stand up in philosophy. Theravada is religion in way that Mahayana is not.

It will cause confusion if you think Buddhism is one religion. It is split very definitely into two. It's a disgrace, and I hate to say it, but there it is.

Could be. I think I might be caught up in my Catholic upbringing that stated God is ever present everywhere at all times.

But this is fine. It implies that extension is not real. How could God be everywhere unless He is nowhere? It is precisely the unreality of extension that allows us to makes sense of omnipresence. .

I meant you misunderstood me,such that your comment wasn't relevant. . No matter. We agree. .

To get to the broader picture of that, Ajahn Geoff is saying.....

Ah. I get it now. Regrettably we are never going to be able to agree about Buddhism. I have no time for Theravada, just as you have no time for Mahayana.

It is the universal cause of existence while itself existing not, for it is beyond all being’ (from his book On the Divine Names). This might seem like nonsense — FrancisRay


It sounds like space to me.

This is because you are caught up in naive realism. You assume spatial extension is fundamental. This idea does not withstand analysis. .

It also sound like 'Emptiness', 'Unity', Unicity', Brahman' and 'Tao'. These are extended only in appearance.
. . .

Every ideology says this. If only everyone agreed with us then we'd have peace. Except that never happens, even within a particular ideology.

You misunderstand. My suggestion is that we approach religion in the same way as we should do philosophy, by abandoning all our ideologies, beliefs, hopes, dreams, theories and views and other useless baggage at the door. . .

Pardon my confusion but in some instances you claim to be a Buddhist and in other instances you claim not to be. I don't mind being confused about this so no need to explain if you don't feel like it. [praxis]


(For some reason the link doesn't show.)

I'm not a Buddhist, I just believe that Buddhist doctrine is true. I'm,not a Christian but believe the teachings are true. And so forth. Once you find the correct interpretation then the religions all line up behind the same metaphysical scheme and world-view. This is the 'coherence' test of truth, that it makes sense of everything. There is also the problem that I am a poor practitioner. It would be cheeky to call myself a Buddhist or Christian. The Buddha and Jesus didn't find it necessary.

You say this. ---"Anyway, in addition to what TLCD1996 wrote above regarding Oneness, I'll simply say that Oneness by itself is meaningless, and Buddhism seeks to transcend whatever dualism is implied for Oneness to have meaning. Kinda like both oneness and manyness, and neither oneness and manyness. Beyond all dualisms. There's really no good way to indicate non-duality, I guess. You might say that Oneness is a good indicator, but the fact that the term is meaningful suggests that we may be a bit clingy in how we regard it.

I know exactly what you mean, and you might like to know that Nagarjuna disaproves of the word 'Unity for this very reason. So do many other sages, and It is a well known problem of language. But it is possible to use the word 'Unity' and Oneness' with a different meaning, and we must, for it we do not use these words then we have no words at all. Thus Lao Tsu tells us we cannot speak the Tao but also that we must.

In the Perennial tradition the words 'Unity', 'One' or Unicity' may be used, but they should not imply a numerical value. They are not dualistic unless misinterpreted. In metaphysics we need 'Unity', 'One' and so forth for words and cannot do without them, but we should take full account of your comments above and make sure we're not misinterpreting them. , . . . . .

If we take this approach then we can say Buddhism and mysticism is general is all about Oneness. This is probably made most obvious by Plotinus. .

“It is the goal of spiritual life to open to the reality that exists beyond our small sense of self. Through the gate of oneness we awaken to the ocean within us, we come to know in yet another way that the seas we swim in are not separate from all that lives. When our identity expands to include everything, we find a peace with the dance of the world. It is all ours, and our heart is full and empty, large enough to embrace it all.”

Any way, the point is that Buddhism isn't about that, ↪TLCD1996 “

I asked what part of this description of the 'spiritual' life Buddhism was not about. I don't understand the relevance of your reference to Emerson and the sutras.

I've read this pararaph three times and would say confidently it is exactly what Buddhism is about. What else could it be about? It seems a very good summary.

So I must be misunderstanding your comment. If not, then might be about to have an interesting discussion. .


. .

If you believe that murder rationalized based on atman is part of the Hindu tradition, that’s really weird, in my opinion,

We certainly agree on this one. The number of ways to misunderstand religion seems to be infinite.

A Buddhist who believes that Buddhism is about Oneness is simply a mistaken Buddhist

Oh hell. That would be me then. Can you explain what is wrong with my view? If mysticism is not about Oneness then I can;t imagine what else it could be about. I've not heard anyone argue it is about anything else.

I don't know the phrase 'Religion of Romanticism' before and don't know what it means. Is it for members of dating websites? ,. '

No, I really do think your definition of existence is wrong, and obviously so, and I don't think it's a popular view either in philosophy or on the street.


Hmm. I don;t think most people on the street or even most philosophers have a coherent idea of existence. Meanwhile, in mysticism there is something close to unanimity. .

well when you define it like that then “Dying” as used in day to day life becomes “A pattern ceasing to exist” in which case you still die. We (patterns) care about other patterns. No one gives a shit about the water except buddhists. They wish to no longer suffer by choosing not to grow attached to any waves.

Exactly. You may choose to identify yourself with the part that dies, and this is fine. But if you wish to transcend death then you also have to transcend life. Mysticism is all about realising one is not the pattern but the source of the pattern.

Actually Buddhists are only a small proportion of the people who 'give a shit'. If we did a survey of people on their deathbeds I suspect most people would. . . . . ,

I like that way of talking about existence, but you don't make much use of it. If waves do exist, i.e., they stand out phenomenally against a background, then you cannot say that they do not exist without redefining "exist". You seem to do that when you say that things that exist "are not truly real" (whatever that means), and take that implicitly to entail that they don't exist after all. Why?

So you began by offering an interesting way of thinking about existence, but then immediately dismissed it because it's phenomenal and not "truly real", without explaining what this means or why it should justify a dismissal.

Fair comment. I didn't go further because it's such a difficult topic.

For the mystic the space-time world is found to be much as Hippyhead describes it. Our separation from the ocean would be illusory or superficial. But it would not be rigorous to say psycho-physical phenomena don't exist. Rather, they would exist, but not in the way we usually imagine. Thus Heraclitus states 'We are and are-not'. This is an expression of the Buddhist doctrine of 'Two Truths' or 'Worlds' which divides the world into the Conventional and Ultimate, which are two levels of analysis and speech. Only one phenomenon would be independently or truly real, but as there is nothing from which it could stand out it cannot be said to exist in the ordinary sense. Thus, as Keith Ward explains in that quote, Classical Christianity does not claim 'God exists' since this might be misunderstood as meaning God exists as an individual only in the sense that we do as individuals. But Existence must have a source, and it cannot be Existence. . . . . . . .

Thus it is claimed that nothing really exists or ever really happens - where the word 'really' would signify that these phenomenal things do exist in a sense,.(As is obvious). By reduction, however, whether in experience or in analysis, they would not. .

The 'immortality' and 'transcendence' spoken of in Yoga and self-enquiry depends utterly on the ultimate non-existence of the phenomenal world. If anything really existed it would be irreducible, just as philosophers discover by analysis, and mysticism would not exist. .

The problem with the waves and ocean analogy is that it might suggest the waves and the ocean have the same kind of existence, but this is not the intended message.

Is this better? .
. . . .

.

. .

To my knowledge there is no ideology which is not afflicted by schisms.

This might be the definition of ideology. Easiest thing is to abandon ideology, as the mystics do, and as any good Buddhist or Christian should do. .

Yes. I'm saying there's no need for this situation. Most people do not approach religion and philosophy as I suggest, so trouble follows.

I'm suggesting we can avoid it.

Did you ask this man in the street if light and gravity, governments and currencies, species and rectangles, love and beauty, pieces of music and rivers exist? Anyway, to my knowledge there is no such philosophical position on existence as the one you mention.

Existence usually means 'to stand out'. Thus a thing exists if it stands out from its background. This would be why Schrodinger notes that as well as what exists there is 'the canvas on which they are painted'. For a Venn diagram a set does not exist unless it stands out from the blank piece of paper.

The waves 'exist' because they stand out. The ocean does not stand out but is what existents stand-out from. Existents are phenomenal, having only a dependent-existence, therefore are not truly real. What is truly real is the background but this does not exist in the sense of 'standing-out'. Thus nothing really exists.

“Dionysius went so far with the negative ways of speaking of God that he even denied God existed: ‘It is the universal cause of existence while itself existing not, for it is beyond all being’ (from his book On the Divine Names). This might seem like nonsense. It would certainly cause a stir if a preacher went up into the pulpit and said, “According to our greatest authorities, God is not like anything of which you can think. In fact, I can tell you that God does not even exist. Let us pray.

But of course the point is to say that God does not exist in the same way that anything we can imagine exists. God is ‘Nothing’, not-a-thing, but that Nothing is not a sheer vacuum. It is that in which all distinctions fade away, but in which they are rooted.”

Keith Ward
God: A Guide for the Perplexed

Some relevant comments...

"One might almost say that our surface being is only the deeper eternal self in us throwing itself out as the adventurer in Time, a gambler and speculator in infinite possibilities, limiting itself to the succession of moments so that it may enjoy all the surprise and delight of the adventure, keeping back its self-knowledge and complete self-being so that it may win again what it seems to have lost, reconquering all itself through the chequered joy and pain of an aeonic passion and seeking and adventure.."

Sri Aurobindo
The Life Divine

"I can tell you nothing but this; I see that by God’s mercy there has come to be in me a form which is not fashioned out of matter, and I have passed out of myself and entered into an immortal body! I am not now the man I was; I have been born again in spirit, and the bodily shape which was mine before has been put away from me. I am no longer an object coloured and tangible, a thing of spatial dimensions; I am now alien to all this, and all that you perceive when you gaze with bodily eyesight. To such eyes as yours, my son, I am not now visible."

Corpus Hermanicum
Poimandres:(Shepherd of Men)


“ Not from self, not from other,
Not from both, nor without cause:
Things do not arise
At any time, at any place.

"This verse [by Nagarjuna] proves that things do not arise because they do not arise from any of the four extremes: They do not arise from themselves, from something other than themselves, from both themselves and something other than themselves, and they do not arise without any cause at all. These are the only four possible ways in which things could arise, and since none of them are valid, things do not truly arise. Therefore, things do not truly exist."

Khenpo Tsütrim Gyamtso
The Sun of Wisdom
Teachings on the Noble Nagarjuna’s
Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way

And the message is presented in the medium of thought, that which by it's inherently divisive nature destroys the experience of oneness.


Yes. The message is not the thing. It's just the message. The word 'elephant' is not an elephant. I don't think there's any reason for this issue to cause problems.