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.
Exaggeration
RichardH
Veteran
My Guru, the illustrious Lama Munchausen, (with whom I studied for 38 years in a remote monastery) told me that the most important thing when discussing Dharma is to be honest about your attainments, or lack thereof, in practice. While residing in the absolute perfection of the Paramitas today I was wondering if any folks around here innocently exaggerate about that. You know, just cause were enthusiastic and such. Any thoughts?
0
Comments
You still sooo funny!!
I actually underexaggerate my achievements, by a factor of 100.:cool:
I am often very slack with my practice, in case you couldn't tell. But I try hard not to be!
I think the "feel special" part is a mystical attachment, without that one becomes aware of their cosmic insigifigance from the start? Maybe?
Is there a fair bit of "kung Fu" amongst super-serious practitioners?
Mat
It aint what comes out of yer eyes that worries me!:p
I am not really sure how that would be. Do you mean an empty nihilism or a more naturalist scientism? I don't really see how either could make one feel "special" in the sense the mystical seems to allow.
When I look to the stars and galaxies and aeons of time my insignificance is blinding. But when your view contains mystical values (in what ever sense) it is an illusionary cover for the insignificance somehow ties up with the idea that the universe could give a flying fact about you or me or this galaxy:)
I assume you mean the logical positivists. I only know Wittgenstein, but I know him pretty well, to say he is primitive compared to the Buddha's philosophy is, in my opinion, very mistaken. I think they are comparable philosophical geniuses, though the Buddha was far more than just a genius philosopher.
Mat
Laser beams from your eyes???? coooooool!!! Thats something i would like to learn - my laser beams come out of my >censored< which is a killer for my zafu
Wittgenstein a logical postivist? I didnt know that. Lets say default materialist reductionism, which is pure religion in its assumptions.
Maybe yes, I hadnt thought about that before. But there is a profound distinction still, in that one is empty and mundane and the other is magical and special.
I think it is more that the Logical Positvists were early Wittgenstiniens (Tractatus etc)
This is one of my favorite areas of philosophy so I can happily debate it for long time. But in a nutshell I think you ignore two key points:
1) There can be materialism without reductionism (This is the Kindn of thinker I think the Buddha was). When you add emergence to the mix you can have the material whilst still having the spiritual without the need for anything mystical. That, to me, is the framework of the Middle Path.
2) Do the mystical and nonmsytical really share equivalently signifigant assumptions? I agree, ultimately it all comes down to faith, but there is much more evidence and reason in support of the scientific/nonmystical view than the religious mystical view. That is in no sense a victory but its inaccurate to say they are equivalent, I belive.
Thanks
Mat
.......at lunch time
I don't really know the labels. I believe there is a universe that in all reasonable probability started 15 billion years ago and evolved by known processes to make life and mammals and me. This is a very real world and it is consistent at all points. It contains no majic. My experiences of it are contained in it are not real but in some causal sense determined by the real.
Ok.
1. This is more than just labels because they stand for real assumption. Materialism is inherently reductionistic, what you seem to be describing is Phenomenalism, which is sort-of closer to the Buddha of the Pali Canon, but not. This is the same kind of issues that brought me to meditation. There seems to be two extremes , Materialism and Idealism..
Speaking poetically, if we look at our thoughts, they have an exterior dimension of neural activity, physical environment and so forth, and an interior dimension of experienced thought, meaning, symbols, conditioned by inter-subjectivity and so forth. These are like two sides of one coin, and one is not primary to the other, they co-arise. Now, a materialist, will not accept that, he will collapse the inner dimension the outer.... “mind is just brain”. An idealist on the other hand will not accept that either, he will collapse the exterior dimension into the inner.... “The brain (and by extension the world) is all just in my mind”. Your truth claim or declared sense of the Really Real seems to fall into the Materialist camp in opposition to the Idealist camp. The Buddha as I understand it is neither materialist or idealist.
2. There seems to to be a circular thing going on here. In that the “evidence” supporting Scientism, is Scientisms evidence. Scientism takes as its absolute, not God, but concrete “Stuff” for lack of a better word. The Buddha as I understand him in the Pali Canon found no such Absolute and left us with a fundamental groundlessness.
For the record , Buddhism for me is neither Physics nor Metaphysics. It is practice that takes us through sheer nameless experiencing that is irreducable, and without a trace. Any notion of it's basis is literally an afterthought.
anyway .. I'm into back and forth around this kind of thing, its pure mental fun, so please counter point. and I'll get back later.
I understand that you might feel some people exaggerate their accomplishments, but the way you put it will appear to some like one almost has to feel bad about their practice. Other people will just say "hey, I just had a peak experience" and go "bla bla bla I'm so good bla bla" and, at most, they will pick one person as an example of what is wrong and avoid a looking at themselves.
I guess my point is you have to be careful not to let the idea of attainment, or lack thereof, generate suffering, and since this is actually very difficult (This is the attainment -> This is me -> I didn't get the attainment -> Bad feeling -> Aversion; Or This is the atteinment -> This is me -> I got the attainment -> Good feeling -> Attachment) a better approach might just be to compromise yourself with what you have to do daily, within your limits, and do it. Expect relapses, understand their cause, fix it and move forward onto the next day.
I dont think so. I think using systems is a good way to approach these discussions. So one may say:
Materialism is the view that there are only systems connected to the material universe. So from the quark to your love to the galaxy all of that is made up of the interactions of material systems. It doesnt in itself have anything to say about the viewpoint. Its totally Objective.
Reductionism isnt about the Objective as much as our getting meaning from the objective reality as we go lower into its constituent systems.
For example, in the structure ABC we have the property of Betweeness but that property cannot be reduced to any of the parts, A, B or C. It just vanishes. The same is true of all emergent properties, they cannot be reduced in explanation to the parts.
Much of the western philosophy of mind of the last 50 years has been about this irriducability but I think The Buddha clicked with the five aggregates. The Buddhist mind can be materialistic without being reduced to just material.
No, I dont think so. There is a clear systematic commitment to an external world that phenomalism doesn't make:)
Yes!
But isn't that exactly what the Buddha did? He showed the path between the purely subjective (or mystical for mystical Buddhist interpretations) and the purely objective. The middle path really unites both. That's what Dharma is for me, the true connection between my real spiritual experiences and the cold empty reality that underlays them but is not reducible from them.
I dont know. Are you not just referring the distinction between the content of thoughts and the structures in which they are realised(rupa)?
Mind is not brain in the same way that arrangements of oils and pigments isnt the beauty of the Sistene Chapel
I dont really see the issue here, can I ask, do you really get what emmerrgenmce is?
I agree, to me he was a systems theorist!:)
We need to get a hndle on certainty. Can I be certain tehre is no mystical, no, i cannot. Can a mystic be certain that there is, no she cannot.
With that in mind when are talking about Frameworks rather than foundations. So the framework of science is immense and self supporting and, for me as a Buddhist, it completely integrates the dharmic system.
The Mystical Framework may be on the same ultimate grounding as the science framework, BUT, it simply doesn't have the laws and evidence to support it internally.
So I agree, that ultimaly there is no difference, but internally there is:)
Ya, I dont really know much about The Buddh'as take on physics, did he even write about it? But for me, when I look at the Dharmic system from the mind all the way down to the Three Marks, its all metaphysical, baby!
I agree. Never have I thought Dharmic philosophy is a replacement for Dharmic Practice:) Though to me the philosophy path its very much entwined with Right View.
Absoultly:)
Mat
i think materialistic science, in itself, is very mystical. if we're going to talk about Emptiness, reality is a very awe-inspiring and magical thing, no matter which way you look at it. the only reason it's considered non-mystical is because often the religious and holy element of is detracted from it, and considered in a neutral, somewhat cold and impersonal light, where it is forgotten that existence is something to be appreciated from the floor to the ceiling of consciousness, something very CUCKOO.
I'll make just two points , the little illustration of how we can collapse everything into categories of existence may be worth a second look, It does look like there is a view attachment in your writing, I mean it isnt sutble. The only other thing I would say is that the notion that the Buddha was a Systems Theorist is, from a Zen point of view .... simply not applicable.
On a personal note. The beautiful thing about realizing Dharma, and I'm not talking about being Enlightened, I'm just talking about the initial non-dual opening that is the beginning of the Bodhisattva path for an unenlightend Zen shlump.... is that a panel of the most estemed thinkers on the planet could, with genius, deconstruct every philosophical musing I have ever had, further more they could produce a stack of suttras and comentaries written in the Buddhas blood saying the Buddha's teachings were really a form of dialectical something or other. .... and all of it, all the views on the nature of the world, and knowing, all the various truth claims about the most consistantly reliable ontological grounding, All of it. Goes Poof!...the moment I walk in the Zendo. All these positions , and I'm sure you must really agree, are ultimately so much bullshit. Getting passed that bullshit, is Practce.
Thanks namelessriver, The OP was a joke.:)
Its your thing and thats great but, like I said there is little touch point.:) idee fixe
On topic I asked my teacher if I had become a bodhisattva.. She didn't scold me or anything she just pointed out that as we go along the path we have moments of freedom that burst through the clouds sometimes. (only at times because I also admit to being craving and bogged down by negativity at times). She encouraged me to look up online or something what the person who has attained the first stage of a bodhisattva does feel and marvel at that and rejoice. That someone could feel that way. She said that such a person feels great joy as they are convinced that they may bring the dharma to anyone. Sounds good to me.
"I'll mention this about myself, but I'll leave out certain _unnecessary_ details, which will save me some typing, and the chicks will be more impressed. (The penguin chicks, I mean.)"
Me? No. I would never do that.
genkaku sometimes quotes Trungpa Rinpoche.
Having some attainment is the jackal's yelp. Having no attainment is the lion's roar.
FWIW.
sure, that's not a disability, its a differnce:)
I just don't get where there is any room for distinction. either something exists or it does not. If it exists it is linked to all other things that have, do and will exist. If it is not,. it is not. What am I missing?
I am very attached to the view that the Dharmic truths are true of all possible worlds!:)
Sure:) I have thought he was since my earliest days, the way it fits together, the lack of ontological distinctions, the emergence of the path from the doctrine from the lower foundations of the marks.
If you can get hold of it check out Joana Macy's long titled "Mutual Causality in Buddhism and General Systems Theory: The Dharma of Natural Systems"
Sure, why would it be any different? I think you think I have no room in my view of dharma for "the spiritual," which is very far from the truth. I just see spirtual phenomena as emergent rather than mystical, in both senses they are irriducable to the atoms and neurons.
No, why would I think that? I think as much error comes from the musings of meditating monks as the mistakes of scientist and philosophers. Nobody is perfect.
How does Zen handle Right View's knowledge, science and philosophy aspects, are they all addressed through experience?
Thanks for the chat
Mat
Whether we agree or not doesnt matter. I respect where your coming. Regarding the last questions. This is what I am taught "Zen is not about having an understanding, it is about experience". My philosophical tendencies are not given the time of day by people who have more experiences and wisdom. Its always the same "dont talk, DO, practice, practice, practice. Relative Knowledge has relative value.
All joking aside, Regarding "attainment"
It is kind of paradoxical isnt it, Ofcourse there is nothing to attain, but such an understanding is an attainment, and wearing the badge of nonattainment is just as full-of-crap as wearing the badge of attainment. maybe even more sickly.
Because of persisting in practice I am a more balance and present father and partner, a better listner, and nurturer, more responsible. Able two maintain a more level head and heart when when my family is in crisis. Damn it that isnt an accomplishment.:D And with more practice more benefit.
This is an internet chat forum, not a meditatioon mat! Talk is all we can do here!:) Also you did say you liked to discuss earlier in the thread:)
So, if you will, hows about we try and get some common ground, it would be helpful to me, at least:) I am not goung to try to "attack" your view and am not inviting you to attack mine. lets see if we can at least find some firm footing, please:)
The Main Problem?
I think one issue we have is that we are trying to group all mof the issues into one concept and its antithesis, "materialism" and we both have different takes on that. I think we can avoid this problem by using a differnt distcintion we can share and I hope agree on.
How about:
As with all things there are no absolute types (this is an often ignored effect of anataman!). I don't think anyone could be exclusivly one type, its a sliding scale.
Now, with these definitions in hand we can go back to your point from before: i agree with you, anyone who was exclusively theoretical about dharma would be believing and practising "bullshit". For so many reasons that we can easily see by imagining a 100% theoretical view on pretyy much any of the eightfold path. Also, I think most would agree that the very act of reading the suttas is an experience (Even if you think they are dubious in palces!).
In the same vein, the most Empirical of Buddhists has to do some theorising to understanding The Noble Truths, how could you not.
so, where does this leave us? (Give me back my music collection!;p)
I would say I lean more to the theorist side and you more to the empirical. You are entitled to think your way is right for you. i am entitled to think my way is right for me. where I think we (me included, for sure) on this forum often go wrong is we think others should be near us in this sliding scale between theory and experience.
Note that this isn't a commitment to any decision on the mystical, you may be super mystical or not, i don't know. the ahibdhama is clearly hyper-theoretical, but its also pretty mystical.
So we often seem to confuse disctintions or ignore them, and I think this leads to lots of Forum Dukka.
Its when we ignore or dont see it we get into "my way is better than your way" stuff. When really Dharma is surely the middle way?
So, what do you think? Can we talk with more clarity here if we are aware of these distinctions ?
much metta,
Mat
However, the main element of practice over time has been going from being absorbed in the content of my thought stream, to being able to witness (no witness) the thought stream as a simple sensory phenomena (although not named as such for obvious reasons). When this practice clarified somewhat, it revealed that conceptual categories of existence, non-existence, real, unreal, somethingness, nothingness, and so forth were additions to something ungraspable. But.... the urge to reduce experience to a base existent or absolute continued as ever more subtle concepts took the place of gross ones. Even the notions of “experience” and “groundlessness” had to be let go. This urge to reduce experience is IMO the real challenge and pivot point of practice, and it involves a long slow process of stepping out of thought over and over again until there is a give-way moment. ........ Beyond this give-way moment there is only Noble Silence. Any attempt to categories that Noble Silence is mere projection.
Is this Empiricism? Yes, up to the the point of the give-way moment , after that no, and this is very important. No more testing, no more fact checking, no more comparison, no more checking back. No more relationship, no more measure. No more knowledge.
So where does this fit into your schema of Empirical Buddhism and Theoretical Buddhism? Its hard to say because the result of this is not anti-intellectual. The essential function and value of thought is affirmed, it is just no longer the final say, any more than chewing is.
So in a nutshell, how about this?..... to be an Empirical Buddhist is incomplete, and to be a Theoretical Buddhist is incomplete. In order to be complete we must be a Theoretical/Empirical Buddhist. Until we are neither.
Great post methinks.
Ok. I think i understand what you mean, but I think in two areas you seem to smuggle the mystical in to your account.
You say there is a categorical distinction between "existence, non-existence, real, unreal, somethingness, nothingness..." wheras I think that is meaningless to me:) I can see no logical differnce between existing/real/something and nonexisting/unreal/something. In every sense they are what Western philosophers call salva veritate, they are the same word. So when you say there is a differnce that I logically think isn't possible the only way you can do that without contradiction is to leave it mystical (ie, unexplained/anomlaous)
The other point you make is that it ends up at something "ungraspable", again, this is mystical, but its differently mystical to the other point because its foundational. At the bottom of the empirical and the theoretical its all "ungrapable". The "ungraspable" is to be expected in any doctrine or parctice, the Buddha says that asking questions about it are wasting time and I think we both agree he is right.
I would say "Mystical Empiricism".
I like that!
That sounds good! But it is a mystical coda to the path, which doesn't fit my world, life and dharma view. Maybe I am attached to that viewpoint. Maybe one day I will experience it and say "Ahh yes, Richard was right, I could not possibly have known until seen..." But I think the same is true of all mystical beliefs about the future?
As an aside, what is your favourite Koan? I was fascinated by koans as a teenager (Long before I found Dharma).
Mat
What I am refering to is ungraspable because concepts are inherently dualistic and relative, whereas what I am pointing to is not. By even speaking in this way I'm projecting a referent were there is none (a 'reality"). Perhaps another way of putting it is that this "suchness" is not other than the perfectly ordinary referents of logical discourse.
The mystical isnt the metaphysical. The metaphysical is about cause and effect, dependent origination, time, etc...
When I say a belief or statement is Mystical I mean part of its meaning comes from something outside of the world of reason and explanation.
If I ask you to explain the difference between nonreal and nonexisting you wouldn't be able to, all you could say is "I have experienced it" and that's fine, but please see that its mystical:) ... or explain why it is not:)
I don't understand that. Concepts are dualistic and relative?
Sure or "projecting a subjectivity", but that's inevitable part of interacting with the world as you point out in your "ego isnt all bad" post the other day. I don't see the problem:)
Salome!
Mat
You said Mysticism is "something outside of the world of reason and explanation". I would state the fact already stated, "suchness" is not other than the world of reason and explanation. They are two sides of one coin.
This is why we chant "Form is not other than Emptiness, Emptiness is not other than form" .
This ties into the other thing you mentioned....
"I don't understand that. Concepts are dualistic and relative?"
Yes. conceptual knowledge is relative. Is my dog big or small? Compared to a house she is small, compared to a pebble she is big. So is she big or small? She is inherently niether big nor small. She is "empty" of inherent size. The concept, "my dog is small" is relative. The conceptual world view is a field of relationships and interdefining. The world itself (so to speak) is "Empty". The Bodhisattva abides in emptiness while imploying the expedient of a conceptual framework.
These two truths of Emptiness and Form co-arise, one is not primary to the other, one is not generative of the other , no Form, no Emptiness.
You know Mat, there is no error in these tesching on Emptiness and Form, Conceptuality and "Suchness", This is not just my opinion. I do not doubt that you are in the same area and that differences are really just a matter of language.
Ok, I guess I mean it in the traditional Aristotelian sense rather than the new agey "metaphsical" sense:) Its neither here nor there:)
I am sorry to harp on about this, but I disagree. To use your metaphor, one side of the coin seems logically impossible to be shared with the other side. They mystical is not compatible with the scientific. That doesn't mean the mystical is "wrong" per sey, but recognising the incompatibility is important.
I don't know what "suchness" means.
Well hang on a cotton-pick'n moment!:p You cant go from the obvious existence of relative properties like size to saying all concepts are relative!
Your dog may be big or small but it is either on or off your leash, that isnt a relative concept. Nor is the existence of rebirth.
Unlike the concept "my dog is on a leash and smaller than me"
I think we should stay clear of bold proclaimaitions in this chat!:) That way lays the dogma, which big or small should be avoided.
You say "there is no error..."
I say "there could be error..."
Maybe yes, though I feel we have some fundamentally different methodologies! Which is no bad thing:)
Peace
Mat
Mysticism is your concern. You are seeing mysticism.
"My dog on a leash is smaller than me" is a description of a relationship. Acknowledging the relative nature of our conceptual constructs is not contoversial Mat.
That bold declaration is true my friend. The teachings on Emptiness are not just my opinion, and they are not in error.
I really do think that you are in a very very different place, than certainly Zen. You categorically do not understand Zen. This isnt an attack or anything, there are things I do not understand about say the Vajrayana. But with regard to the course of this discussion, I cannot see how there can be a meeting of minds.
With respect.
It isnt a concern of my practice, just of my chats on Buddhism:)
And the bible is true... and the Koran and the Greek myths...
I really don't understand Zen! I have never said I did. It seems so different to the Dharma I am continually trying to understand and experience more of:)
Zen is your path, it isnt mine. I cannot see how it even connects with the development of Buddhism
I think I agree. Can I leave on one final question that you can answer yes or no or talk for pages on:)
Do you believe that all conditioned things are subject to annica, anataman and dukka?
Happy Sunday to you:)
Mat
Doh! there I go back into blah blah again:D. But seriously Mat I respect where you are coming from, I do not think you are somehow not a "real" buddhist or something like that, but you have a radically different approach to things, and IMHO we just need to say ok to that. It doesnt mean I dont or wont enjoy your online company
Palzang
Ok, this may be our key point of divergence, then. i think these are the foundational truths of all systems and therefore experiencing systems. I join at this level you join at the more abstract level of experience.
My only universal certainty is these truths and the law of identity and noncontradiction. You don't want to put your thoughts at this level and you don't have to, I respect the fact your dharma practice takes place at a deeper (or higher) level than mine.
I agree, the whole notion of reducing reality to anything is pretty preposterous, philosophically.
I really wouldn't mind if you thought I was an antiBuddhist! Conflict doesn't come from difference but force and opposition between differences. This is a point I have only recentley understood.
Yes, that much has been made clear to me! I have really been made to question my beliefs by some of the chats here, which is no bad thing.
I am skeptical, naturalist Buddhist with big leanings to the theoretical. On many areas of that's just not compatible with the Buddhist schools we have today:)
For sure!
Peace
mat
Aaah taint nothin, really.:o