goldisheavy Posted July 10, 2014 (edited) Dude, this bullshit reminds me of your posts from yesteryear, that's not even an insult per se, it's actually a form of flattery. Your posts were an inspiration for my post here: http://thetaobums.com/topic/32820-debunking-a-creator/?p=503998. What do you think? I have no idea what to think of it. Neutral I guess? You're talking about social jockeying. What you do with a tradition only matters to you in this way: is it effective or not? And you get to be the judge. However, if you also want to make other people happy, and there are certainly people who try to own traditions, then what's referred to as "cultural appropriation" becomes a problem. But cultural appropriation is not a spiritual problem. It's a problem of social relations and even then, it's only problematic in an atmosphere of people trying to own cultures. If you don't own Buddhism, Daoism, Whateverism, then who cares if someone integrates it into their worldview? It's not yours. No loss. No skin off your back. Right? It becomes a problem when you own traditions, like let's say you own Buddhism and it pisses you off how Christians graft Buddhist sentiments and considerations onto Christianity because how dare they, Buddhism belongs to the Buddhists (and specifically to you)! Edited July 10, 2014 by goldisheavy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Simple_Jack Posted July 10, 2014 I have no idea what to think of it. Neutral I guess? You're talking about social jockeying. What you do with a tradition only matters to you in this way: is it effective or not? And you get to be the judge. However, if you also want to make other people happy, and there are certainly people who try to own traditions, then what's referred to as "cultural appropriation" becomes a problem. But cultural appropriation is not a spiritual problem. It's a problem of social relations and even then, it's only problematic in an atmosphere of people trying to own cultures. If you don't own Buddhism, Daoism, Whateverism, then who cares if someone integrates it into their worldview? It's not yours. No loss. No skin off your back. Right? It becomes a problem when you own traditions, like let's say you own Buddhism and it pisses you off how Christians graft Buddhist sentiments and considerations onto Christianity because how dare they, Buddhism belongs to the Buddhists (and specifically to you)! Seriously, I could give a rats ass about that stuff, I'm only concerned with how Buddhism, as a vehicle in its own right, is understood. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GrandmasterP Posted July 10, 2014 (edited) Keep on liking your own posts there Jack. It's almost humbling to be in the presence of such an intrepid Dharma warrior as your good self. How ever could the Dharma possibly stand without your own striving? You go bro and all strength to you in that worthy striving of yours here on this TTB thread. " A sangha of one gets things done!" Respect! Edited July 10, 2014 by GrandmasterP Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Simple_Jack Posted July 10, 2014 (edited) Keep on liking your own posts there Jack. It's almost humbling to be in the presence of such an intrepid Dharma warrior as your good self. How ever could the Dharma possibly stand without your own striving? You go bro and all strength to you in that worthy striving of yours here on this TTB thread. " A sangha of one gets things done!" Respect! I asked steve earlier in the thread, how else neoadvaita was going to be undermined on the TTB's, thank you for the encouragement. Edited July 10, 2014 by Simple_Jack 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goldisheavy Posted July 10, 2014 Seriously, I could give a rats ass about that stuff, I'm only concerned with how Buddhism, as a vehicle in its own right, is understood. Why? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GrandmasterP Posted July 10, 2014 Because it MATTERS! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Simple_Jack Posted July 10, 2014 Why? Because I get off on trolling the eternalists on the TTB's. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paul Posted July 10, 2014 I believe, wisdom is appearance like rainbow. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GrandmasterP Posted July 10, 2014 (edited) Best post on here so far Sheboar. Welcome to TTB. Edited July 10, 2014 by GrandmasterP Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goldisheavy Posted July 11, 2014 Because I get off on trolling the eternalists on the TTB's. How do you know they're eternalists? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
asunthatneversets Posted July 11, 2014 How do you know they're eternalists? Views which reify a substantial ontological nature are considered to be eternalist (or essentialist) in the eyes of the buddhadharma. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goldisheavy Posted July 11, 2014 Views which reify a substantial ontological nature are considered to be eternalist (or essentialist) in the eyes of the buddhadharma. What does it mean to reify a substantial ontological nature? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Simple_Jack Posted July 11, 2014 I think a better question would be how one determines they're an "eternalist", because I can't determine that for anyone. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goldisheavy Posted July 11, 2014 (edited) I think a better question would be how one determines they're an "eternalist", because I can't determine that for anyone. OK, so how do you determine for yourself that you might be an eternalist? And more importantly, beyond the social aspects of the label "eternalist" (like belonging to a club of uncool people), what about eternalism that you find inadequate in a real sense? Edited July 11, 2014 by goldisheavy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Simple_Jack Posted July 11, 2014 How does one determine for oneself whether they might be an alcoholic? Beyond the social aspects of being labeled an "alcoholic", how can this prove inadvertently inadequate in a real sense? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
asunthatneversets Posted July 11, 2014 (edited) What does it mean to reify a substantial ontological nature? To affirm an existent entity whether personal or transpersonal, in whatever form. For example; Judeo-Christian theology which posits an independent, eternal soul... that is an essentialist view. Or, Advaita and Samkhya yogas which posit the purusha [brahman] as is an unconditioned, independently existent, transpersonal field of consciousness... that is an essentialist view. Edited July 11, 2014 by asunthatneversets Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
asunthatneversets Posted July 11, 2014 Buddhism of any stripe, including the 'higher' yānas, does not uphold the view of ontological existents (non-existents, both or neither) and in fact refute them with extreme prejudice. The buddhadharma is solely epistemic in nature. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paul Posted July 11, 2014 (edited) What does it mean to reify a substantial ontological nature? Thinking. Some idea Edited July 11, 2014 by Sheboar Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goldisheavy Posted July 11, 2014 How does one determine for oneself whether they might be an alcoholic? Beyond the social aspects of being labeled an "alcoholic", how can this prove inadvertently inadequate in a real sense? That's what I am asking you, but please skip the alcoholism, and, if you don't mind, kindly proceed toward what about eternalism that you find inadequate in a real sense? If you can't answer this, you can just say you can't answer it. If you can, but feel it's too intimate to answer on a public forum, I will respect that as well. In other words, I think I am asking you a very fair question here and I am not tying your hands. I am not trying to back you up against a wall, as it were. It's a genuine question for you. I am not interested in discussing my opinions. I am only interested in hearing your opinions on this matter, if you don't mind. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goldisheavy Posted July 11, 2014 Buddhism of any stripe, including the 'higher' yānas, does not uphold the view of ontological existents (non-existents, both or neither) and in fact refute them with extreme prejudice. The buddhadharma is solely epistemic in nature. Epistemology is valuable and comprehensible to mind. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idiot_stimpy Posted July 11, 2014 All this arguing is just a distraction. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted July 11, 2014 All this arguing is just a distraction. Distraction from? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jetsun Posted July 11, 2014 Most of this eternallist stuff misses the point, the nature of reality can't be spoken about because words are symbolic, but seeing as words are what we use when trying to talk about such things you will inevitably come out on the side of affirming something exists or denying, yet both are just different sides of the same coin in the world of dualistic language. Which is why many "eternalist" masters like Ramana Maharshi would prefer to say nothing and said his teaching was silence, yet sometimes words are used to reach out to people in whatever way is most effective, which might include saying the world is Brahman, the flip side of which is saying the world is emptiness. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GrandmasterP Posted July 11, 2014 (edited) Which 'eternalism'? 1: Sassatavada - the dogma of unchanging being . Or 2: The academic philosophical approach to the ontological nature of time positing that all points in time are equally 'real'. Or 3: Positive belief in the eternity of the world. ....please define the term under discussion here otherwise confusion must arise. Many thanks. Edited July 11, 2014 by GrandmasterP Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
