Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
On a personal note, Spinoza fascinates me because of my own history, my own relationship with my Jewish heritage and with what its being hidden from me means.
It appears to me that Buddha, Spinoza and Quantum Physics all espouse the same belief, that there is no individual self or "thingness" to anything. It is all just a collection of parts which in themselves have no individuality.
How it affects us is that we talk about "things" as though they exist individually, but when tested empirically, are found not to exist. Like the Buddhist phrase "The best things in life aren't things". Unfortunately the testing of a thing cannot be tested without taking into account the tester, because often the result changes depending on the tester and the measurement used.
Not sure that was a salient comment or not... :scratch:
On a personal note, Spinoza fascinates me because of my own history, my own relationship with my Jewish heritage and with what its being hidden from me means.
Very interesting point of contact there dearest Pilgirm. I was brought up THINKING that my father was Jewish and one of the reasons why my mother's family cut her off.
I now find, having done some research that his family were solidly Christian ... which doesn't explain the heartfelt link I have felt all my life with Judaic practice, why I am a typical Yiddisher mother and why various things I hear make me start repeating the words .... no really. I hear someone reciting the Kaddish and I begin to say it myself.
How weird is that? Your Jewish heritage was real but hidden, mine was unreal but open .... and yet it is there.
There seems to be some validity to the "rational" approach to determining if there is a self or not. One night during some intense thought, I decided to see if a "self" could be pinpointed. I went about it by body systems. Since the most logical would be the nervous system, I started there. You start with you-> nervous system -> Brain & nerves -> neurons-> axons, dendrites->neurochemicals-> the components of neurochemicals->cells->atoms->neutrons, protons, electrons-> bonds that help keep the individual cell together-> empty space. My brain was blown away. When one truly looks at things, the concept of an individual self is not there physiologically. I freaked and went to bed telling the partner "I DON'T EXIST!!!" and crying appropriately. I've grown a bit stronger since and am not as freaked by the idea. It also helped me to see that there might be something more to Buddhism than I originally thought.
I'm not sure if this is the right track, but it seems so to me.
Yeah, I'd say that's right on, Jer. Discovering that you really don't exist can be really scary! But as you point out, when we really sit down and look at it, really get in there and dissect it out, there is nothing that we can point to and say, "Aha! That's it! That's the self!" We're just a collection of parts, just like a piano. If you take the piano apart, is there one part that is "piano" as opposed to all the other parts? No, of course not. Same with us. We're just a collection of parts and elements that come together for a time, are constantly changing, and then ultimately come apart. It's not even our minds. Just look at someone you know that has Alzheimer's and has lost all sense of self-identity. The mind is also a collection of parts, sensations, memories, that ultimately come unglued and dissolve into nothingness. It's all kind of like a whirlpool that comes into being when the conditions are right and then dissolves when those conditions run their course. It was only a phenomenon that was never there in the first place as a self apart from its surroundings. Could there be a whirlpool apart from the water in which it occurs? It's the same with people or any being.
If you're deconstructed the chariot, you have to walk home. It may not have 'self' but it coheres and forms a gestalt which is more than simply the aggregate of parts any more than a symphony is no more than an aggregation of noises.
It seems to me that the Buddha's showing of the 'non-self' of the chariot is far more subtle and poses questions rather than pat answers.
And just because we can deconstruct the human body, it's still our vehicle to move in this life. At the same time, we do have distinct personalities. We get our DNA from our parents and though it isn't exact, it is part of both of them. This is something I haven't worked all the way through or ever will. In some sense, we still are something. It may not be what we think though.
Just a thought. As many of you already know, we change constantly. You are not the same being you were 5 minutes ago. On a chemical level, something has changed. I wonder if the Buddha was just pointing out the reality that we all change constantly and should try not to connect to "me" as it isn't there. Sort of like "We're not but we are" in some sense "so don't get used to it". Any thoughts?
DNA is just karma made manifest. What the Buddha was pointing out (if I may be so bold as to pretend to understand) was that our notion of "self" and "other" is a delusion. There is no "self" and no "other".
Since you pretend to know what you're talking about, Pally, here's another question. If "self" or "we" don't exist, what is it that is reincarnated? Something has to be there that is unique to the individual. This is a point that I have to be agnostic on as I don't know. But if you (or anyone else for that matter) have an idea/opinion, I would love to hear it.
I don't think it's so much a question of who or what is reincarnated (actually reborn, technically). It's the karma that we have created in this and past lives that drives the rebirth of a new life. You might say we take rebirth because it is our habitual tendency, just as it is our habitual tendency to think we exist as a separate entity. I don't know, but for me, a habitual tendency isn't much to hang my identity on!
Since you pretend to know what you're talking about, Pally, here's another question. If "self" or "we" don't exist, what is it that is reincarnated? Something has to be there that is unique to the individual. This is a point that I have to be agnostic on as I don't know. But if you (or anyone else for that matter) have an idea/opinion, I would love to hear it.
The eternal Atman, of course. Oops wrong board - runs for cover...
Since you pretend to know what you're talking about, Pally, here's another question. If "self" or "we" don't exist, what is it that is reincarnated? Something has to be there that is unique to the individual. This is a point that I have to be agnostic on as I don't know. But if you (or anyone else for that matter) have an idea/opinion, I would love to hear it.
The closest I get to bringing what I 'intuit' into the realms of reason and language may or may not be Buddhist but I know for sure that reading Buddhist texts and a Buddhist-inspired practice have helped me to get here:
In the same way, I see my 'self'. When I contemplate sub specie aeternitatis (with the 'eye' of the infinite/undying/void) there is no 'self', only the great sweep of the universe on its majestic way from unknown to unknown. If, on the contray, I deconstruct my 'self' and examine its components, there is no longer any 'self' to be found, only - at the last - such elementary particles as may be. Only within a small range do 'I' appear but, within that range of space/time, I am.
All three views can be argued. All three may be true, untrue, true and untrue at the same time (i.e. a 'story we tell ourselves') or none of the above.
In the same way, I see my 'self'. When I contemplate sub specie aeternitatis (with the 'eye' of the infinite/undying/void) there is no 'self', only the great sweep of the universe on its majestic way from unknown to unknown. If, on the contray, I deconstruct my 'self' and examine its components, there is no longer any 'self' to be found, only - at the last - such elementary particles as may be. Only within a small range do 'I' appear but, within that range of space/time, I am.
Well observed and well said Simon. That's how it is for me as I move deeper into Samhadi. Self (like waves of some kind) stills into non-dual silence.
An intellectual appreciation of the theory pales into insignificance when its experienced.
And yes "You Are" within that range. No speculation needed. No Maya. No emptiness of inherent existence. No theories or justification required.
No, but from what I read about of him on Wikipedia I think that I would like to at some point. Lately, though, I have been reading a lot on Buddhist history and philosophy, as well as economics and politics.
No, but from what I read about of him on Wikipedia I think that I would like to at some point. Lately, though, I have been reading a lot on Buddhist history and philosophy, as well as economics and politics.
I think that you might find, as I do, a 'secular' form of Buddhist thought (avant la lettre) couched in Western terms and appropriate to our post-Enlightenment mindset - even tho' Boethius was a product of that late flowering of the post-neo-Platonic 'enlightement' brought about by the catastrophic world events through which he lived. I cannot see many of our own heads of state, reduced to prison, torture and expecring a horrible death, writing so persuasively of the consolations of philosophy and its transformative liberation.
What took from interest in Spinoza to a deep affection for his method and conclusions is that he never lost interest in the human condition. It was as if he could encompas the two views at once, of the great sweep of Reason and of the little pains and terrors of the ordinary. I find precisely that same in HHDL who can spend time getting to know the names and family circumstances of the staff in an hotel in which he is staying and then go out and teach Rigpa. And both are authentic, heart-felt and congruent.
Aware that whatever time is left to me is more limited than it was, I apply an Ignatian principle now to my reading, conversation and reflection: if they lead me towards this authenticity and liberation, it is worthwhile: this is what Ignatius called consolationes; if not, I move on, because these are desolationes. Just as age strips away the distractions of ambition and (some) youthfuol cravings, so it has become a tool to simplify both then journey and the goal - on the goalless non-journey, of course.
Re-reading what I have just posted, I am aware that, for both Boethius and Spinoza, along with Marcus Aurelius and Seneca among so many others up to today, enormous faith is placed on Reason. And I am also aware that the French Revolution turned Reason into a goddess and then committed atrocities in her name.
The lesson for me is that, as soon as a tool for liberation and enlightenment is institutionalised, it becomes another weapon for social control and oppression.
It's all kind of like a whirlpool that comes into being when the conditions are right and then dissolves when those conditions run their course. It was only a phenomenon that was never there in the first place as a self apart from its surroundings. Could there be a whirlpool apart from the water in which it occurs? It's the same with people or any being.
Palzang
I like the whirlpool analogy, Palzang. That's a good one.
A bit off topic, or late, but here's a quotation I came across recently that I love:
“You are not special. You're not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic matter as everything else.”
Hi, Boo! And Happy New Year to you too (wish I had some of that chocolate cake!)
That's a good quote. I remember it from the movie. It's a good way to think of ourselves, just a bag of goo and crud. If you think about yourself that way, it's a really good way to avoid thinking too highly of ourselves, developing a big ego, expanding ego's realm. Keeps you modest.
Re-reading what I have just posted, I am aware that, for both Boethius and Spinoza, along with Marcus Aurelius and Seneca among so many others up to today, enormous faith is placed on Reason. And I am also aware that the French Revolution turned Reason into a goddess and then committed atrocities in her name.
The lesson for me is that, as soon as a tool for liberation and enlightenment is institutionalised, it becomes another weapon for social control and oppression.
I think that in most cases, this is true. That is why, in my opinion, socialism fails. In theory, it is a wonderful system, but when Marx and Engelss theories get put into practice, the forms they take are often authoritarian and oppressive. They thought that once a developed capitalist system gets to the point where it collapses, partially due to social disruption and/or the rebellion of the working-class, the working-class would seize the means of production, make them public property, and this social development of production would effectively eliminate the conditions for the existence of different social classes culminating in a "free" society.
In theory, the premise behind socialism sounds great in that it details the means by which a society can free itself from economic and political oppression by transforming the oppressive economic political system itself. As such, socialism is a tool for economic and political liberation. However, as history has shown us, when this tool becomes institutionalized in the hands of the state (e.g., the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Socialist Unity Party of Germany, etc.), it becomes a weapon for social control and the means for economic and political oppression. The same applies to reason, or any other tool, wielded by greed, hatred and delusion.
..................... The same applies to reason, or any other tool, wielded by greed, hatred and delusion.
Jason
Ah, but how much worse when the powerful are incorruptibly convinced of their own rightness? Remember Robespierre and Saint-Just.
Maybe it is true, after all, that we would do well to kill off our leaders annually again, before they had the chance to do too much damage however good their intentions.
In the same way, I see my 'self'. When I contemplate sub specie aeternitatis (with the 'eye' of the infinite/undying/void) there is no 'self', only the great sweep of the universe on its majestic way from unknown to unknown. If, on the contray, I deconstruct my 'self' and examine its components, there is no longer any 'self' to be found, only - at the last - such elementary particles as may be. Only within a small range do 'I' appear but, within that range of space/time, I am.
All three views can be argued. All three may be true, untrue, true and untrue at the same time (i.e. a 'story we tell ourselves') or none of the above.
I'm not sure if this fits, gut I have often thought that the universe must be a deity's gown if there is one. We can see very little of it but it's expanse is so great we probably never will. As was said about the elephant and the five men to describe it, they knew so little about it and continued to give wrong descriptions. It is only when one can see the whole thing can one be accurate. So it seems to little ole me, the bag of electrons, protons and neutrons (NOT GOO! ICK!) will only see certain parts at different times. Hopefully I will remember some of it and realize that they hook together.
Comments
How it affects us is that we talk about "things" as though they exist individually, but when tested empirically, are found not to exist. Like the Buddhist phrase "The best things in life aren't things". Unfortunately the testing of a thing cannot be tested without taking into account the tester, because often the result changes depending on the tester and the measurement used.
Not sure that was a salient comment or not... :scratch:
Les
Sorry Simon. Unfortunately, I am unfamiliar with Spinoza's works.
Very interesting point of contact there dearest Pilgirm. I was brought up THINKING that my father was Jewish and one of the reasons why my mother's family cut her off.
I now find, having done some research that his family were solidly Christian ... which doesn't explain the heartfelt link I have felt all my life with Judaic practice, why I am a typical Yiddisher mother and why various things I hear make me start repeating the words .... no really. I hear someone reciting the Kaddish and I begin to say it myself.
How weird is that? Your Jewish heritage was real but hidden, mine was unreal but open .... and yet it is there.
I'm not sure if this is the right track, but it seems so to me.
Palzang
If you're deconstructed the chariot, you have to walk home. It may not have 'self' but it coheres and forms a gestalt which is more than simply the aggregate of parts any more than a symphony is no more than an aggregation of noises.
It seems to me that the Buddha's showing of the 'non-self' of the chariot is far more subtle and poses questions rather than pat answers.
Just a thought. As many of you already know, we change constantly. You are not the same being you were 5 minutes ago. On a chemical level, something has changed. I wonder if the Buddha was just pointing out the reality that we all change constantly and should try not to connect to "me" as it isn't there. Sort of like "We're not but we are" in some sense "so don't get used to it". Any thoughts?
Palzang
Palzang
The eternal Atman, of course. Oops wrong board - runs for cover...
Could there be water apart from the whirlpool within it?
The closest I get to bringing what I 'intuit' into the realms of reason and language may or may not be Buddhist but I know for sure that reading Buddhist texts and a Buddhist-inspired practice have helped me to get here:
remember the pointilliste painters, particularly Seurat? I remember seeing his Grande Jatte, which you can find at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Georges_Seurat_-_Un_dimanche_apr%C3%A8s-midi_%C3%A0_l%27%C3%8Ele_de_la_Grande_Jatte.jpg
Too close and all you see are dots, too far away and you cannot see any deatil, only one painting among many. But, within a range of distances from the canvas, the unique picture leaps out at you.
In the same way, I see my 'self'. When I contemplate sub specie aeternitatis (with the 'eye' of the infinite/undying/void) there is no 'self', only the great sweep of the universe on its majestic way from unknown to unknown. If, on the contray, I deconstruct my 'self' and examine its components, there is no longer any 'self' to be found, only - at the last - such elementary particles as may be. Only within a small range do 'I' appear but, within that range of space/time, I am.
All three views can be argued. All three may be true, untrue, true and untrue at the same time (i.e. a 'story we tell ourselves') or none of the above.
Have you come across Boethius?
Well observed and well said Simon. That's how it is for me as I move deeper into Samhadi. Self (like waves of some kind) stills into non-dual silence.
An intellectual appreciation of the theory pales into insignificance when its experienced.
And yes "You Are" within that range. No speculation needed. No Maya. No emptiness of inherent existence. No theories or justification required.
I saw the deatil! It was chasing the Boethius...
Sri: no water, no whirlpool, no one to see the water and the whirlpool.
Palzang
No, but from what I read about of him on Wikipedia I think that I would like to at some point. Lately, though, I have been reading a lot on Buddhist history and philosophy, as well as economics and politics.
I think that you might find, as I do, a 'secular' form of Buddhist thought (avant la lettre) couched in Western terms and appropriate to our post-Enlightenment mindset - even tho' Boethius was a product of that late flowering of the post-neo-Platonic 'enlightement' brought about by the catastrophic world events through which he lived. I cannot see many of our own heads of state, reduced to prison, torture and expecring a horrible death, writing so persuasively of the consolations of philosophy and its transformative liberation.
What took from interest in Spinoza to a deep affection for his method and conclusions is that he never lost interest in the human condition. It was as if he could encompas the two views at once, of the great sweep of Reason and of the little pains and terrors of the ordinary. I find precisely that same in HHDL who can spend time getting to know the names and family circumstances of the staff in an hotel in which he is staying and then go out and teach Rigpa. And both are authentic, heart-felt and congruent.
Aware that whatever time is left to me is more limited than it was, I apply an Ignatian principle now to my reading, conversation and reflection: if they lead me towards this authenticity and liberation, it is worthwhile: this is what Ignatius called consolationes; if not, I move on, because these are desolationes. Just as age strips away the distractions of ambition and (some) youthfuol cravings, so it has become a tool to simplify both then journey and the goal - on the goalless non-journey, of course.
The lesson for me is that, as soon as a tool for liberation and enlightenment is institutionalised, it becomes another weapon for social control and oppression.
I like the whirlpool analogy, Palzang. That's a good one.
A bit off topic, or late, but here's a quotation I came across recently that I love:
“You are not special. You're not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic matter as everything else.”
-Tyler Durden (Fight Club)-
That's a good quote. I remember it from the movie. It's a good way to think of ourselves, just a bag of goo and crud. If you think about yourself that way, it's a really good way to avoid thinking too highly of ourselves, developing a big ego, expanding ego's realm. Keeps you modest.
Palzang
I think that in most cases, this is true. That is why, in my opinion, socialism fails. In theory, it is a wonderful system, but when Marx and Engelss theories get put into practice, the forms they take are often authoritarian and oppressive. They thought that once a developed capitalist system gets to the point where it collapses, partially due to social disruption and/or the rebellion of the working-class, the working-class would seize the means of production, make them public property, and this social development of production would effectively eliminate the conditions for the existence of different social classes culminating in a "free" society.
In theory, the premise behind socialism sounds great in that it details the means by which a society can free itself from economic and political oppression by transforming the oppressive economic political system itself. As such, socialism is a tool for economic and political liberation. However, as history has shown us, when this tool becomes institutionalized in the hands of the state (e.g., the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Socialist Unity Party of Germany, etc.), it becomes a weapon for social control and the means for economic and political oppression. The same applies to reason, or any other tool, wielded by greed, hatred and delusion.
Jason
Ah, but how much worse when the powerful are incorruptibly convinced of their own rightness? Remember Robespierre and Saint-Just.
Maybe it is true, after all, that we would do well to kill off our leaders annually again, before they had the chance to do too much damage however good their intentions.
I'm not sure if this fits, gut I have often thought that the universe must be a deity's gown if there is one. We can see very little of it but it's expanse is so great we probably never will. As was said about the elephant and the five men to describe it, they knew so little about it and continued to give wrong descriptions. It is only when one can see the whole thing can one be accurate. So it seems to little ole me, the bag of electrons, protons and neutrons (NOT GOO! ICK!) will only see certain parts at different times. Hopefully I will remember some of it and realize that they hook together.
Palzang