It's not clear why you're making this about the charitableness of interpretation.
I'm saying that there's a lot of problems one would not have if one had not made the initial leap to faith in a religion.
It's not clear why you're making this about the charitableness of interpretation.
Had you thought that Sarath meant what I thought he meant, you could have saved yourself the bother of thinking that his faith presented him with any problems.
But it is presenting him problems. Hence all the threads and questions and not moving from the spot for years.
OK, you help him, and I'll watch. I'm assuming that Sarath is Sri Lankan Buddhist by birth, so we'll see how well he takes to "speculative non-Buddhism"...
Uh. I'm not presuming to be able to help. I was exploring what would happen if I point a person to the context of their question.
Speculative non-Buddhism is nowhere near as fancy as some think it is.I'm assuming that Sarath is Sri Lankan Buddhist by birth, so we'll see how well he takes to "speculative non-Buddhism"...
Agree.Hence all the threads and questions and not moving from the spot for years.
Oh, that place. Could potentially be interesting, if only they were able to criticize their fidelity to Lacan and Althusser as much as everyone else's fidelity to Buddhadhamma.binocular wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 7:50 pmUh. I'm not presuming to be able to help. I was exploring what would happen if I point a person to the context of their question.
Speculative non-Buddhism is nowhere near as fancy as some think it is.I'm assuming that Sarath is Sri Lankan Buddhist by birth, so we'll see how well he takes to "speculative non-Buddhism"...
At the end of the day, the ability to question sincerely and analyse critically are wonderful qualities. I think they are at the most crucial ingredients to spiritual maturity - so make sure you rejoice a bit in what qualities you have already uncovered. The brick wall comes down in only one way: by you developing and exercising your panna. Keep at it!
I don't see speculative non-Buddhism as a criticism of other people's fidelity to the Buddhadhamma, but as an attempt to make one's own committment to the Dhamma more realistic and such that one can really stand for it, as opposed to one's commitment being merely a leap to faith and a compulsion.
Not saying there is no brick wall. But saying there are many ways to deal with brick walls: tear them down, make a hole through them, make a tunnel under them, climb over them, walk around them, jump over them ... and see that some brick walls are actually made of cardboard painted like a brick wall.
That's quite charitable. I agree there's a lot to be said about very unrealistic relationships to the Dhamma being a huge problem. But I'm not sure the way to resolve it is by having such strong (and I think, uncritical) commitments to post-structuralism, post-marxism and psychoanalysis - and using them as the sole levers of critique. The issue for me is not those particular frameworks/theories (in fact I think used wisely they are very useful), but the sense in which they are adopted so uncritically, and universalised: I think this mirrors (rather than resolves) the issue. i.e. it only speaks to people who already know those theories and can speak within their contexts - a tiny minority of people who work in the humanities and social sciences, who are already committed to those theoretical perspectives. So it becomes a self-referential bubble, in constant danger of being the very thing it wants to deconstruct: unreflexive ideology/papanca.binocular wrote: ↑Tue Mar 06, 2018 12:36 pmI don't see speculative non-Buddhism as a criticism of other people's fidelity to the Buddhadhamma, but as an attempt to make one's own committment to the Dhamma more realistic and such that one can really stand for it, as opposed to one's commitment being merely a leap to faith and a compulsion.
For me, there is no such commitment or adoption of those theories for the purpose of making my own commitment to the Dhamma more realistic. When I first read some of Wallis' work, it simply made sense to me and addressed concerns I'd been having for a long time, put into words things that I was unable to do so. I'm possibly reading his and others' speculative non-Buddhist texts in ways they weren't intended by their authors, especially since I see no need to divest Buddhism of its transcendental references.Upeksha wrote: ↑Tue Mar 06, 2018 10:40 pmBut I'm not sure the way to resolve it is by having such strong (and I think, uncritical) commitments to post-structuralism, post-marxism and psychoanalysis - and using them as the sole levers of critique. The issue for me is not those particular frameworks/theories (in fact I think used wisely they are very useful), but the sense in which they are adopted so uncritically, and universalised: I think this mirrors (rather than resolves) the issue. i.e. it only speaks to people who already know those theories and can speak within their contexts - a tiny minority of people who work in the humanities and social sciences, who are already committed to those theoretical perspectives. So it becomes a self-referential bubble, in constant danger of being the very thing it wants to deconstruct: unreflexive ideology/papanca.
Conversely, there seems to be no meaningful entry point into Buddhism (or any other religion for that matter) for someone who was not born into it. Without a leap to faith, there seems to be no way to begin in a religion.So it becomes a self-referential bubble, in constant danger of being the very thing it wants to deconstruct: unreflexive ideology/papanca.
The brick wall is the claim that Buddha said there is no self. He didn't. He said the body is not the self, emotions are not the self, character dispositions are not the self, perception is not the self, and the emodied consciousness is not the self (for vijnana corresponds directly to ahamkara [aka I-maker] in Samkhya philosophy, or in other words that sit-in control mechanism the spirit/soul emanates into the world to grasp a body on its behalf). All of this is said to eliminate what cannot be the self so you can figure out what the self is, i.e. the thing doing the clinging and initiating the process of all this other crap coming into being via the process of dependent arising (i.e. because you cling to a desire to exist in the physical world, a vijnana is formed and emanated from you to sit in a physical body on your behalf). He makes this clear by explaining how he knows these things are not self: "Monks, is the body permanent or impermanent? Impermanent, Lord. So then it is not the self. Monks, are emotions permanent or impermanent? Impermanent, Lord. So then they are not the self. etc. etc." He knows the 5 aggregates are not the self because they are impermanent. The implication is he knows this because he knows the self is permanent, is the permanent soul/spirit that is supramundane, outside the world, and due to ignorance clings and emanates a sort of "extension" of itself (which nonetheless is separate from itself and impermanent) into the world. If you apriori have rejected the very thing he is pointing to, then you will forever hit a brick wall. He is a finger pointing at the moon, but if you apriori denied the existence of the moon, well then its over because you'll never be able to understand.