aflatun wrote: ↑
Sun Feb 25, 2018 11:21 pm
Nice, thanks for that!
boundless wrote: ↑
Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:19 pm
By the way thanks for sharing the dialogue
Of course, I highly recommend his talks, rather then listen to music I often listen to those, over and over and over...
Yeah, I understand he is very interesting
aflatun wrote: ↑
Sun Feb 25, 2018 11:21 pm
It's OK to think too much, we all do it! We can take this up elsewhere if you like as I don't want to bomb the thread any more then I already have, but in very general terms I agree with you, those seem to be the tendencies of the respective traditions, especially if our baseline for Mahayana is some forms of East Asian Buddhism, especially modern incarnations thereof like Suzuki (If we looked at Classical Indian Mahayana I think we would come away with a different picture!): But I find when you take it on an author by author basis comparisons become more meaningful and common ground more obvious.
Regarding the "thiniking too much" problem... as I said in my introduction I am only a student of Buddhism, for now (I cannot consider myself a "buddhist"*. Yet I am very drawn to Buddhism and find a lot of inspiration in it - I hope this is not a problem for my staying here
). But it really helps to see that in fact "thinking too much" is quite common here, even among who is more advanced in the practice and in faith, so to speak.
Regarding East Asian Buddhism I agree that it is generally more "life-affirming" than other forms of it. At the same time however I find concepts like "non-abiding Nirvana" (which is accepted in all forms of Mahayana afaik) quite difficult to reconcile to what we find in the Suttas. But I agree that it is better to discuss it in an other thread! (actually, I thought to open one about this issue in the DharmaWheel forum).
*Well... according to this quiz https://thedhamma.com/areyoubuddhist.htm
, in some sense I am a "buddhist"
Sam Vara wrote: ↑
Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:12 am
Thanks for the latest input. I have no problems with there being a "self" at some level, according to Buddhism; indeed, if anyone were to deny that, it would probably warn me against delving any further into what was being said by them. I do have a difficulty, however, with the idea that characteristics of that empirical self - in particular, its boundedness, and its particularistic unity (i.e. that certain phenomena are unified by means of my perception, whereas others are not) - are the result of not seeing things "as they really are". We could, of course, postulate the existence of anything as a means to reconcile apparently contradictory bits of theory, but the problem with this one is that it begins to look a lot like panpsychism, Hinduism, or something similar. If in reality, or even at another level of reality (comparable to the atomic level in your analogy) consciousness were not so bounded and particularistically unified, then it would be a universal consciousness. I'm not saying there's not such a thing, of course, but it doesn't sit well with what the Buddha taught.
Although the analogy with waves etc. is useful for the purposes of illustration, I don't think we can reason anything further from it. Waves, water molecules, atoms, etc., are all objects of consciousness within space and time. We can say that one comprehends or subsumes another when talking about such objects, but the unity of our consciousness is not one of them.
Yeah, I agree!
Regarding the wave analogy, I agree that it has its limits. But if you apply it to "the percieved world" ("loka"), then IMO it is better. In my view if there is a "self" of sorts, then also the "(its) world" must be unified. But if it is not unified, then to posit a "self" existing at "all levels" is quite problemtic (according to Advaita, the Self is "one", so the entire "ocean", so to speak is "unified". IMO Buddhism accepts the idea that we are like waves in the ocean, but sees the ocean as not a "single unifieid thing"!).
Anyway, the trascendental argument is the strongest one. And in fact I do not think that it can be really refuted. It is here that "faith" comes in
(and as I said to aflatun I am not really strong in faith, being still a "seeker"
auto wrote: ↑
Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:52 am
Unconditioned phenomena are different from realism.
Realism is what you measure has a value or state. But with unconditional phenomena, there is no value before measurement.
If you hit your toe against the wall, does the pain exist in the wall or in the toe?
I admit that it is unclear to me what you are suggesting. Anyway I try to answer.
Regarding the question. I think that answering "in the toe" is better (to be more precise it "arises" in consciousness, as a result of the "change" we percieve in the toe). But I say that answering "in the wall" is completely wrong!
So are you suggesting that the "unconditioned" exists as a "state of mind" freed form contidioning? A state of mind, without a percieved "center" (so no "sense of self"), maybe