SteveS55

She should have died hereafter; There would have been a time for such a word. To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow, Creeps in this petty pace from day to day To the last syllable of recorded time, And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more: it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing. - Macbeth Shakespeare was certainly on to something! Steve

Gotta love Nagarjuna, Tariki! A wonderful Christmas to you also, Soma. “Physicist Lisa Randall said the odds that the universe isn't "real" are so low as to be "effectively zero." So, this is not an illusion ........but before the realists celebrate, there is the other side: Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson said that he thinks the likelihood of the universe being a simulation "may be very high." If we attach a label, like “real” to everything apparent, then of course it is “real”, and everything that is not apparent is “not real”, or rather, not labeled. Even if existence is a simulation it is apparent and therefore “real”. “Real” doesn’t mean anything except as a designation. Whether you call existence “real” or “simulation” it doesn’t say anything about the nature/essence of existence.

Okay....I get it already, Rom. Have a wonderful holiday, and I will certainly ponder your contributions. You seem to keep us all from flying off into la la land (not the movie). Steve

I am not doubting that we are products of evolution and our conditioning, Rom. But, I'm not ready to accept the proposition that one's individual "chemistry" cannot be adjusted.

"If I were more of a sociopath than I already might be, I would use "empathy, compassion, my listening skills and the like" to manipulate others. Evolution has endowed me with these tools too." That sounds terribly cynical to me, but I suppose that's chemistry too!

"Once the ground shifts like that there can be no going back even if one wanted to. One ground becomes as possible as another. It has nothing at all to do with truth being relative, subjective or objective. So for me, looking back, no, it was not a faith decision for Buddhism, rather a recognition that trust/faith must needs be in Reality as such, and never in my own capacity to "work things out",or to decide by intellect the "true" version by which I "must" live. It is a letting go of such." This is probably as good a definition of "grace" as I have come across, Tariki. I can certainly relate to "no going back". The path is always known only in retrospect and what comes next is indeterminate but trustworthy. Steve

"Someone said, 'The intellect is a great servant, but a terrible master.'" I'm not sure who said this either, Soma. But, as masters have slaves, he may have meant that we do not want to be a "slaves to the intellect", anymore than we want to be slaves to our feelings, belief systems, another human being, or any other thing. My personal experience tells me this. Not so much anymore, but I used to work with a lot of "newcomers" in AA. I obviously used my intellect to decide on what method I would employ to try and reach a person, but I had to connect on a different level. I had to somehow participate in this person's suffering, not intellectually, but vicariously. That was easy because I had been there. The same is true when dealing with children. It's very hard for a child to relate to an adult intellectually; impossible. Not all people are equally "rational" under all circumstances. The trick is to have the wisdom to know when and how to use the intellect. Steve

I see what you are saying, Rom. I have (over the past few years) tried to draw a distinction between "faith" and "belief". Language may not allow it, but I continue to try. I will say that I "believe" Buddhism answers some of my questions, and I have "faith" that it may answer others. I have no evidence for it, merely an intuition. So, is that faith, belief, intellect, or other? And, does it matter? Are we only arguing semantics? Steve

“I recognize that many of those here, who have written and tried to explain Buddhism, have made a 'faith' decision: this way speaks to them, so they, in turn, and in some real way, give themselves over in trust and commitment in this way.” I can’t speak for the others here who have an interest in Buddhism, Thomas. I honestly don’t even consider myself a Buddhist! But, its philosophy and psychology do offer me some perhaps tentative and provisional answers to my questions about the nature of existence. I might have a different view of “faith decision” than most. I see “faith” as a confident expectation that I am proceeding according to my unique “karmic propensities”. I’m not sure what phrase that equates to in Christianity. But, I don’t mean anything supernatural by it. It’s sort of a catch-all to include my genetic predispositions, cultural, tribal, familial, educational, and all of the other environmental influences that have impacted my life. Now that I’m older I have some perspective on my “path”, and it begins to make sense in terms of everything I have experienced. At the time, I had no conscious clue what was happening. It would have been like trying to understand the path of a bird in flight. I am beginning to see that I was and am in a sense pre-determined to act according to those propensities. It’s always possible to make adjustments, change behavior (which I have definitely done) and so on, but what I am is what I started with plus how I have been conditioned, less adjustments made. That’s kind of an equation I guess! So, that’s my take on “faith”. Steve

In any case, Thomas, have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, to you, your family and everybody on this forum! Steve

"Even Steve's comments lead to more questions: if all is illusion, then the Buddha (who must also be an illusion) has no point: suffering, death and impermanence, and contingent existence have no truth because all are illusion. Further, not only words and intellectualization but everything else, all else is illusion. And how can there be a cycle of ignorance when there is not but fiction? And Steve, if you are illusion-ating, are you the Absolute changeless reality who was said to be 'behind' the illusions? If not, how could 'I am' create illusion when it is illusion?" Yes, Thomas, it is all illusion. The Buddha, ignorance, suffering, all of it is illusion. Everything is absent, yet apparent! You could say that it is all a lie, and yet the only "truth" we can know is conventional truth. Trying to go beyond that is attempting to understand the ineffable. "All conditioned phenomena Are like a dream, an illusion, a bubble, a shadow, Like dew or a flash of lightning; Thus we shall perceive them.” The Diamond Sutra Steve

I think that's a pretty good summary, Joseph. Buddhism (institutional), as well as Christianity, have pretty much gone off the rails over the centuries (in my opinion). It seems to me that the whole point of the Buddha's teaching was the truth of suffering, death and impermanence, and contingent existence (emptiness). Beyond that, he didn't have all that much to say outside of suggesting we try it for ourselves and see if it fits. As I recall, his idea of meditation, a prerequisite to clarity of mind, was sitting out in the forest somewhere and concentrating on the breath. What could be simpler? Everything else, as Tariki has pointed out, are just words and intellectualization, the very things that keep us in this cycle of ignorance. By the way, Thomas. The answer to the question of "who is illusion-ating" is "I" am!

"But who is illusion-ating?" That's a cool word, and a good question, Thomas. I suppose the answer would depend on who you ask among the various Buddhist schools. I once asked a Mahayana Buddhist teacher something along those lines, and he told me that it was the imputed "I". I know he wanted me to ponder that answer, but I'm still chewing on that one! Steve

I don't see it as a "hedge", Thomas. It is a description of the way things appear to us. I'm not trying to convince anyone of this, it's up to the individual to investigate this or not.

Well, as Padmasambhava is reported as saying: "Although my view is higher than the sky, my respect for the cause and effect of actions is as fine as grains of flour." Existence is "like" an illusion. It is a simile. It is a sensate and persistent illusion-like dream, mirage or hallucination. To ignore cause and effect in a causal universe would be foolish.This is why people plan for retirement, eat, drink, sleep, work, and so on. Steve

"As for the 'apex,' although I am sure it will be discussed and debated more on this site, I go with the answer of some ancients: the deification of man" That's a fair enough answer, Thomas. Theosis it is! That pretty much conforms to the Eastern Orthodox (Greek) and contemplative/ mystical wing of the Roman Catholic Church. Ultimately, in those traditions, deification is brought about through the "uncreated energies" (grace) of God. Steve

"Now, I do not know or have even thought through whether all creation (i.e. all things) 'move' to the higher being that is human and greater possibility. However, I do like what Tillich said about man reaching back and pulling all of creation along with him." With all due respect to Tillich, Thomas, this all sounds like abstract platitude. What is the apex of "human possibility" in your opinion? And, what is the apex approach? It seems to me that being "fully and truly human" (if there is such a thing), would, by necessity, encompass the experience of the under-belly of human nature; the experience of thieves, murderers, rapists, etc., not in action, but at least in thought. These behaviors fall within the population of human possibilities, but are not considered desirable, and so judgment must enter this equation. Which parts of human experience do we carve out to become "fully human"? And, are we then still "fully human", or something else? Steve

"Just happened to hit this small section of Stephen Batchelors latest book......'Sometime.....after ( the Buddha's death ) Buddhism seems to have taken a metaphysical turn. By adopting a language of truth, Buddhists moved from an engaged agency with the world to the theorizing stance of a detached subject contemplating epistemic objects........they shifted.....from prescripton to description, from pragmatism to ontology, from skepticism to dogmatism.'" I think Batchelor is right on target, Tariki. From what I can tell from the Pali Canon, the Buddha didn't really get into ontological issues. He seems to me to be the supreme existentialist. He was all about eliminating suffering (to the extent possible) in this life, and not worrying about what may come. There are in Buddhism, certain "unanswerables" the Buddha refused to discuss, and these have to do with ontological issues. Emptiness, as a metaphysical question, may be interesting to ponder and reflect upon, but it has very little relevance in our day-to-day life. The longer I think about it and read what others have to say about it, the more I think emptiness simply points to existence as "process"; every "thing" within our perceptual field interdependent with every other thing. Such a "realization", I suspect, frees us of the burden of notions which send us down every rabbit hole imaginable. Steve

"So, it seems evident that we can 'know (things) about' man, however, since man is 'more' than a thing, he can never be fully or truly known by the sciences." I'm not at all sure what you mean by the "more", Thomas. If there is no evidence for the"more" then it can't be investigated, and can't be "known" by the investigator. But to be investigated, you must have a hypothesis to begin with. So, what is the hypothesis? As far as "knowing others", we apparently have a brain that is capable of a sort of participative sharing of emotions with others; an ability to empathize with another person's suffering or joy. We sense when something is not quite right with a spouse, friend, and so on. But, even my dog can sense when things aren't quite right with me. She also seems to exhibit guilt feelings from time to time! I think it is exactly the "more" that we believe in that keeps us imprisoned by self. Steve

Mazel tov, Lemony, and welcome to the forum! Steve

Actually, Candy Crush Saga sounds pretty good about now, Tariki! Nice break before tackling Nagarjuna again. I thought the paper was pretty good, Soma. I'm not familiar with the author, but she references Jay Garfield a lot, with whom I am. Steve

I decided to post this paper on "Emptiness Teachings" in this section, so as not to go too far afield from Rom's original thread. It's a little dense, but if you are somewhat familiar with Buddhist philosophy it might be helpful. Enjoy. Steve https://emptinessteachings.com/2014/09/11/the-two-truths-of-buddhism-and-the-emptiness-of-emptiness/

I wasn't able to open the attachment, Soma, so I didn't know what I was "supposed" to see. As you explain it though, I would say it is an optical illusion, like reality! Thanks for the book recommendation, Tariki. I'm familiar with Batchelor, but haven't read that one. My general impression of the Buddhist notion of "emptiness" is that it is understood and taught differently by different schools and among different teachers. It is a concept that I suspect is very difficult for the Western mind to comprehend. Given that, I think the probability of anyone really "getting it" is rather low. That's not to say it couldn't arise adventitiously! Steve

Not sure what your point was here, Soma. I suppose by now a Zen master would simply tell me to shut up and wash my rice bowl! If anyone is interested in Buddhist philosophy and logic, anything by Nagarjuna with commentary is good. Steve

Well, so much for theories of epistemology! The Buddha, and later the Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna, destroyed Aristotelian logic and opened up the “excluded middle”. And, that became the “middle path” in Buddhism. There doesn’t seem to be much maneuvering room in that “middle”, at least in terms of discursive thought. Actually, discursive thought becomes a hindrance. Underlying that logic (or lack thereof) are the Buddhist axioms of impermanence and dependent origination, as well as the doctrine of the “two Truths” (conventional truth and absolute truth). Since these are “givens” in Buddhism, all knowledge of the conventional variety is provisional at best. This is because phenomena is not “real” in the sense that they are inherently existent, nor do they truly “exist”; they merely manifest and then cease manifesting. Ultimately, this seems to lead us in a circle. If absolute truth is the “emptiness” of all phenomena, then doesn’t the “emptiness of emptiness” follow from that? If so, then ultimate truth is conventional truth, and the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth! I think Merton just threw up his hands in frustration. Steve