Krishnamurty-inspired off-topic posts

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Pseudobabble
Posts: 925
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:11 am
Location: London

Re: Krishnamurty-inspired off-topic posts

Post by Pseudobabble » Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:29 am

Saegnapha wrote: You cannot get to the undistorted through distortion no matter what anyone says.
...
Everything you do is an attempt by this thought structure to escape itself, adjust itself, survive another day.
In order to leave the room, you must use the door - which is part of the room.

There is no leaving without taking in hand the door handle - which is inside the room, part of the room.

You have to walk across the floor to get to the door - door and floor are part of the room.

Etc.
"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.'" - Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta


'Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.' - Genesis 3:19

'Some fart freely, some try to hide and silence it. Which one is correct?' - Saegnapha

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism

Post by Saengnapha » Sat Jun 30, 2018 1:49 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:19 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:13 am
Sam Vara wrote:
Fri Jun 29, 2018 5:33 pm


Here's your post, Saengnapha:



it consists of three negatives; one per sentence. Whether you are addressing one person or a trend, it would be much better if you could either substantiate those negatives (i.e. "Why does the psychological have little to do with nature?"..."Why is 'weeding' not going to affect any natural law?"..."Why is that approach all wrong?") or come up with something positive. Whether or not something is uninspected in me, or my own belief structure, or whether I agree with it, is beside the point here. I'm simply asking you to prove the substance of your point.
A natural law takes place regardless of what the psychological 'thinks' about it. Weeding is a mental process. You pick and choose what you want or don't want. This works from having an image of what you think is 'right' or 'good' or what you should become. It is an attachment. You desire some things and shun others. Natural laws have nothing to do with this process. They are bio-physical in nature, happening without your mental/emotional participation. This is why I say that we are usually interfering with natural laws. In truth, we are the natural laws but our thinking separates and divides us. Is this difficult to see? I don't think so.
That's better! Some positive assertions, rather than mere denial of someone's viewpoint.

Here are my thoughts on them, anyway. It might be that there are "natural laws" taking place regardless of what "the psychological thinks about it". But I'm a bit unclear as to what the natural laws might be, and also what counts here as "the psychological". Many Buddhists, for example, would consider thinking to instantiate certain causal principles, such as citta-niyama or kamma-niyama. Natural laws of thinking would be a good way of putting it. Many would also draw a clear distinction between doing good things and being attached to them; for example, the difference that is pointed to by the words chanda and tanha.

If people can make these distinctions and beneficially operate with them, then it would be difficult to maintain your original point that the approach is "all wrong and has nothing to do with the truth". Such distinctions would appear to have the same abstract status as "natural law".

Or maybe it is more difficult to see than you think. I'm very willing to engage with such concepts, rather than just denying their validity or efficacy.
I would equate how the body operates itself as a natural law. The cell rebuilding themselves. The various systems like digestive, lymph, brain functions, the way information of a molecular nature is transmitted through the body are governed by energies and laws that we have no control over or understanding about. They can't be seen and they are not controlled by a center that the psychological might imagine. The thinking structure might be a similar system but since our thoughts are given to us by our culture and the accumulation of mankind's experience passed down through this structure, the natural laws seem prior to the content of thinking. But the thought structure is more like an overlay of values over the sensory information that the body processes to stay alive.

You can adjust what you think, change the channel, so to speak. But this doesn't stop dukkha. It can make you more comfortable, less stressed. Nothing wrong with that. The end of dukkha is the end of the psychological, that system that puts into place the sense of self/separation that is the dream of existence. That is the world of 'becoming' and 'craving'. Truth is a wholly different matter and hopefully, you can see why. It's not a matter of putting on any rosecolored glasses and grooving your way through the day being mindful and thinking good thoughts. To me, it seems like a radical transformation that real insight brings to the body and mind, not a shift in your thought structure. You need to think otherwise an Arahant would not be able to live and converse with others.

Is that a little clearer or still muddled to you?

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Krishnamurty-inspired off-topic posts

Post by Saengnapha » Sat Jun 30, 2018 1:51 pm

Pseudobabble wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:29 am
Saegnapha wrote: You cannot get to the undistorted through distortion no matter what anyone says.
...
Everything you do is an attempt by this thought structure to escape itself, adjust itself, survive another day.
In order to leave the room, you must use the door - which is part of the room.

There is no leaving without taking in hand the door handle - which is inside the room, part of the room.

You have to walk across the floor to get to the door - door and floor are part of the room.

Etc.
If you are in a room.

And now, to see the World Cup match. I'll go with France.

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Vedana best translated as feeling emotion or sensation ?

Post by Saengnapha » Sat Jun 30, 2018 4:25 pm

James Tan wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 1:48 pm
SarathW wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 7:24 am
The way I understand Vedana is always bodily.
So it is not an emotional state like fear or anger.
However Abhidhamma has the following catogries.

Five Kinds:
bodily agreeable feeling — kaayikaa sukhaa vedanaa (sukha)
bodily disagreeable feeling — kaayikaa dukkhaa vedanaa (dukkha)
mentally agreeable feeling — cetasikaa sukhaa vedanaa (somanassa)
mentally disagreeable feeling — cetasikaa dukkhaa vedanaa (domanassa)
indifferent or neutral feeling — adukkha-m-asukhaa vedanaa (upekkhaa)
Six Kinds:
Feelings born of eye-contact, ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact and mind-contact.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... el322.html
The question is if you take vedana as bodily sensation or experience , that is restricted to Touching the body which give rise to that sensation !
What about the eye sight which does not Directly Touching the eyeball ?
The sight(feeling) arises or occurs not on the eyeball right ? You look at a flower and you say nice , that is mentally .
Light touches the eye........

sentinel
Posts: 1781
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Vedana best translated as feeling emotion or sensation ?

Post by sentinel » Sat Jun 30, 2018 4:41 pm

Saengnapha wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 4:25 pm
James Tan wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 1:48 pm
SarathW wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 7:24 am
The way I understand Vedana is always bodily.
So it is not an emotional state like fear or anger.
However Abhidhamma has the following catogries.

Five Kinds:
bodily agreeable feeling — kaayikaa sukhaa vedanaa (sukha)
bodily disagreeable feeling — kaayikaa dukkhaa vedanaa (dukkha)
mentally agreeable feeling — cetasikaa sukhaa vedanaa (somanassa)
mentally disagreeable feeling — cetasikaa dukkhaa vedanaa (domanassa)
indifferent or neutral feeling — adukkha-m-asukhaa vedanaa (upekkhaa)
Six Kinds:
Feelings born of eye-contact, ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact and mind-contact.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... el322.html
The question is if you take vedana as bodily sensation or experience , that is restricted to Touching the body which give rise to that sensation !
What about the eye sight which does not Directly Touching the eyeball ?
The sight(feeling) arises or occurs not on the eyeball right ? You look at a flower and you say nice , that is mentally .
Light touches the eye........
Closing your eyes therefore darkness is Neutral feeling / sensation or No feeling / sensation ?

And the mind vs objects give rise to feeling is physical sensation ?
:buddha1:

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 5332
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism

Post by Sam Vara » Sat Jun 30, 2018 6:00 pm

Saengnapha wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 1:49 pm

I would equate how the body operates itself as a natural law. The cell rebuilding themselves. The various systems like digestive, lymph, brain functions, the way information of a molecular nature is transmitted through the body are governed by energies and laws that we have no control over or understanding about.
Many scientists might disagree with you, in that our understanding of physiological systems has hugely advanced over the last few hundred years. Even to grasp what types of laws our bodies are subject to is an important form of understanding.
The thinking structure might be a similar system but since our thoughts are given to us by our culture and the accumulation of mankind's experience passed down through this structure, the natural laws seem prior to the content of thinking. But the thought structure is more like an overlay of values over the sensory information that the body processes to stay alive.
Again, many people might disagree with you on the grounds that there are laws (in the sense of regularities analogous to those of the natural world) which shape our thoughts. They might be of a different order, or assume the existence of a different substance, etc., but I can't see any a priori reason why thinking should be excluded.
You can adjust what you think, change the channel, so to speak. But this doesn't stop dukkha. It can make you more comfortable, less stressed.


It can certainly stop particular types of Dukkha. (For example, if I abandon a thought that distresses me, then that particular instance of Dukkha is finished, so it seems.) Perhaps all dukkha can be eliminated in a similar fashion; I don't know, and the terms are probably too loosely defined to make much progress here.
The end of dukkha is the end of the psychological, that system that puts into place the sense of self/separation that is the dream of existence. That is the world of 'becoming' and 'craving'. Truth is a wholly different matter and hopefully, you can see why. It's not a matter of putting on any rosecolored glasses and grooving your way through the day being mindful and thinking good thoughts. To me, it seems like a radical transformation that real insight brings to the body and mind, not a shift in your thought structure.
Well, unless we have had that radical transformation, we don't know whether it could be usefully paraphrased as being a shift in one's thought structure. There doesn't seem to be much point in arguing about the exact nature of a future transformation we haven't yet had. However the radical transformation is characterised, I think that those who advocate the Gradual Training or following the Eightfold Path are usually working on the received opinion that certain types of mental preparation are more likely to bring it about than others. I don't know anyone who advocates the putting on of rosecoloured glasses and grooving one's way through the day being mindful and thinking good thoughts; where is this from?

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism

Post by Saengnapha » Sun Jul 01, 2018 2:50 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 1:49 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 6:00 pm
You can adjust what you think, change the channel, so to speak. But this doesn't stop dukkha. It can make you more comfortable, less stressed.


It can certainly stop particular types of Dukkha. (For example, if I abandon a thought that distresses me, then that particular instance of Dukkha is finished, so it seems.) Perhaps all dukkha can be eliminated in a similar fashion; I don't know, and the terms are probably too loosely defined to make much progress here.
The end of dukkha is the end of the psychological, that system that puts into place the sense of self/separation that is the dream of existence. That is the world of 'becoming' and 'craving'. Truth is a wholly different matter and hopefully, you can see why. It's not a matter of putting on any rosecolored glasses and grooving your way through the day being mindful and thinking good thoughts. To me, it seems like a radical transformation that real insight brings to the body and mind, not a shift in your thought structure.
Well, unless we have had that radical transformation, we don't know whether it could be usefully paraphrased as being a shift in one's thought structure. There doesn't seem to be much point in arguing about the exact nature of a future transformation we haven't yet had. However the radical transformation is characterised, I think that those who advocate the Gradual Training or following the Eightfold Path are usually working on the received opinion that certain types of mental preparation are more likely to bring it about than others. I don't know anyone who advocates the putting on of rosecoloured glasses and grooving one's way through the day being mindful and thinking good thoughts; where is this from?
Yes, you can stop some kinds of obvious dukkha, things that are not rational. People believed in a flat world until they were shown it is not flat. If all dukkha could be eliminated through rational thinking, you would see a very different kind of man/woman. This is your theory but I say it doesn't work. I have applied the theory to my experience and it doesn't stop dukkha. Theravada is a theory. It has given you hope and belief. It is a temporary feeling of satisfaction. But dukkha returns just like the weeds in the garden. They continue to pop up and you continue to weed. If this is not a circular activity I don't know how else to say it. You never get to the root of dukkha. The root to me seems to be the thinking structure itself. There is nothing outside of the thinking structure except awareness of it. You bring your attention to it and 'see' what it is and what it is doing. There is no opposition to the thinking structure, it is what it is, but this seeing of it seems to result in what Buddhists call dispassion or disinterest. These are your terms, not mine, but we can use them. Dispassion is a kind of non-interest in what the thought structure is creating. The UG theory, if I can put it that way, is when you leave it alone because you see what it is creating. You stop helping it. When you stop helping it, its energy is changed on an organic level. That seeking, that effort to know, understand, realize, is freed up in a new way. If you indeed see that the thought structure is producing dukkha, how or why would you abet it? Why would you believe anything that it has to say about this subject? It is full of illusions, beliefs.

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16874
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Krishnamurty-inspired off-topic posts

Post by mikenz66 » Sun Jul 01, 2018 2:56 am

I'm curious why you keep mentioning "thinking" as being ineffective. Surely that's obvious in the Buddhist path as well?

Mike

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism

Post by Saengnapha » Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:02 am

Sam Vara wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 6:00 pm

Well, unless we have had that radical transformation, we don't know whether it could be usefully paraphrased as being a shift in one's thought structure. There doesn't seem to be much point in arguing about the exact nature of a future transformation we haven't yet had. However the radical transformation is characterised, I think that those who advocate the Gradual Training or following the Eightfold Path are usually working on the received opinion that certain types of mental preparation are more likely to bring it about than others. I don't know anyone who advocates the putting on of rosecoloured glasses and grooving one's way through the day being mindful and thinking good thoughts; where is this from?
Come on, Sam. You haven't read that sutta? It's just a figure of speech, man.

I do agree that there is little use guessing at the exact nature of transformation, now or in the future. There is also no evidence aside from actual interest and observation that there is any preparation necessary as in the 8 fold path, especially mental preparation, which is really the crux of it. Transformation is not a mental process although it seems to include the mental functions because they are part of the whole organism.

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Vedana best translated as feeling emotion or sensation ?

Post by Saengnapha » Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:04 am

James Tan wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 4:41 pm
Saengnapha wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 4:25 pm
James Tan wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 1:48 pm


The question is if you take vedana as bodily sensation or experience , that is restricted to Touching the body which give rise to that sensation !
What about the eye sight which does not Directly Touching the eyeball ?
The sight(feeling) arises or occurs not on the eyeball right ? You look at a flower and you say nice , that is mentally .
Light touches the eye........
Closing your eyes therefore darkness is Neutral feeling / sensation or No feeling / sensation ?

And the mind vs objects give rise to feeling is physical sensation ?
Try as you may to analyze all this, it will not get you closer to any real understanding. You are just thinking and thinking about thinking.

chownah
Posts: 7932
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Vedana best translated as feeling emotion or sensation ?

Post by chownah » Sun Jul 01, 2018 4:06 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:04 am
Try as you may to analyze all this, it will not get you closer to any real understanding. You are just thinking and thinking about thinking.
I think you might speak with some kind of authority if you were to say "I will not get myself closer to any real understandin." But I don't see how there is any way that you could speak with authority concerning what might help james tan get closer to any real understanding.
chownah

sentinel
Posts: 1781
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Vedana best translated as feeling emotion or sensation ?

Post by sentinel » Sun Jul 01, 2018 4:22 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:04 am
James Tan wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 4:41 pm
Saengnapha wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 4:25 pm

Light touches the eye........
Closing your eyes therefore darkness is Neutral feeling / sensation or No feeling / sensation ?

And the mind vs objects give rise to feeling is physical sensation ?
Try as you may to analyze all this, it will not get you closer to any real understanding. You are just thinking and thinking about thinking.
Perhaps you could elaborate what do you mean by the word thinking ?
:buddha1:

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Vedana best translated as feeling emotion or sensation ?

Post by Saengnapha » Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:19 am

chownah wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 4:06 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:04 am
Try as you may to analyze all this, it will not get you closer to any real understanding. You are just thinking and thinking about thinking.
I think you might speak with some kind of authority if you were to say "I will not get myself closer to any real understandin." But I don't see how there is any way that you could speak with authority concerning what might help james tan get closer to any real understanding.
chownah
Okay, I can go along with that.

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Vedana best translated as feeling emotion or sensation ?

Post by Saengnapha » Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:22 am

James Tan wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 4:22 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:04 am
James Tan wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 4:41 pm


Closing your eyes therefore darkness is Neutral feeling / sensation or No feeling / sensation ?

And the mind vs objects give rise to feeling is physical sensation ?
Try as you may to analyze all this, it will not get you closer to any real understanding. You are just thinking and thinking about thinking.
Perhaps you could elaborate what do you mean by the word thinking ?
Isn't analysis thinking? We posit a subject and then we think about it. More thoughts come up and we think about those. Always thinking......

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 5332
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism

Post by Sam Vara » Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:40 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:02 am
Sam Vara wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 6:00 pm

Well, unless we have had that radical transformation, we don't know whether it could be usefully paraphrased as being a shift in one's thought structure. There doesn't seem to be much point in arguing about the exact nature of a future transformation we haven't yet had. However the radical transformation is characterised, I think that those who advocate the Gradual Training or following the Eightfold Path are usually working on the received opinion that certain types of mental preparation are more likely to bring it about than others. I don't know anyone who advocates the putting on of rosecoloured glasses and grooving one's way through the day being mindful and thinking good thoughts; where is this from?
Come on, Sam. You haven't read that sutta? It's just a figure of speech, man.
Sorry, you've lost me here. Which sutta, and what figure of speech? Do you mean that the "putting on rosecoloured glasses..." etc. is a figure of speech? If so, I'm wondering why you would use it - it looks more like a parody or straw man.
I do agree that there is little use guessing at the exact nature of transformation, now or in the future. There is also no evidence aside from actual interest and observation that there is any preparation necessary as in the 8 fold path, especially mental preparation, which is really the crux of it. Transformation is not a mental process although it seems to include the mental functions because they are part of the whole organism.
This looks as if it might be a version of Zeno's Paradox of Motion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes I'm happy to take interest and observation as sufficient evidence of the efficacy of the Eightfold Path; if that's not evidence, then what counts as evidence for anything? What counts as evidence that UG Krishnamurti was in any sense different from other people, in a sense worth paying attention to?

Perhaps the evidence I and others have that the Eightfold Path including its mental processes is necessary is as strong as any evidence you have about UG. And perhaps this "transformation" you talk of (What is "transformation"? Was UG "transformed"? Let's get a bit more clarity into this...) is completely different from the teachings of the Buddha. Perhaps there are people trying to get to Rajagaha https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .horn.html but you are advising them that motion is not required, because you are confusing the term "Rajagaja" with something else.

For those wishing to attain nibbana, do you consider the Eightfold Path necessary? Or is there no nibbana?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 72 guests