How would you counter this hypothesis to the ‘Enlightenment’ idea?

[Nungali]

On 8/18/2023 at 6:08 PM, Ajay0 said:

 

Happiness has an opposite in unhappiness, but bliss has no opposite. 

 

Try a dose of despair  or severe mourning

 

It is beyond the pair of opposites. I think you have confused inner bliss and joy with happiness derived from external sources.

 

For happiness or pleasure, one has to depend on pleasant sensory experiences . But this has to be necessarily followed by unhappiness due to the duality that governs all material existence or conditioned phenomena.

 

All objective pleasures will result in pain and misery in the long run due to the factors of saturation or impermanence. 

 

So obviously depending on such fickle and superficial sources of happiness would not be a worthwhile investment of our time, energy and resources. 

 

The bliss within ourselves arising from the Self or Buddha nature is considered superior and everlasting , and is independent of external situations and circumstances unlike sensory experiences .

 

The one who is anchored in the bliss and peace of the Self or Buddha nature within ...

 

'The Self'  and 'Buddha nature' are the same  ... or have equal value here  ? 

 

will also be in a position to enjoy worldly pleasures without being inordinately attached to them, and will not suffer psychologically upon their inevitable loss in time.

 

 

 

[Nungali]

On 8/18/2023 at 8:59 PM, galen_burnett said:

@Pak_Satrio i didn’t know you were that young; your comment would have upset me if you were older like the rest of the people here, or else were some seething edge-lord teen doomed to degeneracy, but you seem alright then honestly. i was besotted with these philosophies at your age as well, so i can’t fault you. i have to tell you that you’re deluded believing in Nirvana, but it probably doesn’t matter so much at your age, you’re still figuring things out a lot and that’s a great part of the adventure of being that age, and having a belief in anything at that time in life can probably only do more good than harm. it just becomes a problem if you journey into adulthood with institutional delusions like that as then the tendency is to become bigoted and closed-minded and zombified which turns one into another brick in the wall perpetuating the status quo. there’s still plenty of time, and it could well be an open mind of yours that absorbed these philosophies into yourself, in which case i hope for your mind to remain open and brave and free. peace.

 

[of course you could be an old p**** in reality leading me on in which case that is annoying and i will delete this comment if i ever find that out]

 

Hi .

< puts hand up   for that >

[Nungali]

15 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

target? i’m sure you couldn’t so much as hit a lake with a pebble

 

That dont matter

 

 

as

 

 your head be MUCH bigger than a lake  ..... its kinda hard to miss . 

[Nungali]

14 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

to anyone reading this in the future: if my replies suddenly cease it’s because they banned me (which i’m expecting honestly); in which case they’ll probably remove this comment as well, if not the whole entire thread—so whatever 🤷

 

 

have no fear

 

I have quoted you so this precious information is not lost to posterity for ever .

[liminal_luke]

5 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

My concern about vague definitions is best described in this quote from the OP:  "The notion of attainment of ‘perpetual-bliss’ is common throughout Eastern spiritual-practices and philosophy: it can be found in Buddhist philosophy...".  I disagree here.  I'm not a buddhist, it doesn't speak to me even in the smallest way.  However, from what I read in their canon, Buddha did not advocate at all for attaining perpetual-bliss.  Instead, I would label it, attainment of death or a void, literally avoiding all sensations including suffering.  

 

Buddhism aims to "avoid all sensations including suffering"?  I'm no expert in Buddhism but this doesn't sound right to me.  My impression from reading and attending a few retreats is that Buddhism is not about avoiding anything.  To my mind, Buddhism is better characterized as The Doctrine of Non-Avoidance.  Which is why it's such a pain in the butt.   (Perhaps other Bums more expert in Buddhist doctrine would care of weigh in?)

 

 

Edited August 20, 2023 by liminal_luke

[-ꦥꦏ꧀ ꦱꦠꦿꦶꦪꦺꦴ-]

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

 

Hi .

< puts hand up   for that >

He still hasn’t found out yet 

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, liminal_luke said:

Perhaps other Bums more expert in Buddhist doctrine would care of weigh in?)

 

That would be great.  Ideally they would bring some of buddha's teachings in support as well.

[liminal_luke]

9 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

That would be great.  Ideally they would bring some of buddha's teachings in support as well.

 

@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.  

Edited August 19, 2023 by liminal_luke

[Daniel]

7 minutes 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.  

 

@C T and @steve,

 

If possible can either of you bring some clarity on the buddhist attainment of something akin to "perpetual bliss"?  Did buddha teach about something which would match these words in english?  An attainment of "bliss"?

 

Also, anything in writing attributed to buddha I can read and review relating to Luke's qustion above and the question I asked is greatly appreciated.

 

Thank you,

[old3bob]

A joy beyond sorrow is not in or of a mind identity, it is in and of Spirit,  Spirit that was, is, and always will be FREE,  thus when limited identity is put away....

[steve]

@liminal_luke and @Daniel

 

I’ll leave it to others to quote Buddha Shakyamuni. I can best speak to the way I’ve been taught to practice and understand dzogchen.

 

Dzogchen is unequivocally rooted in non-avoidance. The view is to be completely open to each and every moment. Consequently, all experience becomes the path. The sutric path is different. Avoidance of actions leading to negative karma is the method -  renunciation. Tantric practice does not avoid but rather transforms. Dzogchen is a path of leaving experience just as it is, allowing full engagement and spontaneous liberation. 

 

The only thing that is extinguished, or maybe better to say seen through, is the illusion of my existence as a separate and independent agent. And this has to be spontaneous and experiential in nature, not conscious avoidance or denial. When the identification with a limited and separate sense of self is no longer as much of an obstacle, through grace, understanding, or practice, there is a profound and pervasive sense of completeness, of belonging, of being  that is often described as great bliss. It is called great because it is unconditional, it is called bliss  because there is no limitation or karmic traces related to identification with a separate and limited body and mind. 

 

As always this is just my flawed understanding and explanation, ymmv

 

 

[Daniel]

13 minutes ago, steve said:

@liminal_luke and @Daniel

 

I’ll leave it to others to quote Buddha Shakyamuni. I can best speak to the way I’ve been taught to practice and understand dzogchen.

 

Dzogchen is unequivocally rooted in non-avoidance. The view is to be completely open to each and every moment. Consequently, all experience becomes the path. The sutric path is different. Avoidance of actions leading to negative karma is the method -  renunciation. Tantric practice does not avoid but rather transforms. Dzogchen is a path of leaving experience just as it is, allowing full engagement and spontaneous liberation. 

 

The only thing that is extinguished, or maybe better to say seen through, is the illusion of my existence as a separate and independent agent. And this has to be spontaneous and experiential in nature, not avoidance or denial. When the identification with a limited and separate sense of self is no longer as much of an obstacle, through grace, understanding, or practice, there is a profound and pervasive sense of completeness, of belonging, of being  that is often described as great bliss. It is called great because it is unconditional, it is called bliss  because there is no limitation or karmic traces related to identification with a separate and limited body and mind. 

 

As always this is just my flawed understanding and explanation, ymmv

 

 

 

thank you, steve.  that's very helpful for me.

[C T]

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) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 20, 2023 by C T

[whocoulditbe?]

10 hours ago, steve said:

Dzogchen is unequivocally rooted in non-avoidance. The view is to be completely open to each and every moment. Consequently, all experience becomes the path. The sutric path is different. Avoidance of actions leading to negative karma is the method -  renunciation. Tantric practice does not avoid but rather transforms. Dzogchen is a path of leaving experience just as it is, allowing full engagement and spontaneous liberation.

 

Thanks a lot for sharing your knowledge. If you don't mind more questions:

Does a Dzogchen practitioner renounce anything at all if they're not on the sutric path? How do the precepts play into it?

 

Quote

The only thing that is extinguished, or maybe better to say seen through, is the illusion of my existence as a separate and independent agent. And this has to be spontaneous and experiential in nature, not conscious avoidance or denial. When the identification with a limited and separate sense of self is no longer as much of an obstacle, through grace, understanding, or practice, there is a profound and pervasive sense of completeness, of belonging, of being  that is often described as great bliss. It is called great because it is unconditional, it is called bliss  because there is no limitation or karmic traces related to identification with a separate and limited body and mind.

 

When you describe moving past "separate," "limited" or "independent" identity, do you mean that some kind of collective/unconditional identity remains or appears in its place? If so, how does that avoid being a literal identity with the cycle of samsara itself?

Thanks again.

[Daniel]

2 hours ago, C T said:

 

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) 

 

Thank you CT.  I very much appreciate the information.

[steve]

3 hours ago, whocoulditbe? said:

 

Thanks a lot for sharing your knowledge. If you don't mind more questions:

My pleasure, I don't mind but also not sure my answers will be satisfying!

 

Quote

Does a Dzogchen practitioner renounce anything at all if they're not on the sutric path? How do the precepts play into it?

No, there is no renunciation in dzogchen whatsoever. 

That said, nearly every practitioner of dzogchen has at some point engaged in sutric or tantric practice, renouncing or committing to samaya vows but none of this is a part of the dzogchen path which is one of radical non-avoidance.

 

Quote

When you describe moving past "separate," "limited" or "independent" identity, do you mean that some kind of collective/unconditional identity remains or appears in its place? If so, how does that avoid being a literal identity with the cycle of samsara itself?

No, I don't think it would accurate to say that.

To posit an identity of any sort that takes the place of the individual, conditioned identity would be to simply substitute a more sophisticated conceptual identity which would continue the cycle as you point out. From the side of the absolute, there is no need tot fill that space created by the absence of self-identification. From the side of the conceptual mind, we need to fill that gap or we are unable to continue the dialogue, internally or externally. Consequently we can use terms and concepts to describe what is present when the self-identification drops away but these are simply conceptual labels that attempt to communicate characteristics of the ineffable, nothing more. We can list a variety of characteristics but must not mistake them for what they describe. Interestingly, what we describe when we engage in this exercise is not the absolute itself but only the obstacles we experience as a part of our samsaric nature. I hope that makes some sense. 

 

Quote

Thanks again.

Anytime

 

@whocoulditbe?

PS - another way to say it is that if there is a sense of me present that is identifying with something, no matter how great or small, there is already subject/object duality present and this is a wrong not the dzogchen view

[liminal_luke]

Against all odds, this thread has taken a miraculously informative turn.

[-ꦥꦏ꧀ ꦱꦠꦿꦶꦪꦺꦴ-]

3 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

Against all odds, this thread has taken a miraculously informative turn.

 

Everything got better once everyone started ignoring the OP. Should be our new tactic I think.

[Mark Foote]

22 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

I view it differently.  It seems to me that each and every scienfic discovery produces several new unanswered questions.  This produces a one-to-many relationship between what is known and the unknown.  As a result there will always and forever by much much more that is unknown compared to the known.  If so, then, science will never explain everything.  It can't.  Not that humanity should give up on this pursuit. 
 

 

Gödel's incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that are concerned with the limits of provability in formal axiomatic theories. These results, published by Kurt Gödel in 1931, are important both in mathematical logic and in the philosophy of mathematics. The theorems are widely, but not universally, interpreted as showing that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all mathematics is impossible.
 

The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e., an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers. For any such consistent formal system, there will always be statements about natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system.
 

The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.

(Wikipedia, "Gödel's incompleteness theorems")

 

 

Stephen Hawking was originally a believer in the Theory of Everything, but after considering Gödel's Theorem, he concluded that one was not obtainable. "Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind."

(Wikipedia, "Theory of Everything")

The Hawking quote is from a lecture he gave, that ends:

 

Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind. I'm now glad that our search for understanding will never come to an end, and that we will always have the challenge of new discovery. Without it, we would stagnate. Godel’s theorem ensured there would always be a job for mathematicians. I think M theory will do the same for physicists. I'm sure Dirac would have approved.

(Godel and the end of physics, 2002, Stephen Hawking Estate)

 

 

22 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

The point I was trying to make is that different logical systems exist and the choice of which to use is important.  I use a blend.  Maybe you could answer this?  When you are considering this specific logical propsal:  "Perpetual bliss does not exist" do you assume it's true unless it is proven false?  Do you assume it's false unless it's proven true?  Do you assume it's unknown unless it's proven true or false?  The answer to these questions are important to determine what it means when an argument is presented in support or in opposition to the proposal.
 

 

In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) states that for every proposition, either this proposition or its negation is true.


... According to Brouwer, a statement that an object exists having a given property means that, and is only proved, when a method is known which in principle at least will enable such an object to be found or constructed …
 

Hilbert naturally disagreed. "Pure existence proofs have been the most important landmarks in the historical development of our science," he maintained. (Reid p. 155)
 

Brouwer refused to accept the logical principle of the excluded middle.


... In his lecture in 1941 at Yale and the subsequent paper, Gödel proposed a solution: "that the negation of a universal proposition was to be understood as asserting the existence … of a counterexample" (Dawson, p. 157)


... The debate seemed to weaken: mathematicians, logicians and engineers continue to use the law of excluded middle (and double negation) in their daily work.

(Wikipedia, "Law of excluded middle")
 

 

Well, I don't claim to be a logician.  When I get to the predicate calculus, my mind boggles.

 

[Mark Foote]

20 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

If possible can either of you bring some clarity on the buddhist attainment of something akin to "perpetual bliss"?  Did buddha teach about something which would match these words in english?  An attainment of "bliss"?

 

Also, anything in writing attributed to buddha I can read and review relating to Luke's qustion above and the question I asked is greatly appreciated.
 

Closest I've read, in the Pali sermons--bear in mind that "the cessation of ('determinate thought' in) perceiving and feeling" is the attainment associated with Gautama's enlightenment (the substance of that enlightenment being his insight into dependent causation):

 

… the situation occurs, Ananda, when wanderers belonging to other sects may speak thus: ‘The recluse (Gautama) speaks of the stopping of perceiving and feeling, and lays down that this belongs to happiness. Now what is this, now how is this?’ Ananda, wanderers belonging to other sects who speak thus should be spoken to thus: ‘Your reverences, (Gautama) does not lay down that it is only pleasant feeling that belongs to happiness; for, your reverences, the Tathagatha (the “Thus-Gone One”, the Buddha) lays down that whenever, wherever, whatever happiness is found it belongs to happiness. 
 

(MN I 400, Pali Text Society MN Vol. II p 69)

 

 

What does continue for one who has attained "the cessation of perceiving and feeling" and insight into conditional genesis is a particular relationship with the five hindrances, the hindrances being sensual lust, malevolence, sloth and torpor, excitement and flurry, and doubt and waivering.  Gautama said that the learner has the hindrances in check (not remembering the exact wording), but the arahant has cut them off at the root, as a person might cut a palm tree off at the root.  

Can't find the sermon right now, came across it the other day looking for something.

There's a happiness associated with each of the states of concentration, even though happiness apart from equanimity (with respect to the multiplicity of the senses) ceases in the fourth concentration.  As in the quote above, there's even a happiness after the fourth of the further states is transcended (the fourth further state marked by "equanimity with respect to uniformity" and "neither-perceiving-and-feeling-nor-not").

As I've said elsewhere, I think the notion of everlasting bliss is more of a Hindu or East Indian assumption than a Buddhist or Daoist one.  

 

Edited August 20, 2023 by Mark Foote

[Nungali]

22 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.  

 

Its about avoiding non - avoidance .

[liminal_luke]

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

 

Its about avoiding non - avoidance .

 

Do you mean it's about avoiding avoidance? 

 

Beginning meditators avoid things...uncomfortable bodily sensations, uncomfortable thoughts, uncomfortable emotions.  Middle of the road meditators avoid avoidance, allowing themselves to live, at least to some extent, without pushing away discomfort.  Advanced meditators don't avoid anything, not even avoidance.  This last step is a doozy and I can't speak to it from experience except to say that I suspect it's weird incomprehensibility opens up into exquisite beauty.

Edited August 20, 2023 by liminal_luke

[steve]

 

I enjoy the similarity of discussions here and …

 

 

[Daniel]

4 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

Its about avoiding non - avoidance .

 

4 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

Do you mean it's about avoiding avoidance? 

 

I think I was making too much of the word "void" in my reply to th OP.  But, it's nice that it brought some interesting fuel for a deeper discussion.  

[liminal_luke]

4 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

 

I think I was making too much of the word "void" in my reply to th OP.  But, it's nice that it brought some interesting fuel for a deeper discussion.  

 

The discussion has been good!  I wondered if you were using the word avoid to mean "to make void"...ie to experience as empty of separate identity?