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.
— anxious, desiring praise —
the one defeated is staggered.
Shaken with criticism, he seeks for an opening.
he whose doctrine is [judged as] demolished,
defeated, by those judging the issue:
He laments, he grieves — the inferior exponent —
'He beat me,' he mourns.
These disputes have arisen among contemplatives.
In them are victory & defeat.
Seeing this, one would abstain from disputes,
for they have no other goal
than the gaining of praise.
He who is praised there
for expounding his doctrine
in the midst of the assembly,
laughs on that account and grows haughty,
attaining his heart's desire.
That haughtiness will be his grounds for vexation,
he'll speak in pride & conceit.
Seeing this, one should abstain from disputes.
No purity is attained by them, say the wise.
I am afraid I am going to have to "dispute" with you on your last post. ; ^ )
First of all, there is absolutely no way around ego, for “All is vanity.” Ecclesiastes
Yet, at the same time, I have been helped many, many times, and in many ways, by my spiritual friend's having said where I am not seeing something correctly.
Think on this. Every book ever written is a disputation of some sorts, even if it is a soliloquy of sorts.
All of these disputations are aids to us on the path, and would be sorely missed if taken from us, just because we didn’t always demonstrate people skills when dealing with each other.
It would be nice, I agree, if once and for all we could get beyond seeing our little talks as some kind of a competition. But this is probably not going to happen any day soon. Not unless we get Walt Disney to write the script.
So taking the good with the bad, is how we are forced to live, while we continue to strive for more compassion in our own stumbling and bumbling fashion.
Trust me, I have no fear of conflict. I have had similar revelatory conflicts, but they related to practice. I haven't really followed what's going here, but it all seems highly theoretical, and divorced from personal experience.
according to the point of view that the original post is using as a reference point for the discussion.
i see a lot of reason, rationality, theory and testing in buddhism, so i don't buy the idea of these things belonging in the province of western empirical science.
maybe if you could lay out your thinking more fully...
I get the feeling that you are a very compassionate person. That is a good thing, in my way of seeing it.
I don’t know if this will make sense to you. But, writing is one of my practices. I use it in conjunction with my own contemplation. I am a Jnana, or use the mind as my path. So, when I write and read, this is like my kind of Satsang, and a bit like my own form of meditation, if you will.
When I write or read, I stare right at my own highest understanding, check with it, and try to speak, as much as I can, directly from 'Here.'
Yes, highly theoretical, but not wasted. It forces people back on themselves, and gets them into organizing their own thoughts in order to be able to convey them to others. And, I believe it may clean up some things for us, which up until now, we have been able to take for granted as being right, and therefore have wrongfully put on the back burner.
However, one may go about sharpening their attention, it is bound to be a good thing, in my estimation.
i see a lot of reason, rationality, theory and testing in buddhism, so i don't buy the idea of these things belonging in the province of western empirical science.
maybe if you could lay out your thinking more fully...
my line of thinking is that we tend to put just as much if not more faith in empirical science than many people do in their religious systems.
science is great, but not flawless.
The Buddha had extraordinary insight into the nature of reality, his teachings are tested, rational, and profoundly effective. The teachings on karma and rebirth are no exception.
Mundus, yeah, I accept the practical importance of the this-life interpretation of dependent origination. I refer to that Buddhadhasa essay all the time. But you just laid out a pile of quotes from it and the sutras. Maybe that's the right rhetoric, in this case; you are arguing with authoritarians, after all. But where is the practical experience underlying this position?
While I was looking up a demonstration of my connection to that essay, I noticed that you asked me to validate your claim that Ken McLeod doesn't accept the life-to-life understanding of dependent origination. I think it is quite reasonable to conclude that from his teachings, and I have heard nothing from him to contradict it, but I don't want to put words in his mouth. I have also never heard him outright reject it, either. Ultimately, it doesn't matter. Referring to him would just be another form of authoritarianism. (I know that in this case, again, you were talking to authoritarians.)
The central issue, for me at least, is that it is critical to take personal responsibility for personal beliefs. For most people, adopting that approach means remaining agnostic on matters of experience after death, simply because they have no personal experience which pertains. That means you don't accept any cosmological claims on the matter, and you don't reject any, either.
Well, I'm laying out the suttas because... if I don't, then it will be dismissed entirely, right off the bat. I mean, even in quoting suttas, I'll just be told it's misinterpreted and I'm deluded, but oh well. But at least the references are there for people and then they can decide for themselves if this is a reasonable interpretation or not.
However, this is why I say at the end:
You can see for yourselves, firsthand, that this is true, through meditation. http://video.google.de/videoplay?doc...0254352711693#<!-- m --> < in this video, Bhante Vimalaramsi discusses this and how to do so in detail.
That's the only way any of this is of any use. And if people are willing to give this interpretation a listen to, this video explains how you experience the truth of it right here and now for yourself. It starts with an intellectual understanding, but eventually, a person has to be willing to just go and meditate and see for themselves. That part, I have no control over.
While I was looking up a demonstration of my connection to that essay, I noticed that you asked me to validate your claim that Ken McLeod doesn't accept the life-to-life understanding of dependent origination. I think it is quite reasonable to conclude that from his teachings, and I have heard nothing from him to contradict it, but I don't want to put words in his mouth. I have also never heard him outright reject it, either.
Yeah, I wasn't necessarily looking for anyone who denies literal rebirth. Ken seems to take an agnostic approach and focuses on the heart of the teachings, which doesn't require denial or acceptence of literal rebirth. Maybe I'm wrong. This is my own approach at least. Precisely what you say here: "That means you don't accept any cosmological claims on the matter, and you don't reject any, either."
my line of thinking is that we tend to put just as much if not more faith in empirical science than many people do in their religious systems.
but if it's 'faith', then it's a faith based on experience... as opposed to faith based on the authority of a message, like yshua's, siddhartha's, mohammed's, or guru of choice.
certain minds require the former and the latter in a certain proportion, is what i've learned. just as many people need to think of god as an external entity as opposed to an internal one.
The Buddha had extraordinary insight into the nature of reality, his teachings are tested, rational, and profoundly effective. The teachings on karma and rebirth are no exception.
siddhartha was an amazing guy and i am interested in immersing myself in his teachings as fully as i am able, given enough time. the challenge for me in approaching buddhism or any religion or practice is to unwrap the temporal connotations and discover the universal truths within the message. these truths are the things that connect the master to every other living being in the universe, not to mention every other enlightened being and great thinker.
just think- with the (currently) impending massive collapse of our resource-consuming civilisation, most likely aided and abeted by global climate change, humanity (if it survives) will quite likely lose the texts and forget the work of most if not all the great gurus, including siddhartha. in which case there will be an opportunity and a need for the next buddha not called buddha to make the inward journey and share his learnings with others in a practice not called buddhism.
this is as it should be, and is logically not the first time that such a thing has happened in human history. after all, before "buddha" there was almost certainly another buddha. after buddha, there will likely be another. and on distant planets with intelligent life, there are bound to be others.
btw, i do not mean to come across as arrogant, dismissive or disrespectful. i am just as much a naive water flea struggling in the pond of reality as anyone else. and buddhism has worlds to teach me yet. but understand that i'm coming in to this situation as an agnostic, comparative mythologist and someone who has travelled fairly deeply into the mind.
Yes, I read somewhere, that there were many Buddhas, b/4 Gautama. But, this may have been from my readings in Hinduism, some years back.
Something you might find interesting. The ancient Greeks divided the words belief and faith from each other in this way. Belief was of things you had no way of knowing yourself, or at least had not yet personally experienced this yourself, so that it necessarily required a good deal of trust on your part. Faith, on the other hand, was based upon something you yourself had personally either witnessed or experienced.
I also find it interesting that, when Buddha was first enlightened, one of the first things he said was, “Everyone is already enlightened. They just don’t know it.”
Another first statement was, “When I was enlightened, I gain absolutely nothing.”
These two things in my mind, point out that we are not so much going to gain something, but rather rediscover what we already are.
So I am thinking that you are right in this way. If we took a very young child completely away from civilization and books of any kind, and placed him in a room all alone with just the rudiments of meditation to keep him busy. After a while, he could very well rediscover what the Buddha found through pure investigation. At least, that is my take.
just think- with the (currently) impending massive collapse of our resource-consuming civilisation, most likely aided and abeted by global climate change, humanity (if it survives) will quite likely lose the texts and forget the work of most if not all the great gurus, including siddhartha.
The ancient Greeks divided the words belief and faith from each other in this way. Belief was of things you had no way of knowing yourself, or at least had not yet personally experienced this yourself, so that it necessarily required a good deal of trust on your part. Faith, on the other hand, was based upon something you yourself had personally either witnessed or experienced.
thank you, S9. i find that fascinating... with reservations. i am still so stupid about understanding other cultures and other realms of thought that it's hard to be sure. in the end, can we say that the greeks' understanding of these issues was akin to what we've laid out already in this monstrously-long thread?
I also find it interesting that, when Buddha was first enlightened, one of the first things he said was, “Everyone is already enlightened. They just don’t know it.”
Another first statement was, “When I was enlightened, I gain absolutely nothing.”
These two things in my mind, point out that we are not so much going to gain something, but rather rediscover what we already are.
nail on the head IMO. i hate to dismiss humanity too lightly, but very few can achieve that realisation IMO.
So I am thinking that you are right in this way. If we took a very young child completely away from civilization and books of any kind, and placed him in a room all alone with just the rudiments of meditation to keep him busy. After a while, he could very well rediscover what the Buddha found through pure investigation. At least, that is my take.
i totally agree. that's the way it has to be when there is no existing and famous teacher to point the way. in such cases, each individual has the potential to rediscover the basic truths of reality as long as they have the capacity to quiet their minds and listen.
Here is something I wrote some time ago on the issue of faith vs. belief:
Belief is borrowed; faith is owned. Faith comes from deep understanding and first-hand experience; an inexpressible knowing that something is fundamentally right in the Universe. Belief is a shimmering mirage, while faith is a steady beacon. You can believe practically anything, but faith must be earned. Where there is belief, there is doubt. Where there is faith, there is certainty. Abandon your beliefs--even those you have held a lifetime, or fought bitterly to defend--and you will discover where your true faith lies.
I am not a great believer in historical progress within the human species (don’t let changing technology fool you).
I believe that if we were dropped back into ancient Greek times, we would find a group of people with a range of capacities and understand, much like, perhaps even equal to what we find in our present times, at least where Buddhism is concerned anyway.
This is because the true heart of Buddhism is not about either the accumulation of knowledge, or higher education. What we are actually doing, is looking deeply into our very own person directly, and (re) discovering who we are.
This is a road that is all about going deeper and deeper into our own most intimate self.
This trip leaves psychology way behind in its dust.
You are quite right in this. I don’t run into people extremely advanced upon this path every day; that is true. But, I think you might be surprised just how many are very far along, and even completely enlightened in the world, right now, this very day. They just don’t put themselves on the nightly news to announce it.
This path we have chosen, is not a group activity. Every single step taken by you, will be your very own step/insight, and the disentanglement from ignorance and suffering will be intimately yours and personal.
This is the one thing, that NO ONE can take away from you, even if they kill your body.
I like what you have written here about faith vs. belief, very much.
I think too, that truth is simply who we are, and faith is seeing that truth clearly. This ‘Clarity’ seems to come with its own ‘Certainty,’ doesn’t it?
And:
Strangely enough, you can always tell when it is an insight, and not just another thought.
It is almost like we have a built in compass for what is right, because when we turn away from it, it makes us unhappy, and we suffer.
So that all we need in the end, is a capacity to genuinely listen to that still small voice within, and follow it.
Some have called this intuition of a ‘Benevolent Universe’, but in a way it is also like an automatic self-correcting that carries us.
@S9,
human progress? yea, good question... seems more like "two steps forward, three steps back."
and you are no doubt right about the number of enlightened beings alive right now. after all, more people are alive right now than have ever lived in history. more geniuses and enlightened people around right now than ever before, if basic statistics follows.
Comments
I am afraid I am going to have to "dispute" with you on your last post. ; ^ )
First of all, there is absolutely no way around ego, for “All is vanity.” Ecclesiastes
Yet, at the same time, I have been helped many, many times, and in many ways, by my spiritual friend's having said where I am not seeing something correctly.
Think on this. Every book ever written is a disputation of some sorts, even if it is a soliloquy of sorts.
All of these disputations are aids to us on the path, and would be sorely missed if taken from us, just because we didn’t always demonstrate people skills when dealing with each other.
It would be nice, I agree, if once and for all we could get beyond seeing our little talks as some kind of a competition. But this is probably not going to happen any day soon. Not unless we get Walt Disney to write the script.
So taking the good with the bad, is how we are forced to live, while we continue to strive for more compassion in our own stumbling and bumbling fashion.
Namaste,
S9
maybe if you could lay out your thinking more fully...
I get the feeling that you are a very compassionate person. That is a good thing, in my way of seeing it.
I don’t know if this will make sense to you. But, writing is one of my practices. I use it in conjunction with my own contemplation. I am a Jnana, or use the mind as my path. So, when I write and read, this is like my kind of Satsang, and a bit like my own form of meditation, if you will.
When I write or read, I stare right at my own highest understanding, check with it, and try to speak, as much as I can, directly from 'Here.'
Yes, highly theoretical, but not wasted. It forces people back on themselves, and gets them into organizing their own thoughts in order to be able to convey them to others. And, I believe it may clean up some things for us, which up until now, we have been able to take for granted as being right, and therefore have wrongfully put on the back burner.
However, one may go about sharpening their attention, it is bound to be a good thing, in my estimation.
Peace,
S9
my line of thinking is that we tend to put just as much if not more faith in empirical science than many people do in their religious systems.
science is great, but not flawless.
The Buddha had extraordinary insight into the nature of reality, his teachings are tested, rational, and profoundly effective. The teachings on karma and rebirth are no exception.
While I was looking up a demonstration of my connection to that essay, I noticed that you asked me to validate your claim that Ken McLeod doesn't accept the life-to-life understanding of dependent origination. I think it is quite reasonable to conclude that from his teachings, and I have heard nothing from him to contradict it, but I don't want to put words in his mouth. I have also never heard him outright reject it, either. Ultimately, it doesn't matter. Referring to him would just be another form of authoritarianism. (I know that in this case, again, you were talking to authoritarians.)
The central issue, for me at least, is that it is critical to take personal responsibility for personal beliefs. For most people, adopting that approach means remaining agnostic on matters of experience after death, simply because they have no personal experience which pertains. That means you don't accept any cosmological claims on the matter, and you don't reject any, either.
Then you can get back to doing the practice...
Well, I'm laying out the suttas because... if I don't, then it will be dismissed entirely, right off the bat. I mean, even in quoting suttas, I'll just be told it's misinterpreted and I'm deluded, but oh well. But at least the references are there for people and then they can decide for themselves if this is a reasonable interpretation or not.
However, this is why I say at the end:
That's the only way any of this is of any use. And if people are willing to give this interpretation a listen to, this video explains how you experience the truth of it right here and now for yourself. It starts with an intellectual understanding, but eventually, a person has to be willing to just go and meditate and see for themselves. That part, I have no control over.
Yeah, I wasn't necessarily looking for anyone who denies literal rebirth. Ken seems to take an agnostic approach and focuses on the heart of the teachings, which doesn't require denial or acceptence of literal rebirth. Maybe I'm wrong. This is my own approach at least. Precisely what you say here: "That means you don't accept any cosmological claims on the matter, and you don't reject any, either."
certain minds require the former and the latter in a certain proportion, is what i've learned. just as many people need to think of god as an external entity as opposed to an internal one.
siddhartha was an amazing guy and i am interested in immersing myself in his teachings as fully as i am able, given enough time. the challenge for me in approaching buddhism or any religion or practice is to unwrap the temporal connotations and discover the universal truths within the message. these truths are the things that connect the master to every other living being in the universe, not to mention every other enlightened being and great thinker.
just think- with the (currently) impending massive collapse of our resource-consuming civilisation, most likely aided and abeted by global climate change, humanity (if it survives) will quite likely lose the texts and forget the work of most if not all the great gurus, including siddhartha. in which case there will be an opportunity and a need for the next buddha not called buddha to make the inward journey and share his learnings with others in a practice not called buddhism.
this is as it should be, and is logically not the first time that such a thing has happened in human history. after all, before "buddha" there was almost certainly another buddha. after buddha, there will likely be another. and on distant planets with intelligent life, there are bound to be others.
btw, i do not mean to come across as arrogant, dismissive or disrespectful. i am just as much a naive water flea struggling in the pond of reality as anyone else. and buddhism has worlds to teach me yet. but understand that i'm coming in to this situation as an agnostic, comparative mythologist and someone who has travelled fairly deeply into the mind.
Yes, I read somewhere, that there were many Buddhas, b/4 Gautama. But, this may have been from my readings in Hinduism, some years back.
Something you might find interesting. The ancient Greeks divided the words belief and faith from each other in this way. Belief was of things you had no way of knowing yourself, or at least had not yet personally experienced this yourself, so that it necessarily required a good deal of trust on your part. Faith, on the other hand, was based upon something you yourself had personally either witnessed or experienced.
I also find it interesting that, when Buddha was first enlightened, one of the first things he said was, “Everyone is already enlightened. They just don’t know it.”
Another first statement was, “When I was enlightened, I gain absolutely nothing.”
These two things in my mind, point out that we are not so much going to gain something, but rather rediscover what we already are.
So I am thinking that you are right in this way. If we took a very young child completely away from civilization and books of any kind, and placed him in a room all alone with just the rudiments of meditation to keep him busy. After a while, he could very well rediscover what the Buddha found through pure investigation. At least, that is my take.
S9
nail on the head IMO. i hate to dismiss humanity too lightly, but very few can achieve that realisation IMO.
i totally agree. that's the way it has to be when there is no existing and famous teacher to point the way. in such cases, each individual has the potential to rediscover the basic truths of reality as long as they have the capacity to quiet their minds and listen.
I am not a great believer in historical progress within the human species (don’t let changing technology fool you).
I believe that if we were dropped back into ancient Greek times, we would find a group of people with a range of capacities and understand, much like, perhaps even equal to what we find in our present times, at least where Buddhism is concerned anyway.
This is because the true heart of Buddhism is not about either the accumulation of knowledge, or higher education. What we are actually doing, is looking deeply into our very own person directly, and (re) discovering who we are.
This is a road that is all about going deeper and deeper into our own most intimate self.
This trip leaves psychology way behind in its dust.
You are quite right in this. I don’t run into people extremely advanced upon this path every day; that is true. But, I think you might be surprised just how many are very far along, and even completely enlightened in the world, right now, this very day. They just don’t put themselves on the nightly news to announce it.
This path we have chosen, is not a group activity. Every single step taken by you, will be your very own step/insight, and the disentanglement from ignorance and suffering will be intimately yours and personal.
This is the one thing, that NO ONE can take away from you, even if they kill your body.
Kind Regards,
S9
.
I like what you have written here about faith vs. belief, very much.
I think too, that truth is simply who we are, and faith is seeing that truth clearly. This ‘Clarity’ seems to come with its own ‘Certainty,’ doesn’t it?
And:
Strangely enough, you can always tell when it is an insight, and not just another thought.
It is almost like we have a built in compass for what is right, because when we turn away from it, it makes us unhappy, and we suffer.
So that all we need in the end, is a capacity to genuinely listen to that still small voice within, and follow it.
Some have called this intuition of a ‘Benevolent Universe’, but in a way it is also like an automatic self-correcting that carries us.
This rose wants to bloom.
S9
human progress? yea, good question... seems more like "two steps forward, three steps back."
and you are no doubt right about the number of enlightened beings alive right now. after all, more people are alive right now than have ever lived in history. more geniuses and enlightened people around right now than ever before, if basic statistics follows.
i'd sure like to be one of them right now. :P