C T

The Dao Bums
  • Content count

    10,542
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    100

Posts posted by C T


  1. 1 hour ago, Michael Sternbach said:

    Hi CT,

     

     

    That's a typical Buddhist position which I've always had an issue with -- despite my involvement with Zen. I wonder, when was it first brought up in the old texts? Can it be supposed to be one of Gautama's original teachings?

     

    It seems to be at odds with my Platonist views.

     

    According to Platonism, tangible things are the concrete manifestations of 'ideas' that exist in the divine mind. It is these 'ideas' that are endowing the ten-thousand things with their shape and form.

     

     

    I would argue that in its 'hammer-ness', it actually manifests the archetype of the hammer.

     

     

    But it would! You can't have a hammer without 'hammer-ness'.

     

    No more 'hammer-ness' = no more hammer.

     

    In the Platonist view, once it melted, it returned to the state of formless 'prime matter', and that's that.

     

    Of course, you could take this basic matter and form it into a screwdriver. But then the result would be a screwdriver, and no longer a hammer, I'm afraid. One's for nails, the other one for screws. Same matter, but different form.

     

    Hammer, nail, screwdriver... know them as mere labels. Labels do not have intrinsic reality. 

     

    A melted substance is still a substance. While it may have altered its form, its potential remains valid and cannot be said to be formless. The -ness aspect is always present, regardless of what it transforms out of or in to. 

     

    The thusness of things makes allowance for expansive non-dual insights to arise. This insight is a prerequisite to gnow beyond fabrications of subject/object separations. Without it, we are stuck within a paradigm where superficial appearances are regarded as permanent and unchanging, which in effect is a type of delusion because the assumption is that we bums at least acknowledge the truth of change permeating all of existence. 

     

     

    • Thanks 1

  2. 1 hour ago, Daniel said:

     

    Well.  I disagree.  In my faith-tradition these ideas are discussed and contemplated most often in the micro as "a word before it is spoken" or "an idea before it is expressed", and in the macro as "God before creation" and "how God creates".  Although, those last two are controversial.  These ideas can be applied to the example you brought, the hammer.  And I feel confident that the hammer has specific unique attributes which exist while in use, when it is in the toolbox ( in potentia ), lying on the floor as a door stop, as it exists as a concept or idea, or even as it exists in a fictitious reality where there is only one solitary hammer and literally nothing else.

     

    For example, I have used rocks as hammers.  And while it seems that maybe this would confuse the attributes which define the hammer ( basically a non-deformable 'heavy' head attached to a rigid lever ), the hammer is produced when the rock is held firmly in the hand which is attached to the rigid lever which is my forearm.  The same tool is not produced if I firmly hold a sea-shell, for example.

     

     

    I vote no.  It's always and forever a hammer.  Or, it could even take on more significance if it's my parent's hammer, or my grandparent's hammer, or maybe my grandparent's favorite hammer.  What if it's my child's very first hammer, and this was an early indicator that they had a natural talent for making and fixing, and they carried it everywhere, and gave it a name?  And then there's the story when the dog snatched it and hid it under the couch and we couldn't find it for a week?  We tried to buy a replacement hammer, same exact thing, same size, shape, color, handle... everything.  But of course... the child would not accept it.

     

    Anyway... 

     

     

    OK, well.   Sadly, I don't feel like I've made any progress.  This is where I was when I asked the question. 

     

    Ignoring my preconceived notions about the hammer.  I'll put that down, put it away.  Poof.  Bye-bye.  There's two truths.  Conventional / unconventional.  Both are true.  Now, just as I put away my ideas about the hammer, if I "put away" the two truths, poof, bye-bye.  Those two truths are gone.  They're not true at all.  They don't even exist.  I've never heard of them.  Hammer?  what's that?  I've never heard of it.  I have no idea what that is.  I have no words to describe it.  Showing me a hammer produces zero reaction.  Showing me a snowflake produces zero reaction.  Putting the hammer on my tongue produces zero reaction.  Putting the snowflake on my tongue produces zero reaction.  Nothing produces a reaction.  There is no distinguishing difference between the hammer, a snowflake, you me.  And I am completely catatonic.

     

    That's how I would apply this idea of "to go beyond" and to "put away" the two truths.  But, I feel like this is incorrect based on what others are telling me.  Yet, if I recall the scripture associated with Buddha's words, it seems consistent with what I have read. But I understand that these teachings have been expounded and developed for hundreds of years by various wise and accomplished individuals.

     

    So... I'm kind of stuck on this concept.  But it's not too important.  I'm confident whatever I need to know and undertand will be learned and understood in due "time".  ( in quotes, because time is wonky )

     

    But I enjoy learning, if you wish to share more, I will certainly appreciate it.  But, there is no pressure from me to do so.

     

     

    No probs. I didn't find your objections meaningful either. 

     

    A reiteration: the label 'hammer' is a conventional designate. As are all labels for the myriad things in existence. It's impossible to argue about a thing's existence/non existence and logical positions based on labels alone. 

     

    A hammer contains numerous non-hammer properties. A conglomeration process needs to happen; various other things needs to come together for a hammer to materialise. No magic involved. So a hammer is a hammer only by convention. On an absolute basis, it can only be said to have a certain 'hammer-ness' about it. Say it were to be melted and returned to its base property. This in no way negates its hammer-ness. 

     

     

     

     


  3. 34 minutes ago, oak said:

     

    Yes, and no noticeable difference in taste. My interprrtaion of it is that it was a genetically modified watermelon and I should have been warned before buying it. Are you telling me it is a natural thing?

     

    I believe they are natural, though in today's world, it will come as no surprise that some (most?) commercially sourced fruits, including both the yellow and red melons, may indeed be exposed to some form of  tinkering or other. (Unpopular opinion?) 

     

    Some interesting watermelon trivia

    https://www.thespruceeats.com/types-of-watermelon-1807870#:~:text=We are most familiar with,%2C and yellow-orange fleshed.

     

    Apparently the earliest cultivated melons were of the yellow variety. 

     

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 2

  4. 48 minutes ago, oak said:

     

    Even items without any label at all can be full of surprises. I remember buying a watermelon and when I got home and opened it, yeah it was juicy and tasty but yellow inside...it took a while for my brain to process that, if it did at all.

     

    Did you enjoy it? Any noticeable difference in taste? 

     

    Where I am, both red and yellow-fleshed watermelons are readily available, but I think the red is more popular. 

    • Like 1
    • Wow 1

  5. 4 hours ago, Daniel said:

     

    OK.

     

    From the link:  "these are the two truths, not the one truth and one lie. Both truths are true.... the sages tell us that enlightenment actually is going beyond both."

     

    I would very much appreciate elaboration on "going beyond both".  Does this mean both truths are abandoned?  left behind?  are they both still considered true?

     

    Thank you,

     

    Thank you for the question, Daniel. 

     

    A hammer has conventional designates. Depending on the user, really, a hammer can also 'be' many other things. Is a hammer still a hammer when it's used as a door-stop? What is it when it's lying in the toolbox? 

     

    One who employs the hammer as a tool to hit nails with and another who uses it as a doorstop could well have an endless debate over nothing because ultimately, there's really only expressions of various applications of this particular object. But human tendencies and habits often gets in the way of validating the nuances and the limitless potential of the essence behind the mere appearance of an object (in this case, the hammer). 

     

    So it can be said that a hammer is both a hammer (conventional truth) and not a hammer (ultimate truth) simultaneously. 

     

    To go beyond... means when it's no longer in use, we must know to put it away. This is crucial. We mustn't make the common mistake of assigning more importance to anything than is necessary. Then a tool ends up being a burden or an obstacle. Or worse, we falsely identify with and make assertions over what is basically something that possesses nothing other than a mere label. 

     

    "My label is more accurately assigned than your label." 

     

    Ridiculous, isn't it? 

     

     

     

     

    • Like 2

  6. 7 minutes ago, old3bob said:

    Random Buddhist on the web:

     

    "Nibanna is bliss, but not bliss with the senses, not even the bliss from the jhana. It is the other kind of bliss and you can't know it before being enlightened."

     

    That's correct, because I am of the view this bliss spoken of... it transcends the limits of the body-mind, a transpersonal entry into the Christian-equivalent of a "peace beyond (*mundane*) understanding." (Philippians 4:7).

     

     

     

     

    **my emphasis

     

     

     

    • Like 2

  7. 58 minutes ago, galen_burnett said:

    well i’m glad i tickled you nonetheless. how much time and energy are you planning on sinking into this passive-aggressive tennis-match btw? i thought you were trying to become a Buddha? isn’t this rather divergent? as for me, well, as you may recall from the OP, good and evil, waste and profit, it’s all one to me 🤷. could you teach me how to take epic selfies maybe?

    Thanks I guess, for proving my earlier point about having a convoluted understanding around the notion of perpetual bliss from a Buddhist perspective. Your refusal to accept this shortcoming is most telling, but don't worry, you're not the first on TDB, and rest assured won't be the last. 

     

    I think you're more interested in your own perceived though very much unfounded 'brilliance' at twirling words (see your replies to Daniel and Mark) to dress them up daintily in a vain attempt to hide your ignorance. 


  8. On 14/08/2023 at 11:53 PM, whocoulditbe? said:

    Starting with one seed,

    if it ever gave a shoot!

    Hogweed-ridden heart.

     

    Hogweed-ridden heart

    the tea lady from Hogwarts 

    Peter Pan's cousin 

     

     

     

     

    • Like 1

  9. 12 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

     

    @C T@steve?  What say you -- is Buddhism about "avoiding sensations including suffering" or not avoiding anything?

     

    My impression is that Buddhism, perhaps more than most approaches to spirituality, is prone to popular misunderstandings.  

     

    Quite certain that avoidance and suppression are regarded as obstacles on the Buddhist path. 

     

    Misunderstandings are rife, even among Buddhists. Especially on the subject of suffering and bliss. 

     

    People tend to equate bliss as a certain state that one aspires to, or an end point after many months or years of cultivation and practicing various austerities. Sure, doing these things may produce varying degrees of well-being, some of which may indeed produce bliss-like sensations, but the way I see it, the Bliss associated with nirvana is a direct consequence of realising the sweet spot between the extremes of views that lead ultimately to eternalistic or nihilistic conclusions. So resting in the space between Is and Is Not is imperative. Analogous to dwelling constantly in anticipation of reaching a climax without actually succumbing to it... 

     

    Those who are passionate about something... be it a hobby, art, spiritual practice, a mundane or exalted calling... anything... find inexpressible joy in involvement with their passion, both in activity and out of it. This joy cascades as a proleptic process, not just in a culmination of effort. 

     

    Take angling as a simplistic example. Any ardent, devoted angler will take great pleasure and anticipation in the whole game of fishing, from chatting and exchanging stories with fellow anglers, organising their kit, scouting for new fishing marks, preparing appropriate transportation, weather and tide reports, ensuring enough supply of bait, making sure the cat has sufficient food and water while he's away for probably an extended period, the arrival, setting up camp, and everything else... down to the finest details. In fact, landing a prized specimen isn't even the sole motivation - what ignites the passion and keeps it burning is the thrill of the potential of landing the catch of a lifetime. 

     

    In this analogy, its clear there is a type of bliss happening, one where an exact starting and ending point cannot be ascertained since the process that keeps this passion alive doesn't have a beginning, and as long as the angler remains enthused, the fire will keep burning. There's a perpetuity.

     

    Spiritual practice that is suffused with bliss is imbued with a similar dynamic.

     

    Anyone who's got a passion for something, even meditation, will hopefully find this relatable.

     

     

     

    (Apologies for the drawn-out, wordy reply... a horrid habit that resurfaces from time to time) 

     

     

     

     

     

     

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1

  10. @galen_burnett"Buddhists say the ultimate is to merge one’s Consciousness with that Formlessness..." 

     

    The above, among other "Buddhists say..." statements you uttered, are a mix bag of hearsay and presumptions, none of which hold any water. 

     

    What Buddhists assert is that form and emptiness are inseparable. Within form is emptiness; within emptiness... form. 

     

    (if interested, please enlighten yourself on The TwoTruths; the Prajnaparamita Sutra, and various accepted commentaries pertaining to.) 

     

    The whole premise of your hypothesis, therefore, is flawed due to your misconceptions and quasi- knowledge of Buddhism's take on perpetual bliss. 

     

    Debating further is futile. Not to mention your incessant need to resort to put-downs. It's like talking close to someone with bad breath. 

    • Like 2

  11. 5 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

     

    I agree that pleasure is not happiness, and yet many of us would do well to put more effort into experiencing daily pleasures, not less.  One of the skills taught in Dialectical Behavior Therapy is to "accumulate positive emotions" by engaging in pleasurable activities daily.  Simple things count: savoring a cup of tea, noticing flowers on a short walk, calling a friend.  The regular experience of pleasure can be a bulwark against depression and emotional overwhelm.  Perhaps there's a middle path here, not living a life devoted purely to hedonism, and also taking time to appreciate the tiny good things in life.

     

    Couldn't agree more. As always, pleasure and hedonism isn't the cause of malaise; its the hankering for more (and more and more...) post experience that stumbles a person.

    • Thanks 1

  12. 36 minutes ago, galen_burnett said:

    @C T I’ve addressed this many times throughout this thread. To try and redefine what happiness and suffering are is sophistic, in my opinion, and weak argument.

    Well, the gist of your OP rests on the question whether perpetual bliss is possible. That's fine, except you have not clued readers in as to your own definition of bliss, or if you did, I must have missed it. This being the case, I'm not actually requesting that you repeat or redefine the concept per your understanding. 

    • Like 1

  13. Interesting enough to initiate a common ground or consensus as to what "perpetual bliss" means? 

     

    For most enlightened Buddhists, chopping wood & carrying water can be construed as a blissful activity that, among other things, perpetuates inner bliss. But then, so is not chopping wood and not carrying water. 

     

    This subject was put forward to a Vajrayana master. I was in the audience. He said, "Bliss? When sleeping, sleep. When eating, eat. When grieving, grieve." Sounds simple, right? But actually, not that simple to put into practice because we are often controlled by layers of habitual tendencies.

     

    Personally, I think bliss is the default state when the "I" drops away. "There is bliss" as opposed to "I am blissful". The latter produces a very limited taste of what transcendent bliss is in its truest manifestation. Maybe manifestation doesn't even convey the meaning properly. 

    • Like 3

  14. Nyingma Dzogchen, being a resultant vehicle, is the only path that actualises Buddhahood in as quickly as 3 years 3 months. All other paths and traditions are causal vehicles - limited to producing causes for enlightenment only, and practice or cultivation is meant to accumulate merit with which to slowly peel away the layers of delusion, finally arriving at sunyata. Dzogchen introduces sunyata from day one of the 3 years 3 months. The rest of the time is used up for familiarisation to gain stability in the View.