S:C

The Dao Bums
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    402

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by S:C

  1. Posted · Edited by S:C

    1 hour ago, Maddie said:

    Stage tricks

    I was quite amazed when I had heard about Simon Magus in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 8:9-24).

    And I do suppose, there were many more stories, that aren’t told anymore today. Most of the gems either seem lost or vanished or censored. 
    Someone here was at times discussing the gospel of Thomas, but I forgot who did. It was quite an enjoyable conversation.

  6. Posted

    Christian Mysticism, if there is any resource  and thoughts on the gospel of Thomas would be of interest for me. 
    But I can continue to read what is posted elsewhere about this, so I am indifferent whether there is a subforum or not.

    (Whatever was Leonard Cohens belief I’d be curious too…) 

  9. Posted

    On 14.11.2023 at 5:06 PM, thelerner said:

    Anyone can fill your head with any which crap.  Welcome to the machine. 

    In my head a whole symphony orchestra plays a serenade to the quote author out of this felt resonance today. Internally I applaud, but am baffled why this feels so true. Magnificent.
     

    • Like 1

  11. Posted · Edited by S:C

    1 hour ago, Mark Foote said:

    Whatever is feeling… perception… the habitual tendencies… whatever is consciousness, past, future, or present (that person), thinking of all this consciousness as ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self’, sees it thus as it really is by means of perfect wisdom. (For one) knowing thus, seeing thus, there are no latent conceits that ‘I am the doer, mine is the doer’ in regard to this consciousness-informed body.”

    (MN III 18-19, Pali Text Society Vol. III pg 68)

     

     

    Got "perfect wisdom"?  how can a person acquire "perfect wisdom", without "right view that is ... a component of the Way"?  How can a person have "right view that is ... a component of the Way" without "perfect wisdom"?

    You drive what I'm seeing at?

     


     

    [How did I lose the ability to split quotes? Is this no longer desired?]

    Right after I posted the above answer, I felt quite sad, exhausted and resignated and like I will get a cold. Now I am confused again, but my headache is gone. This is not relevant, no. I might be tired though and thus unusually slow to get ‚it‘.
     

    Your own questions seem to suggest that it is a reflexive circle.

     

    However I don’t get the video metaphor, was this a cinnamon muffin (perfect wisdom) and he couldn’t swallow it so he needs milk (right view)? 

     

     

  13. Posted · Edited by S:C

    From another thread:

     

    6 hours ago, Daniel said:

    If Buddha is not teaching ontology ( did I understand that correctly? ) then, where is this assertion about reality coming from?  

     

    "Reality is the mind of Buddha?"   <--- this is a truly bizarre assertion.  I'll skip that for now

    Gautama wasn’t teaching ontology, too?! But how then could he teach morals? Isn’t ontology a step before? (Genuine interest, I am seriously startled at this statement.) 

    Isn’t it possible to deduct what his metaethical and ontological perspective was through the canonical texts? 
    Is there anyone I could ask this who has a well rounded knowledge on this subject/matter? 
     

    [I am still trying to find answers on the questions of the first posters, it all seems bit of like an avalanche, sorry for the timely delay, might need a few days vacation to write that all out.]

  14. Posted · Edited by S:C

    5 hours ago, Daniel said:

    cannot be discussed by anyone simply because THEY are not able to discuss it [intellectually]

    This reminded me of artists sayings that they have to step aside to let the artwork perform itself or explain itself. [I am not denying, it is hard to grasp with conventional two fold Aristotelian logic. However am not educated enough to express words or sentences in any other way.]
    It does maybe have a connection to the metaphor of the ‚little man inside the brain‘, you and kakapo were discussing. 
    The difficulty happens because what we are talking about is very close to the baseline of perception and formation of concepts - in my opinion. 

    • Like 2

  16. Posted · Edited by S:C

    22 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

    ekaggatā (…) 

    you quote this

    MAHACATTA

    might be the paradigm shift - and the ‚usual one pointedness‘ might come through conscious stepping back or letting go (just as @Mark Foote knows how to describe so eloquently) , so how the paradigm shift might have been set in motion can be debated but not verified?


    another point connected to the non-dual misnoming in the other thread concerns the ‚right‘ view question (I had hoped I could restrain myself from expanding further on it, but no): 

     

    isn‘t that connected to what @Apech structured up there in the nondual misnomer thread so coherently? the linked sutra talks about ‚right with defilements‘, ‚noble right‘ (so without defilements) and wrong. the right without defilements could maybe be a ‚right of a higher logical order‘, as explained by the Zhentong Madhyamika, a ‚right’ without contradictions, - Nargajunas absolute negation might ring a bell here to.
    at some point of evaluation (in the right with defilements view) sense data view and right interpretational view and following that the consequences for (right) deed or refraining from that lets you maybe (?) always (?) end up at a contradiction, stalemate or an impasse in your evaluation if you dig deep enough. Thus … there is a right without defilements (or contradictions), but how to get closer… well who knows, could be purely hypothetical, but logically wouldn’t need to be, - could be ‚real‘? Something that touches upon this somewhere in the texts?

    It could also shine a bit of light on the controversy among the branches of Buddhism, if and when lying can be considered appropriate, if I ain’t mistaken, please correct me if I am…

    • Thanks 1

  21. Posted · Edited by S:C

    1 hour ago, Apech said:

    if you followed this process of enquiry to the end you would be left with the finest of fine substances which is called Prakriti - which is the basis of everything that can be said to exist - like a universal subtle substance.  But then when you are left with observing the Prakriti having deconstructed all other levels of being you have something else which is there - you the observer.  The observing self is called Purusha and is not like everything else in that it is not made of Prakriti.  So you end up with a duality of two fundamentally real absolutes - Purusha and Prakriti.  This is a great analysis (or so most people think) but leaves a bog problem because if you have two absolutes how do they possibly interact since there is nothing of one in the other - they have no relation.

     

    So then begins the question - how do I resolve this?  How can I get from a dual 'solution' to a non-dual one?  Or can I subsume all Prakriti in Purusha or visa versa?  Or to put it in more western terms how do I resolve the subject object duality? 

    Merci @Apech.

    It really is a misnomer to say anything is clear, I’ll try to remember that and try to say: understandable from my current perspective at the current time and place.

    • Like 1

  22. Posted · Edited by S:C
    Self restraint

    14 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

    right thinking is inherently shrouded in paradox and it's time for breakfast.

    That sounds just right - for now. I do skip breakfast these days, it’s a bad habit of ‘entangled mind’, this stuff is just too personal and thus I will restrain myself from asking what is “right” thinking for you, definitory.

    I will try to answer open questions (hopefully) later with a calmer mind, until so far, thanks at all for participating here. 

    • Like 1

  23. Posted

    14 hours ago, Daniel said:

    I've observed non-dualists often get "tangled" in contradictions when rigidly and literally applying this idea of "non-duality".  It's not just contradictions in their argumentation and preachng that becomes contradictory, but, also their behavior.  Their stated dharma deviates from the dharma they actually practice.

     

    Much of this is explained by realizing that "non-dual" is actually "dual", but that the "duality" is being actively denied.  This denial is what is producing the deviation between the stated dharma and the dharma which is practiced.  The denial also produces the contradictions in their argumentation and preaching.  But, denial is not all bad.  Just like everything, it has its proper time / place / context where it is healthy and useful.  When it is out of context, deviations and contradictions are produced.

    This is an important point to me, I hope to come back to later at a different point in time, so consider it just as a personal bookmark - and please carry on. Thanks @Daniel! That was very clearly written.

  24. Posted · Edited by S:C

    “This means that the Buddha’s warning about wrongly drawing out the meaning of a discourse does not apply only to attempts to translate impersonal language into personal language.”

     

    That is supposed to say, that just because first monk and second monk evaluate their sense data as stressful, they are not supposed to state this in an impersonal way, as this is or could be influencing others, who might not come to this conclusion. 
     

    “Other considerations—such as whether a teaching is appropriate to a particular context or purpose (attha)—can also play a determining role.” 
     

    How and who determines what is appropriate? Is that determination impersonal or personal?

    Did the Buddha believe in free will or determinism?

     

    “Statements have to be judged not only as descriptive, but also as performative: what they induce the listener to do.” 

     

    Did he really believe in the normative / inductive / performative aspect of statements? If so, was this an impersonal or a personal teaching?



    Isn’t making that evaluation of weighing (do’s and don’ts / causation) in itself something that strains the senses and proves a point here? 
     

    Doesn’t evaluation always rely on the personal sense data? What is it that evaluates when there is none of those?

     


     

    —

    Disagreements, corrections and interpretation welcome.

     

    So sad to see so many contradictions in my own questions, sorry. :( 

  25. Posted · Edited by S:C

    Quote

    So the Commentary’s explanation of the first category of discourse—that discourses whose meaning needs to be inferred can be equated with teachings expressed in conventional truths—is not borne out by the evidence in the Canon. And what’s especially notable is that in these, and in all other cases of this sort, the explanations giving the meaning to be inferred never say that self, beings, or persons do not exist.

     

    As for the second category—discourses whose meaning should not be drawn out any further—two examples stand out: In MN 136, a monk is asked, in personal terms, what one experiences after having performed an intentional action, and he responds that one experiences stress. The Buddha later rebukes him, but another monk comes to the first monk’s defense: Perhaps he was thinking of the impersonal teaching, “Whatever is felt comes under stress.” The Buddha rebukes this second monk, too, saying that when asked about the results of action, one is being asked about the three kinds of feeling—pleasant, painful, and neither—and so should respond as follows:

     

    “‘Having intentionally done—with body, with speech, or with mind—an action that is to be felt as pleasure, one experiences pleasure. Having intentionally done—with body, with speech, or with mind—an action that is to be felt as pain, one experiences pain. Having intentionally done—with body, with speech, or with mind—an action that is to be felt as neither-pleasure-nor-pain, one experiences neither-pleasure-nor-pain.’” — MN 136

     

    Taking the second monk’s words as an explanation of the first monk’s words, it would count as a passage expressed in personal terms whose meaning is wrongly drawn out in impersonal terms. This means that the Buddha’s warning about wrongly drawing out the meaning of a discourse does not apply only to attempts to translate impersonal language into personal language. Other considerations—such as whether a teaching is appropriate to a particular context or purpose (attha)—can also play a determining role. Statements have to be judged not only as descriptive, but also as performative: what they induce the listener to do. If a person is told that all action leads to stress, that person will feel no reason to put forth the effort to act skillfully rather than unskillfully. This would get in the way of his making progress on the path.

    - https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/Mirror_ofInsight/Section0005.html follow up question on the neighboring thread about the two truth doctrine text

    The bolded and italicized parts of this text from dhammatalks are only interpretational source and not primary canonical source? 
     

    Else, the question would be: who is doing the weighing / inducing / inferring / judging / considering of appropriation on the matters at hand? It would be a personal discourse about an impersonal discourse matter, no? Meaning can only be inferred in the personal language? So the interpreter did believe that the Buddha accepted personal valuations in the impersonal discourse? Else how could something be ‘wrong’ or ‘inappropriate’ in the impersonal discourse? 
    Did the Buddha believe that objective valuations exist, was he a metaethical cognitivist? Or did his ‘state’ transcend personality in that way that his statements are interpreted (by his followers) as impersonal still, even though uttered and evaluated through his process of sense features (non-being, as not grasping, but still physically alive).

    How can it be decidedly known if the first or second monk really did use an impersonal interpretation of a personal statement. 
    Where does the objectivity come from suddenly? Who is doing the evaluation? 

     

    Does anyone else see the contradiction (of the interpretation), or am I missing something? Should I reformulate for more clarity? - I’d like to invite @Taoist Texts , @stirling and @Mark Foote and whoever else feels concerned, @Apech (because the weighing of the feather in the Khonsu Mes thread by Ma’at comes to mind?)Â