galen_burnett

The Dao Bums
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    178

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by galen_burnett

  1. @stirling bruh… “bravely”?? it sounds a lot like you’re being pissy, and from that i could only conclude that my mere challenging the notion of ‘perpetual bliss’ has triggered you into a disgruntled state so as to feel the need to attack me. please quickly clear this up if i’ve misread you. the rest of the thread addresses the difficulties of having a philosophy that can’t describe itself, especially such a one which also promises a golden heaven to the aspirant. you’re clearly heavily into these philosophies, so if you’re going to partake in the discussion of this thread you should really lay your opinion out straight on the idea of the existence of an attainable ‘perpetual-bliss’: is it real? is it not? or are you agnostic?
  2. It seems odd to me that a monk would say something like that—thus seemingly denying any sort of attainable state of ‘perpetual-bliss’—yet continue to, presumably, sit in meditation for long hours every day, and also, presumably, encourage others to emulate his diligence as best they are able. Seems to me he’s not being straight with us: if there’s nothing to get from spending so much time on it, then why is he even doing it? a little daily meditation will do anyone good, but there’s a lot more to life than quiet meditation…
  3. @Mark Foote in your comment on the 26th (page 12) you quote this "Most people are not on a spiritual path because they already have what’s being looked for on a spiritual path." (from Cobie?). Well, kind of, I’d say. Most people don’t have to search too hard for their satisfaction because they are, by definition, average: the world is organised to produce satisfaction as efficiently as possible for the ‘average human-being’. But the average person still suffers, the average person does not abide in some celestial luminescence of shining bliss, which is often what people on spiritual-paths are seeking, which is what my complaint in this thread is—people deluded into thinking they can get that—; the average person has fun, and then he suffers, simple as that. So, yes the average person has what the spiritual seeker wants—relatively easy access to happiness—; but on the other hand they totally don’t have it—they have no coveted ‘perpetual-bliss’. and in the latter part of this same comment—you quite explicitly say that, yes, what the Buddha got was Enlightenment, and you even continue to give a brief description of it “cessation of determinate thought”, and you describe it as desirable. So why is this Enlightenment desirable then? and why is it “ultimate”? The way you talked about the Buddha still even in that state being unable to avoid slight disturbances smelled a lot like someone saying “well, nothing’s perfect, but certainly you will be happy 99% of the time”…
  4. @Mark Foote in your reply to liminal_luke on the 26th (page 12) you seem to invalidating Buddhist doctrine, seem to be saying that none of the text really matters, just the practice. Well, are you chucking everything? No, you’re not: you’re keeping the parts that instruct you in that practice and the parts that supply motivation for that practice… including the Enlightenment stuff maybe?
  5. Having a position regarding philosophy and ontology necessitates some sort of label: “i don’t believe in any gods”—atheistic—; “i don’t believe in free-will”—determinist—; i believe in the immortality of the soul—Platonist, or Christian, for want of better words. Professing the existence of an attainable eternal bliss definitely is qualified as a philosophical position, thus necessitating a label, which others will then give him even if it makes him uncomfortable on his seat beneath his fig tree. I know you yourself seem to be saying that that’s not what Buddhism preaches; but, again, there’s already tons of people in this very thread testifying to it.
  6. In that case it can’t be known, can’t be experienced—so it effectively doesn’t exist. Both knowledge and experience depend on a frame of reference, a Duality, a non-Unity, to have any meaning.
  7. Could you please explain that first line Daniel?
  8. Or 1,654 pixels, maybe?
  9. @Daniel Out of curiosity, what did you mean by “Nor is the concept of the delusion being rejected.”, Daniel, in the penultimate paragraph of your reply to iinatti on the 25th (page 11), when talking about the evangelicals? and would you be able to just clarify the last paragraph of that reply also, regarding ‘doctrine’? do you mean that in their (‘Non-Dualists’) doctrine ‘attachment’ is despised, yet they are attached to claiming perfect absolution from delusion?

  10. Lotus Nei Gong process; how long?

    galen_burnett replied to galen_burnett's topic in Systems and Teachers of

    @David G Thanks.

  11. Lotus Nei Gong process; how long?

    galen_burnett replied to galen_burnett's topic in Systems and Teachers of

    I meant to write that to you in the Enlightenment thread actually, I mistakenly put it here instead. I’m back now and will reply to you as I work through the new comments 👍
  12. No, you’re not. You’re not fooling me. You’re not agnostic like Daniel, you are definitely in the Enlightenment camp, as everything you’ve said in this thread testifies to. You’re just trying to say the thing that would get the most positively enthusiastic response from people at this point in the thread (‘like’ farming), irregardless of the truth.
  13. @steve your reply to me on august 24th. your first paragraph: i agree. your second paragraph: i agree up to to the point about ‘being OK with no solution’. No, we can get good at coping, but we will always continue to suffer until we find a solution to whatever problem is causing us trouble. We can adapt even, and it is even possible in theory for a being to adapt to such an extent whereat the once poison is now nectar—a bit like organisms who thrive in extreme temperatures, like the deep-sea volcano critters—but such an extreme adaptation requires a transformation so radical that it would leave you pretty much unrecognisable from what you were in the beginning. Such a radical transformation would be required to adapt completely to the pain of something like, i don’t know, bronchitis, or an injured knee, or M.E. (chronic fatigue), etc. As long as the problem is causing pain, then you are not ‘OK’. We can compromise, and say “i will tolerate this for my life, so long as i get to do this, this and this as well” which bears a resemblance to an acceptance of the pain—but there will still be a relief at the moment of death when the pain passes, or whenever the time comes for that pain to move on. As for myself, accepting an eternal 50/50 ratio of pain and joy to existence, i don’t know if i can say “i am ok with this”… yes of course the fantasy of a higher ratio of joy [cue everyone saying “bLiSs iS nOt j0yYyYY!!1!1!”] is attractive, but i can’t in good-conscience believe in it, for all the reasons i’ve already given in this thread; 50/50 kind-of blows my mind to think of the neutrality of it, but there we are; and so maybe i do say “i am ok with 50/50”, and by extension i am ok with being in pain as i acknowledge that i will always be one foot in pain and one foot in joy no matter where i go. so i guess in a round-about way i can say i can agree with you on “this pain is ok”; but the difference is that i maintain that a solution will always be sought after, no matter the philosophical acceptance of eternal 50/50, because that’s just how the engine of life works. To say, however, that ‘perpetual-bliss’ can be found in letting go of chasing a solution, a ‘perpetual-bliss’ that transcends both pain and joy, is fallacious; it seems to me that this is what you are implying—in agreement with most others on this thread—even though you have not explicitly stated it. your third paragraph: yes, there you go, you just validated my accusation of Buddhism breaking its own rules. “all things are impermanent, except for ‘perpetual-bliss’ which is achieved through union with the “unconditional”. I’m confident enough that that is what you are implying to call you out on it. But if you are not, and rather you are just commenting on the eternal indelible nature of existence and the universe and its relationship to the constant flux of its forms, then i agree with you—it is a pleasant phenomenon to consider. your fourth paragraph: yes, there we are, i’m afraid right there you have reiterated the premiss that my whole OP is arguing against.
  14. If only Paul Dano would have had the Swiss-army capabilities of Harry’s wand he might’ve stood a better chance at manipulating Day-Lewis to get his money…
  15. @Ajay0 your reply to me on august 24th. Sure, he advocates independent investigation… but what about that part that you literally just quoted that refutes this to a certain extent—“Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them.' “. He’s saying, “investigate independently and you will see for yourself that what the people who are correct—the wise—know is true”; so he’s basically saying all roads lead to Rome, that everyone can take a different path to the truth but all will discover the same truth. And that truth is what he claims to be ‘perpetual-bliss’. So, again, he’s super-clever: he’s like a Disney villain, he says “there’s this palace of gold over there that you can get to… but don’t take my word for it, go and see for yourself” and then you never find said palace because it doesn’t exist. If he hadn’t implanted the fantasy of ‘perpetual-bliss’ in you then you (probably) never would have set out to seek it through your independent investigation and certainly would never have found it in any case because, again, it doesn’t exist ”This shows clearly that you have not done your scholarly due diligence or homework, and have faulty premises or weak foundations for your arguments, and this is why you are unable to perceive, and more importantly attain the joy of the Buddha nature present within yourself. ” you’ve just called someone weak and unsubstantiated without giving any evidence for that allegation, which ironically is a weak and unsubstantiated allegation itself.
  16. @Michael Sternbach what do you think archeologists have got wrong about prehistoric civs? i still don’t follow the “nungali is an inaccurate human” bit though, don’t understand that part.
  17. so you’re at once trying to disassociate yourself from the ‘perpetual-bliss’ camp—“prozelytising about spiritual experiences makes one look foolish”—so you can avoid having anything pinned on you; but then you think you can sneak back around and get back in that same camp to sling one at me—“arguing about those you don’t understand even more so”. that’s just slimy: “i never said it! (here i am saying it many times over)”. what don’t i understand? i understand that people think they can get to heaven by meditating. i don’t think you’re aware of how common the abuse of ‘pretty-privilege’ is in society, and so how obvious it is when people use it—and by extension ‘cuteness-privilege’. i mean, how pathetic is that to think that using a picture of a small animal strengthens your argument?

  18. Lotus Nei Gong process; how long?

    galen_burnett replied to galen_burnett's topic in Systems and Teachers of

    @Daniel Just to let you know I won’t be available for a couple of weeks, so will reply to you afterwards.

  19. Lotus Nei Gong process; how long?

    galen_burnett replied to galen_burnett's topic in Systems and Teachers of

    I am going to be busy with something over the next two weeks so won’t have time to reply at all. Will resume responding to replies afterwards.
  20. Sounds like a very cool experience you had Daniel!
  21. you wanna contribute or…?
  22. somehow i feel my victory is hollow…
  23. @Mark Foote 20/08/23 yes the notion of an infinitely progressing and unfolding existence is interesting, which is what I think the idea of not being able to prove all mathematics implies; and I said in my reply to Daniel that I admit it could be the truth; just that it doesn’t make as much sense to me—with my current understanding—as my current model does. I could still fit my 50/50 pain-joy ratio in such a reality however, and could still deny ‘perpetual-bliss’ in it also. your second comment of 20/08/23 “[…] speaks of the stopping of perceiving and feeling, and lays down that this belongs to happiness.” another sighting of the ‘elephant in the room’. so then perpetual cessation of ‘perception and feeling’ is striven for, leading to ‘perpetual happiness’. “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.” i think that differentiation between the Eastern philosophies is very dubious; and I’ve just quoted in this sequence of my replies a Buddhist explicitly saying that ‘perpetual bliss’ is attainable! And if then you are saying that perpetual cessation of ‘perception and feeling’ cannot be attained then what ratio of happiness-to-suffering is attainable in this model? 50%? 80%? 99%? In my view happiness and suffering balance in a 50/50 ratio and that is inviolable. If Buddhists think a higher ratio of happiness can be attained, well, then we just disagree.
  24. @Pak_Satrio i was wrong about you. you’re doomed to grow up to become an npc after-all. yes, yes things tend to get more comfortable when one buries one’s head in the sand—this is something you’ll master as you grow up, i’m sure
  25. @Daniel in your reply to liminal_luke on 21/08/23 you quoted this: "When the Hinayāna speaks of no self, it is in reference to the manifest forms of presently existing life; the intent is to alert people to transcend this level, and attain Nirvāna.” there it is again, an explicit citation of the notion that it is possible to attain Nirvana, which, yes, I’m assuming translates to ‘perpetual-bliss’. Not saying you yourself are proselytising it—I know you’re agnostic. It’s just useful for my argument when such an example presents itself.